Science, Money, and Reputation will be exchangable, will there be loss in conversion?

[jfull]

Apparently, there will be ways to convert one currency to another. Ex: spending excess money to increase reputation or science, or using reputation to bring in more funding.

Source

I think a big question is whether there will be some degree of loss when converting one to another (Meaning that conversion would yield less than the equivalent values of the currencies). Personally I think there should be loss in conversion, otherwise the separate currencies (and the separate means of obtaining them) would lose purpose.

I suppose another interesting way to do it would be to introduce some kind of randomization and risk to the conversion mechanic. That would mean that, for example, spending money to increase reputation would yield a variable amount of reputation, possibly a big payoff, possibly only a small amount.

What are your thoughts on currency conversion?

Edited December 30, 2013 by jfull

[Dispatcher]

The use of "loss" in conversion could make a player pause before committing to the exchange. Either way, I think the whole science/ money/ rep/ contracts thing will be good for career mode, as trying to stay within budget will be challenging (poor Whackjob!).

[celem]

I would assume some kind of loss during conversion. This prompts the player to think carefully about it before commiting. Otherwise you could just juggle these 'currencies' back and forth at will.

I also, fear for the day where I'm paying for every part I put on the pad. Certainly not at Whackjob levels yet, but I've been running KSP off 2g of RAM. My christmas present is booting up as I write and carries a whopping 12g, so im looking forward to ever inflating part-counts on my end.

[nine_iron]

The amount of trading should feed into an online server which will update an exchange rate based on activity.

If people are trading science for rep then the price goes up for everyone, when they stop trading, the exchange rate goes down.

Think back to counterstrike dynamic weapon pricing... http://counterstrike.wikia.com/wiki/Dynamic_Weapon_Pricing

[jalapen0]

If there is no loss in conversion, you might as well get rid of all the points and call it one thing, like kerbalbits or something.

[Guest]

I think it's a good idea overall because it allows the player to progress and do the things that they want to do instead of being scripted into following a certain path. If I don't care for doing contracts I can always collect science to fund my launches, for instance. I don't know if there will be a conversion loss per se, but I have a feeling that conversion rates will not be a 1:1 sort of affair.

[celem]

The amount of trading should feed into an online server which will update an exchange rate based on activity.

If people are trading science for rep then the price goes up for everyone, when they stop trading, the exchange rate goes down.

Think back to counterstrike dynamic weapon pricing... http://counterstrike.wikia.com/wiki/Dynamic_Weapon_Pricing

Thats a pretty smart idea actually. I would hope the game never reaches the 'requires connection' stage (cos that was such a popular XBone feature). But some kind of heuristics like this would be awesome

[wooaa]

Thats a pretty smart idea actually. I would hope the game never reaches the 'requires connection' stage (cos that was such a popular XBone feature). But some kind of heuristics like this would be awesome

Maybe it could be an optional feature? That way people that want it can have it, but KSP would still be playable offline.

[Guest]

But some kind of heuristics like this would be awesome

Yes, because how you play the game should totally be dictated by a sea of organized, snot-nosed Redditers armed with text editors.

[celem]

-snip- Reddit -snip-

Sigh. I always forget that pit of unwashed evil.

[Guest]

Sigh. I always forget that pit of unwashed evil.

To be fair, I don't think Reddit is that organized. The SA folks, OTOH... Anyway, while I appreciate griefing to a certain extent, it shouldn't be that easy.

Edited December 30, 2013 by regex

[Nobody]

I could see a dynamic of using your reputation points to get people to give you money for a launch when your short on cash. The opposite would be true if you did a contract at a discount or for free it would net you a lot of rep.

This would give an option for saving a struggling program with some funds to keep going or recovering lost reputation while doing a similar maneuver to the contract. For example you have a contract to put a satilite in a set orbit so you launch it for free along with a paid mission to Duna.

[jmartin]

To be fair, I don't think Reddit is that organized. The SA folks, OTOH... Anyway, while I appreciate griefing to a certain extent, it shouldn't be that easy.

Ohh they are organized. Ever heard of TEST from EVE Online. They are/were major sovereignty holders. Along with the SA crowd called Goonswarm. Haven't played in a while might resub just to see how the war between those two ended.

[Guest]

Ohh they are organized. Ever heard of TEST from EVE Online. They are/were major sovereignty holders. Along with the SA crowd called Goonswarm. Haven't played in a while might resub just to see how the war between those two ended.

