A way to make resources work?

[crazyewok]

This is a discussion not a suggestion. So I think this fits the rules? (I noticed another thread like this 4 pages back, so if mods want to merge go ahead).

My way is to possibly use them as per planetary resources was to use them. To make money. I would have deposits or certain resources like Iron,Titannium, Platinum, copper ect scatted through out the Kerbal solar system. Mining them and bringing them home will give you money. Of course the money made has to be more than the money spent getting them (the hard part) and certain resources values will go up and down as the game progresses. Id also like to see orbital construction with certain resources needed to build components on site. You can either ship the resources up from Kerbin or mine them. Could also be expanded for planetary bases and colonies so that they can build extra modules on site.

Anyway that my take on how to possibley make them work. Other ideas?

Of course this is a sand box game so if you don't like it or think its grindy then dont do it.

Edited January 28, 2014 by crazyewok

[r4pt0r]

while we can all hope and pray that orbital/extra-planetary construction is never added to the game (other than docking things originating from kerbin surface of course), id like to mention that while ksp may have an economy in the future, it should not be an economic simulator. it is a space sim/game.

[crazyewok]

while we can all hope and pray that orbital/extra-planetary construction is never added to the game (other than docking things originating from kerbin surface of course),

.

In YOUR opinion. NOT mine.

Seeing as russia has OPSEK in the works its a valid idea.

id like to mention that while ksp may have an economy in the future, it should not be an economic simulator. it is a space sim/game.

In YOUR opinion. NOT mine.

If they are going to put a economy they may aswell do it well and indepth and to high quality to the rest of the game.

Sorry but you can take and leave it. If its added to the game so what? No one will force you to use it? You can do what you like as its SAND BOX GAME. I dont like space planes, I dont make them, but I dont demand spaceplanes should be taken away from everyone else.

Edited January 28, 2014 by crazyewok

[r4pt0r]

Seeing as russia has OPSEK in the works its a valid idea.

it seems to me that russia is docking things together that were all orgininaly launched from earth. your point is invalid.

[crazyewok]

it seems to me that russia is docking things together that were all orgininaly launched from earth. your point is invalid.

Yes but you have plans for say moon bases and mars bases that are based on in situ resource utlisation. Especialy now with 3D Printing. And I cant see why that cant cover orbital construction either

http://www.fosterandpartners.com/news/foster-+-partners-works-with-european-space-agency-to-3d-print-structures-on-the-moon/

I dont see the issue? It would be a late game feature and hard to set up. So hardly a easy IWIN easy ship building or base building feature.

[crazyewok]

And please people dont just say use Kethane. Its a great mod but I would like something a little deeper

[Monger]

The problem with Money as as resource is that you can easily "grind". Why collect gas from Jool when you can just spam Minmus with Mining equipment? Money makes everything interchangeable (this is the reason why money was invented in the first place), and it encourages to specialize on a single way to make money.

For some games this makes sense, for example for multiplayer games where you want to encourage each player to find his own game strategy. But KSP is primarily a sandbox, and you want to encourage players to play every aspect of the sandbox, e.g. it shouldn't suffice to just visit Duna, there should be additional incentive to visit all planets and moons around Kerbol. You can do that by giving every planet some distinct property, so that each player has to visit each place at least once.

The science experiments currently do that quite well. And maybe contracts will work in a similar way.

Repetitive gameplay is always bad, and everything that forces you to do exactly the same thing multiple times is a "design smell".

Long story short: I think it would be unwise to trade resources against money. It discourages to mine multiple different resources, which makes the whole resource system obsolete. Also; accumulating money automatically kind of breaks the current game mechanics, which is strongly focussed on avoiding any unnecessary repetition and delay. In KSP you never have to wait before launching your rocket, and that is a good thing.

[crazyewok]

The problem with Money as as resource is that you can easily "grind". Why collect gas from Jool when you can just spam Minmus with Mining equipment? Money makes everything interchangeable (this is the reason why money was invented in the first place), and it encourages to specialize on a single way to make money.

For some games this makes sense, for example for multiplayer games where you want to encourage each player to find his own game strategy. But KSP is primarily a sandbox, and you want to encourage players to play every aspect of the sandbox, e.g. it shouldn't suffice to just visit Duna, there should be additional incentive to visit all planets and moons around Kerbol. You can do that by giving every planet some distinct property, so that each player has to visit each place at least once.

The science experiments currently do that quite well. And maybe contracts will work in a similar way.

Repetitive gameplay is always bad, and everything that forces you to do exactly the same thing multiple times is a "design smell".

Long story short: I think it would be unwise to trade resources against money. It discourages to mine multiple different resources, which makes the whole resource system obsolete. Also; accumulating money automatically kind of breaks the current game mechanics, which is strongly focussed on avoiding any unnecessary repetition and delay. In KSP you never have to wait before launching your rocket, and that is a good thing.

