Science and Cash, a solution for balancing KSP.

[Pineapple Frenzy]

I think I figured out how Squad can balance gathering science and money, and give a reason for players to launch both probes and manned missions.

Here's my idea:

Pretty soon we're anticipating Squad will introduce money into KSP. When I first heard about the idea, I had mixed feelings. "That's great!" I thought, while at the same time scratching my head wondering, "So what?"

Like others, I was disappointed when Squad eliminated multiple probe science transmissions as this rendered probes essentially pointless. Real probes continue to gather data for years (even decades). Why should KSP probes be tossed after their first transmission? I understand Squad's reasons for the change. I just thought it could have been implemented better.

Then it hit me. We've been trying to balance collecting one resource between two different types of activities, probes vs manned. With the introduction of a second resource, we would be able to separate the activities and allow (essentially require) players to perform each kind of mission in order to collect their respective resources in a balanced way.

Let me explain. If we were to leave science pretty much as it is (minus a few tweaks here and there, like bringing back multiple transmissions) but reward big money for manned missions, the player would be able to choose which kind of mission he would like to execute based on his highest priority. If the player wants to open up the tech tree a bit, he can launch a few probes and explore. But if he wants to buy any of the expensive new parts he just unlocked, he'll have to send some Kerbals off on a dangerous mission in order to drum up advertizing revenue / science grants / commercial contracts / government funding.

This need not be an either / or endeavor. Lots of new science would earn some (a little) money. Conversely, while manned flights earn huge money, they could still bring in a little science too.

To aid this, we could make probe oriented parts relatively cheap to purchase, essentially disposable, while making command modules (and Kerbals) very expensive.

We wouldn't need to limit the abuse of probes and the endless science one may collect with them because one need only covet new parts in the tech tree for a little while before feeling the itch to earn more cash by risking a few lives.

As far as money is concerned, the name of the game is 'Big risk, big reward.' Make the financial penalty for the failure of manned flights huge. But make their potential payoff equally vast. In fact, find ways to potentially bankrupt a space program with the failure of only one or two missions. KERBALS SHOULDN'T BE EXPENDABLE! THEY REALLY DO WANT TO LIVE! It should cost money to train and develop cadets into full fledged astronauts. This will add excitement to manned missions without penalizing a player's ability to explore the solar system with probes.

If no mission can launch without money, and exploration cannot expand without new technology, then the player must execute both types of missions to make their space agency to grow and prosper.

Then we would have the beginnings of a real space exploration strategy game.

I think this would be a great topic to discuss.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Pineapple Frenzy

[regex]

I don't like probes and I don't want to launch any more of them than I have to, they're way too easy to build and launch; doing a mission with Kerbals is more challenging.

Fortunately the devs have already said it will be possible to convert science, money, and reputation to the others, so even an idea like yours will work with the way I play. I think that's the best part about this game, it accomodates a lot of different ways of playing and doesn't force you to do things you don't want to. Well, maybe probes need to be a little more useful, but certainly not at the expense of Kerbals.

[Pineapple Frenzy]

I certainly don't see any need to prohibit players from including science instruments on manned missions. And that certainly wasn't my intent. I'm simply saying that increasing the financial risk/reward quality of manned flights would give people a reason to launch more probes without the risk of bankrupting their space program early on in the game. I think giving the player the opportunity to conduct well planned and executed manned missions without ever having to launch a probe in order to progress the tech tree is great. For us chickens, probe-only missions would give us the option to earn just science, without risking resources and lives if we didn't need / want the cash at that moment. We thus add opportunity, without limiting choice.

My focus is on separating the way we earn money from the way we earn science by making manned missions a financially high risk / high reward endeavor.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Pineapple Frenzy

[regex]

It's not a bad idea at all, but don't forget the third currency. Successfully executing a manned mission could give big gains in reputation rather than money. Then revamp science a bit and let probes encroach into the Kerbal niche by providing a surface sample part or something (crew reports should be sacred, IMO). Both mission types could give decent cash awards, with the Kerbal side giving a bit more (but not much, since Rep can be exchanged for science and money!)

