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

[regex]

hey... um...

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

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/12/27/kerbal-space-program-devs-hope-to-add-budgets-reputation-in-2014/

As usual we have to find out about these sorts of things from external sites.

[6.forty]

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!

Of course not, Sim City is a wonderful example of why forced logins are bad. As was Diablo III around its launch time. On the other hand, Test Drive Unlimited is a good example of how a game can have online features beyond basic multiplayer without crippling offline play.

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.

That's basically what I meant, a central server that kept track of the various "fundage" type things for save games that are considered "online mode". But yeah, it wouldn't be very fitting for an otherwise single player game anyway.

[DevoidLight]

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

How about:

Money-->Reputation (charity events or advertising)

Reputation-->Science (getting assistance from top Kerbal scientists)

Last one's a little shaky, but I could definitely see KSC raising money for the families of the unfortunate victims of SRB accidents that are in absolutely no way their fault or responsibility *cough*.

[LameLefty]

I'm looking forward to seeing how this gets implemented. I'm sure there will be quirks and ways to "game the game" but I'm optimistic it'll end up giving us an interesting new angle.

[Whackjob]

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!).

Hehe. I will make do. Most of what I make is reuseable. I don't even use parachutes. Even my largest creations are capable of powered landings back home on Kerbin.

[Yorkie]

/ Money \

/ Reputation ->

<- Science \

I imagine it like a Triangle , like the above. I know not very good visually but you get the idea. They are all interconnected rather than extensions of one, so you have Money effecting both reputation and Science whereas Reputation effects Money and Science. And so forth.

Some idle musing here,

Reputation can also affect the Kerbalnauts you get in the academy, more influx with a higher reputation and lower influx with lesser reputation. It could also affect the level/frequency/payout of "Missions/tasks/objectives"

Science can also affect the actual instruments you get to play with along with the technology as it currently does. It can also have a knock on affecting the level of ground personal at your disposal, Scientists and Engineers which allow the construction of various crafts or reduce build costs, or something on those lines.

Money is what talks, it can be affected by poor results, poor budgeting and be boosted by excellent missions reports and progress. State sponsors and University bodies pumping in funding to achieve a set goal which is given or taken depending on results.

Idle speculation as it is, I am looking forward to how they implement it.

[geb]

The thing I want to know is what a reputation ship will look like.

We know what a high-science ship looks like, and it's not difficult to imagine low-budget ships, but what do you need to gain a lot of reputation in one flight?

[Superfluous J]

Not only must there be a loss, it must be great. I'm thinking 1:10 or so.

With a scalar of course. $1 is not as useful as 1 science point when 500 science unlocks a dozen nodes but a rocket can cost $100,000 or more.

[Col_Jessep]

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

Yup, I'm really looking forward to saving up my money to get a Kethane operation and SSTOs going just to be screwed over by all the KurtJMacs who can't plot a decent interplanetary transfer from Duna to Kerbin and think a mid-course plane change is some dubious practice between lovers.

The thing I want to know is what a reputation ship will look like.

Ever seen a Coca Cola truck? xD Edited December 31, 2013 by Col_Jessep

[Wallace]

I think a system with diminishing returns would be good, and it makes sense too.

If you use your reputation to hit up the Kerbal government for funding, then the first time they will happily give you a fat wodge of Kerbalmunny, but they more you do it, the more annoyed they will be at your constant mooching and give you less each time.

Likewise is you swap science for cash, obviously the first time you would be selling the patents that have the biggest mass market application, so you're getting more money for it, then as you do it more, you are selling off the more specialized things that have fewer uses so are worth less.

and similarly, for the rest, so what would happen is the first few times you try and exchange, it works well and you get a good return then the more you do it, the worse the returns.

That way it will be established that exchanging is not a routine thing to do, but to be used only when needed, to get yourself out of problems.

[Wallace]

We know what a high-science ship looks like, and it's not difficult to imagine low-budget ships, but what do you need to gain a lot of reputation in one flight?

Apollo 11.

Ultimate reputation boost, 12 years of being crappy rocket-crashing second-place money-wasters forgotten in 1 landing.

Seriously tho, I'm guessing plant a lot of first flags, no damage and no dead or abandoned kerbals.

[Lazro]

The thing I want to know is what a reputation ship will look like.

We know what a high-science ship looks like, and it's not difficult to imagine low-budget ships, but what do you need to gain a lot of reputation in one flight?

Think CubeSats, or the pale blue dot, or just a successful mission, or something like Chris Hadfield's Space Oddity. I'd imagine you'd get more for manned missions, and sometimes it could happen spontaneously, but it would always be a minor byproduct of a mission.

[Col_Jessep]

I think a system with diminishing returns would be good, and it makes sense too.