TEST failcascaded pretty recently.

[Cydonian Monk]

The opposite would be true if you did a contract at a discount or for free it would net you a lot of rep.

This part of it I find to be a fascinating concept. Public outreach by achievement is automatic, but doing something awesome for "free" (taxpayer money) grants even more support /and/ is a choice made directly by the player. (Versus some "Kerbal Space Program Online eXchange" market with fluctuating KerbKoin values.)

[Scoopicus]

The amount of trading should feed into an online server which will update an exchange rate based on activity.

If people are trading science for rep then the price goes up for everyone, when they stop trading, the exchange rate goes down.

Think back to counterstrike dynamic weapon pricing... http://counterstrike.wikia.com/wiki/Dynamic_Weapon_Pricing

Notice the part where it said that the feature was swiftly removed due to heavy opposition?

There's a reason for that.

[jfull]

The amount of trading should feed into an online server which will update an exchange rate based on activity.

If people are trading science for rep then the price goes up for everyone, when they stop trading, the exchange rate goes down.

Think back to counterstrike dynamic weapon pricing... http://counterstrike.wikia.com/wiki/Dynamic_Weapon_Pricing

I disagree... quite a bit. KSP is a single player game, and even with the eventual addition of a Multiplayer mode, I think everything about a game/save/solar system should only ever be effected by the handful of players currently playing on it. No grand online market or exchange, this is not an MMO.

That being said, I do think it would be neat to see some ability to trade with other players in Multiplayer, it would allow for everything from serious trading between big space programs, to helping out players who are in a jam, or even the ability to sell craft designs to other players.

That is all just an idea, and might be beyond the scope of the Dev's plans

[6.forty]

Yes, because how you play the game should totally be dictated by a sea of organized, snot-nosed Redditers armed with text editors.

If you're referring to savegame editing, then it could be alleviated by storing the relevant bits of info on the "market" server and a few checks here and there to prevent memory editing. It wouldn't necessarily be simple, but it would be simple relative to the entire system.

[Whirligig Girl]

So let me get this straight.

Science-->Money (patents)

Money-->Science (Research Funding)

Reputation-->Money (Space Program Funding)

Science-->Reputation (patents that save lives, like the medical technology that NASA has developed)

But how does this work?

Money-->Reputation

Reputation-->Science

[FlamedSteak]

Absolutely there should be a loss in conversion. Otherwise you'll be forever shifting points around which will render the purpose of having 3 or 4 currency types uttlerly moot.

You might as well have one currency and have it cover everything, which is far simpler but utterly unfun.

[Nidhiki]

I think that in terms of Money to Reputation as a sort of PR campaign, basically advertising.

Reputation to Science could work as a researchers "donating their science to a good cause", or something similar.

[Guest]

If you're referring to savegame editing, then it could be alleviated by storing the relevant bits of info on the "market" server and a few checks here and there to prevent memory editing. It wouldn't necessarily be simple, but it would be simple relative to the entire system.

So what you're saying is that I'd have to be logged in to play? That worked real well for Sim City IIRC, sounds great!

But seriously, if you don't have a centralized player database that sort of system is incredibly easy to abuse. I'd much rather KSP avoided the entire idea to begin with since it really doesn't work well for a single-player game.

[Pbhead]

hey... um...

can someone like. post the source of this conversation? was there a twich video or something?

[Tiberion]

So let me get this straight.

Science-->Money (patents)

Money-->Science (Research Funding)

Reputation-->Money (Space Program Funding)

Science-->Reputation (patents that save lives, like the medical technology that NASA has developed)

But how does this work?

Money-->Reputation

Reputation-->Science

Money to rep: Charity donations, advertising campaigns, documentaries to inspire the citizenry.

Rep to science is harder. Maybe if you are very reputable you can lure in big name scientists or programs to work with you, so you get bonus science to unlock things, or perhaps they just unlock some tech directly.

to use a real world example, NASA is highly reputable, and as a result the Canadian Space Agency agrees to work on a manipulator arm for the shuttle - this unlocks one of your robotics nodes.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Tiberion

[BlackBicycle]

What are your thoughts on currency conversion?

As long as there is a reasonable loss on conversion, I am all good with that. Here's to hoping they balance it well at the end.