[Matt77]

I don't read every thread so ignore me if someone has already suggested this.

If life support were a factor, then that might severely limit manned projects:

If time were an issue due to life support, then how about if science instruments GATHERED data rather than instantly generating it. Perhaps an instrument would gather 0.1 science per hour, modified by biome. Instruments don't stack (two thermometers don't get you twice as much info), so you need the next instrument to raise your probes gathering rate. There would still need to be caps unless you want someone to sent a thermometer out to the launch pad then time advance til the tree is complete

Should the Goo container and Science Jr. require a Kerbal to do science?

Edited January 26, 2014 by Matt77

[Thomas988]

I think this is a really good idea.

[Adam Novagen]

Personally I think Pineapple's nailed it.

[Captain Sierra]

I agree totally. IMHO, probes should be able to do everything manned missions can science-wise (or some other autonomous analog) but for slightly less science, in exchange for either repeatable transmissions, or at the very least, 100% transmission value the first time. Probes are great for disposable missions but the current game does not in any way encourage disposable missions.

Also, this needs to be in suggestions forum.

[Pineapple Frenzy]

If life support were a factor, then that might severely limit manned projects

Life support is one of those things that could be added to the tech tree. At some point, Kerbals might discover how to regenerate life support resources in flight. Obviously constraints could be electricity and mass. But the key to long missions with life support would be reaching a point where enough technology can be lifted to allow life support systems to run in a steady state for the entire mission, rather than having to manage them throughout. At that point, life support becomes only a mass penalty.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Pineapple Frenzy

[Pineapple Frenzy]

I've flushed out a few specific suggestions which ought not be too difficult to implement given what we saw in the last release:

1. Establish a KSP bank account in the name of the player's space agency. The player begins his career with his first fiscal quarter's modest government / commercial / private (the benefactors') funding credited therein.

2. Each fiscal quarter the account is credited with funds allocated by the benefactors. The benefactors love space exploration and expect results. Fail to impress them by your lack of mission success and you can expect to see each quarter's funding stagnate, or even decrease. Wow them with your success, and you will see their checkbooks open wide. Remember, space agencies are paying staff whether they fly missions or not. So if you have no income, you will quickly move into the red.

3. In the same way science is awarded when the player achieves certain mission parameters, the player receives one-time cash bonuses for putting kerbals in different places throughout the solar system. The key here is that, unlike science where you cannot stack sensors, rewards are given on a per-kerbal basis. Manage to safely get ten colonists to their new home on Duna? Congratulations, step right up and receive your massive ceremonial check. Of course, you had better hope you sent a comms antenna with them. Otherwise the only people enjoying the warm glow of mission success will be the Kerbals you sent yonder. Bring them back to Kerbin after an extended stay in space, and collect even more cash.

This is the one I like:

4. After a successful manned mission, in addition to your massive one-time bonus, expect the Benefactors to increase your periodic funding. Hey, you've proved you can deliver success. That's what a good investment smells like, right?

5. The corollary of course is that mission failure ought to bring with it devastating consequences. After the (hypothetical) costs of the vessel, accident investigation, litigation, and humiliation are tallied up, expect to see a major incident penalty debit applied to your account. The philosophy of 'vessels can be replaced, Kerbals can't (at least, not right away)' should apply here. Probes ought not cost the agency more than the cost of materials, regardless of mission outcome. However the potential loss of Kerbals, and expensive manned vessel parts, ought to strike enough fear in the player to make him sweat while landing a Mk1 pod on Minimus, no matter how much fuel is in the tank. The Benefactors' too are fickle creatures. They live by the motto "What have you done for me lately?" Fly no impressive missions for a while and expect your periodic funding to slowly dwindle. Kill Kerbals, and watch it disappear faster than a jellybean at Fat Camp.