That's basically a nice idea, Wallace, but don't forget that science and reputation become entirely useless at some point. At the beginning everybody will turn rep and money into science. The other way around will only happen after 'too many boosters' accidents. Midgame many players will starts spending money on SSTOs and mods like Kethane, so rep goes into money and science. Late game all you need is money really. Rep will just be a bonus and science to unlock the last few tech nodes nobody really wants except for completion.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

I think even with loss in conversion the trading should not be between players due to the late game.

Once a player has completed the science tree and got a high enough reputation to get all they can with it (whatever that will be) then REP and SCI become quite worthless to them except as trade. The online trades would end up with lots of cheap science and rep. This wold be fine except that new players will not have SCI, REP or money but old players with be only wanting money and never buying SCI or REP. If the new players were kept in a bubble then yes they might trade small amount between themselves but bubbling them is hard and sort of removes the point. There could also be a way for new players to repeat an easy contract for money but this leads to the worst sort of grinding. Imagine not doing any science but just launching 20 of the same launch into orbit over and over again. Not the game I want to play.

Letting the player trade with the computer (at a loss per transaction between 50-5%) is fine though as this might let them get the extra funding for a protect or turn a big commercial launch into a little extra SCI.

[rdfox]

If there's a "diminishing returns" mechanic in exchanging currencies, it should also have a "recovery" mechanic--i.e., if you trade a whack of Reputation for Cash, then you shouldn't be able to get the same amount of Cash for the same amount of Reputation afterwards... for a while. Once enough in-game time has passed (or maybe you've built up enough Rep again?), the reduction in the return on exchange should decrease gradually until it's at full rep again.

Think of it this way--if NASA goes begging to Congress for a funding boost to pay for a given mission, trading on their reputation for results, it may be pretty harmful to their case if they did the same thing last year and the year before, but if it's been twenty years of successful missions since the last time they begged for a big lump sum of cash to cover starting something up, Congress isn't too likely to think of it as a bad investment. (Much like banks and credit, actually... yeah, you'll pay higher interest rates every time you take out a loan... but once a loan is paid off, it won't harm your interest rate for the NEXT one.)

[Wallace]

It might make more sense if reputation was more something to be maintained rather than amassed.

So if it was like a scale of 0 - 100, and it is in constant decay, so each mission where you don't do something new, you will lose a little reputation, cos people are not impressed.

So, say you just do a load of easy satellite launches for easy money late in the game, your reputation suffers cos you're just seen as becoming just a contract-filling space-postman, so you have to send a mission off to do something new and impressive to bring it back up.

[Tery215]

I would have to agree, but I wouldn't fear too much as this would obviously(probably) be only for Career mode.

[regex]

What purpose does a diminishing returns system serve within the game? I'm not seeing any real benefit to it in terms of adding challenge, aside from maybe railroading someone into something they don't want to do. The great thing about exchanging the different currencies is that it allow players to progress and play in the way they want to; it's more of a sandbox approach. I don't see any problems with a currency loss within the exchange rates but having that be a fluctuating metric sounds pretty frustrating and random, turning it into a punishment mechanic.

[Hotblack Desiato]

How about:

Money-->Reputation (charity events or advertising)

Reputation-->Science (getting assistance from top Kerbal scientists)

Last one's a little shaky, but I could definitely see KSC raising money for the families of the unfortunate victims of SRB accidents that are in absolutely no way their fault or responsibility *cough*.

money --> reputation, could work through some events like bring arnold kerbenegger to minmus (or somewhere else) to promote his new film. and since it is a life transmission, it needs a lot of energy. of course he needs to survive too.

reputation and money --> science multiplicator.

the science multiplicator is either a special extra device that needs to be brought to another planet and enhances the capabilities of the other systems to gather science, or bring a scientist-kerbal to another celestial body to do research over there (taking samples, or working in the lab-module). of course he needs to survive and he should be brought back to kerbin.

[Nobody]

The thing I want to know is what a reputation ship will look like.

We know what a high-science ship looks like, and it's not difficult to imagine low-budget ships, but what do you need to gain a lot of reputation in one flight?

A reputation ship is one that successfully completes the mission instead of blowing up or crashing. I would suppose time could also be a factor in some missions so getting the job done safely would be worth more if you also did it fast.

Besides the types of missions offered I think reputation should effect the stats of applicants your program gets. An applicant who is very stupid or not very brave would understandably take a lot more effort to train which adds to the cost of training. So a program with a bad rep would have a harder time attracting smart and brave candidates than a good rep.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Nobody

[RocketPilot573]

I wonder how reputation and money will work with reverting flights... Like, if it's all reset when reverting the flight, then it wont matter if the ship crashes, and thus the system would be nearly useless, right? So if my rocket blows up, then I could just click "revert flight" and not lose any reputation or money?

Anyways, I'm sure there's a work-around for this.

[Skyler4856]

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

Yes. Do want.

[Skyler4856]

Reputation should dictate exchange rates. If I'm known to have high return on investment more will want invest in my agency

[jfull]

Yes. Do want.

Why do people want the exchange rate server thing? I'm really not understanding the logic...

[KittyProgram]

"The end is on the horizon"

NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!