6. Kerbals must be finite, in the sense that once they die, they are dead (i.e. forever dead). If their individual personalities aren't enough to endear us to their well-being, the money we invest in their training ought to motivate us to look after them. At the beginning of your career your have 2 fully qualified astronauts ready to go, with a number of 'cadet applicants' eagerly awaiting training at the Academy (sound familiar?). To increase your roster of qualified astronauts, not only must you invest significant capital into their training, but cadets won't be ready to fly for at least a couple of fiscal quarters, depending on how stupid they are. Courageous astronauts make better role models. Therefore when they successfully complete missions, courageous astronauts earn you greater financial respect from the Benefactors. Of course the Academy interviews only a few applicants each year, and accepts even fewer as cadets, so your pool of bodies will dwindle quickly if you like turning your asparagus stacks into pinwheels.

7. The player must have some opportunity to recover his career if he buys the farm and ends up in the red. In addition to purchasing parts during vessel construction, the player ought to be able to add parts to a 'parts bank' as funds allow. That way the player can continue his valiant (vain?) efforts to keep his job as Director by launching a hail Mary mission or two.

8. Manned command modules ought to cost significantly more that other parts. How much more is a subject of some difficulty. No mission should be cheap, but to make manned missions riskier, probe-only vessels must be significantly cheaper to launch than manned vessels. Perhaps if a command pod cost on the order of two or three times that of the booster it would need to escape Kerbin SOI would be a good place to start.

The end game: Should a career end? And if so, how?

9. I can think of only two ways a space agency (real or otherwise) ought to cease operations: either it runs out of money, or it ceases to be relevant, in which case it runs out of money. A KSP career need not end automatically for any reason other than the player resigns because the agency he directs is hopelessly bankrupt. When this happens, he need only press the 'resign' button (like the 'recover' button, but way more humiliating. Don't confuse them). At this point the player sees a career summary and can explore mission stats, history, etc.

I know this post covers a lot of material, but these ideas demonstrate what KSP would look like if I were Q (Booyah! Star Trek reference baby!).

Let the discussion continue.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Pineapple Frenzy

[jwenting]

and another "let's make things harder for newcomers so they can't exceed my awesomeness" suggestion.

[Pineapple Frenzy]

Quite the opposite. My goal here was to try and find ways to allow players of all skill levels to expand their careers at a rate that suits them, while giving them the opportunity to take risks if they like.

I'm not sure I see how any of these suggestions could have the potential to make KSP any more challenging than other popular RPGs, especially given that KSP has a sandbox mode.

If you remain unconvinced, these suggestions would even function nicely under a difficulty settings architecture too. Certain features like the Academy could be turned on or off. A host of variables like Benefactor benevolence, or initial start up capital could be made tweakable by the player.

The variety of options is endless. Though the essential element of separating the pursuit of science and the pursuit of money so each may be acquired independently if desired is what I'm ultimately advocating.

I believe you underestimate the intelligence of the average gamer.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Pineapple Frenzy

[Mobjack]

I believe you underestimate the intelligence of the average gamer.

You are overestimating the intelligence of the average gamer.

Ideally career mode will be a way of training new players the mechanics of the game by giving them progressively harder missions and goals. Something like getting a rocket into orbit is going to be a major accomplishment for someone new to the game.

Those who are experts at the game will not really need a career mode. It might provide some initial challenges, but then you are going to find a way to exploit the constraints and essentially turn it into sandbox mode.

Lose conditions aren't going to make it that much harder for experience players (who also know how to use the F9 key) and will make it unnecessarily hard for new players. New players are going to be expected to fail and that is part of the fun of KSP. Maybe you can make failure a minor setback, but you have to carefully balance it to make it work.

[Atoning Unifex]

and another "let's make things harder for newcomers so they can't exceed my awesomeness" suggestion.

And another unconstructive comment from jewnting.

Personally it seems like a reasonable idea. I think, however, we're all going to have to simply wait and see what actually happens with currency. I expect that the devs already have a pretty good idea of what they are going to do with it and suggestions now are simply too late to make a difference (not that it's not good to talk about though!)

Edited January 27, 2014 by Atoning Unifex

[Hyomoto]

The fundamental problem with money and science is it essentially just puts a barrier in the way of things you do already. The best example I can give is the obligatory 'first mission' where with limited parts you unlock enough science to get parts you can use for better missions. That might as well just be a tutorial, it doesn't enhance the gameplay and like any tutorial mission, once you've done it, the best you can really do is try for bragging rights on how much you were able to do with limited items.

So the question becomes, how do you make money and science relevant without insulting old players and punishing new ones? I think this is best described by simply determining what these things are. Science is a thing to do missions for, money is a thing to do missions. It's obvious this was always going to be the case, after all pieces have costs and a 'count'. But there is an elephant sitting here that a lot of people don't seem keen to address: can you lose in KSP? It's a very good question because it is asking what do you do if the player is unable to gain more cash, or buy more parts. Is there a game over? Do you give them a cash injection? If so, how much, and why, and what impact does that have?

I have a simple way to sidestep all of this by creating a simple system that demands planing, rewards ingenuity and encourages experimentation. Budgets. Each year, the space program is allotted an amount of funding based on your current reputation. That money is then broken down into quarters, and each quarter you pay a portion of it as a manning and upkeep budget. That's all automatic, the player might be able to review this information but it happens without their input. After all, KSP is about rockets and flying, not crunching numbers. Once that's done, your quarterly budget is set. You can now use this money to build rockets, fund missions and hire Kerbals. At the end of each quarter, whatever money you have left disappears and you receive your next quarterly budget. At the end of each year, your budget is recalculated based on your reputation. So, instead of receiving money for missions, you receive reputation based on your various goals, how well they were achieved and on what timeline. This is perhaps the most complicated part because it cannot be an XP system that simply rises with each mission, instead it needs to be a median indicator of how well you are performing as a space program. Overall consistent success yields a higher reputation, while mistakes, wasteful spending, missing mission goals or whatever it might be lower it.

It's simple, and at first glance the thing people hate is not being able to hoard money. First off, as long as the player is able to, they will. This causes them to push things into the future with 'well, once I have this money I can ...' Quarterly budgets encourages players to be both frugal AND spend what money they have. It's a human impulse to not let it go to waste, so whether it be launching that small satellite you wanted or testing out a new jet design, trying to zero out your budget each quarter encourages the player to play. But, on the other hand, since you'll always have a budget, there's little pressure to do any specific task beyond keep your program running, you don't have to do obligatory missions JUST to have the money to do the ones you want. Additionally, only recalculating budgets yearly means the player is allowed to have a number of successes and mistakes before it is reflected in their budget, and long-term planning and goal-setting is more useful than trying to 'grind for experience'. You aren't required to do everything right now. You can put together that space station over the course of a year so you have enough money to launch other missions. Putting together your reusable program keeps costs low, giving you more cash to spend on experimental projects. And most importantly, because missions don't provide you money directly, there is no grind. The player can naturally enjoy the game at their own pace and have success and failures based on what they've done, not what the game demands they do. For people who enjoy planning, this adds an extra layer, and for those who are less interested in it, its just a framing device.

As far as science goes, I think we should be using it to unlock nodes AND parts, then spend cash to manufacture them. That would allow some of the time-sensitive science gathering people want to do to exist so you aren't just on-offing your missions. Keeping Kerbal's in orbit doing studies and such yielding 'trickle science' is more viable because there is a larger sink, and it goes along with the idea of playing the game over time instead of doing fifteen missions in one month to max out your science. After all, career mode is essentially an excuse, it's a framing device for progression. Where I differ from many suggestions is I don't think it should require obligatory patterns. I think the player should receive many parts to begin with and unlock more specialized parts up the tree, it's just silly that we're spending science on a basic ladder, but it makes sense to investigate a retractable, electric one.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Hyomoto