Well that why I said there wouldnt be just one resource but a fair number, with prices that go up and down. That why spamming mimus with mines would be pointless as the price of say silicon thats on mimus would plummet and the returns just not worth it on the other hand demand for say rubbidium may skyrocket and the only good places to find that would be somewhere like Moho or a inner moon of jool. But if you over mine there you will get a price plummet and again it becomes pointless. The conditions would chop and change. Money wouldnt nessarly be a resource in itself, but you can sell resources for money and nor would resources be the only way to make money you would have other options.

Fact is there already is reptitive game play in KSP. Once you take off once it becomes pretty borring to do it a hundred more times or after you dock do it a hundred odd times. Infact I may make a diffrent thread on this.

But I disagree with your opinion on sandbox. In my opinion its openended so you can go your own way about things. If you dont like it you can leave it. I dont like space planes and Im not forced to use them. As long as resources are not forced onto a player and they can take it or leave it I dont see a issue.

[r4pt0r]

i really feel the devs could be better suited spending time on something else. this really seems like a mod kind of thing.

[allmappedout]

Well that why I said there wouldnt be just one resource but a fair number, with prices that go up and down. That why spamming mimus with mines would be pointless as the price of say silicon thats on mimus would plummet and the returns just not worth it on the other hand demand for say rubbidium may skyrocket and the only good places to find that would be somewhere like Moho or a inner moon of jool. But if you over mine there you will get a price plummet and again it becomes pointless. The conditions would chop and change. Money wouldnt nessarly be a resource in itself, but you can sell resources for money and nor would resources be the only way to make money you would have other options.

Fact is there already is reptitive game play in KSP. Once you take off once it becomes pretty borring to do it a hundred more times or after you dock do it a hundred odd times. Infact I may make a diffrent thread on this.

But I disagree with your opinion on sandbox. In my opinion its openended so you can go your own way about things. If you dont like it you can leave it. I dont like space planes and Im not forced to use them. As long as resources are not forced onto a player and they can take it or leave it I dont see a issue.

At the end of the day, by adding money in the way you mention you make sandbox not-open ended. It forces you to set up multiple mines on multiple planets to mine multiple resources to return them. And I'm certain there will be ways to game the system (eg: timing large shipments of one thing to depress the market price and push an alternate, related, resource up and return the other resource straight after, etc). If resources was one way of how money is made in the game, which it doesn't appear it will be, because that appears to be contracts currently, then you will force all players to play the game the same way, and that, to me, would be a shame.

Plus, orbital construction as a process removes 90% of the issues with playing a space game - getting to orbit is the hardest part of a ship's journey. By cutting out most of Kerbin's gravity well, you're effectively making the game too easy, even late game.

[crazyewok]

If resources was one way of how money is made in the game, which it doesn't appear it will be, because that appears to be contracts currently, then you will force all players to play the game the same way, and that, to me, would be a shame.

How would it? I dont see how? I mean if there are multiple ways of makieng money, say contracts and resources ect then you can pick and choose how you make the money. Your arent forced into playing one way in any sense be it minning, contracts or robbing a bank as long as there are multiple ways to make the cash.

Plus, orbital construction as a process removes 90% of the issues with playing a space game - getting to orbit is the hardest part of a ship's journey. By cutting out most of Kerbin's gravity well, you're effectively making the game too easy, even late game.

Not really if setting up a place for orbital construction facility is a difficult task, a very difficult task. Infact it could be one of the most difficult but eventually rewarding a task. Sorry but just launching simple rockets a billion odd times from Kerbin is repetiative I want to see my Kerbal civilisation move out into space. Plus if you still think its to easy? Erm gee its a sandbox game so dont do it.

i really feel the devs could be better suited spending time on something else. this really seems like a mod kind of thing.

Yeah you made you point a hundred times. Move on your not adding anything to the discussion.

Edited January 28, 2014 by vexx32
Merged posts. We have an Edit button for a reason, ya know ;)

[allmappedout]

How would it? I dont see how? I mean if there are multiple ways of makieng money, say contracts and resources ect then you can pick and choose how you make the money. Your arent forced into playing one way in any sense be it minning, contracts or robbing a bank as long as there are multiple ways to make the cash.

Not really if setting up a place for orbital construction facility is a difficult task, a very difficult task. Infact it could be one of the most difficult but eventually rewarding a task. Sorry but just launching simple rockets a billion odd times from Kerbin is repetiative I want to see my Kerbal civilisation move out into space. Plus if you still think its to easy? Erm gee its a sandbox game so dont do it.

Yeah you made you point a hundred times. Move on your not adding anything to the discussion.

There's no need to be defensive or aggressive about your idea. The function of posting it on a forum is to get it discussed, and debated.

Anyway, back on point - you've mentioned resources as adding to career, and orbital construction being added to sandbox and career. To cover the first point, my issue with resources in career mode is pretty well summed up in this post on the register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/24/planetary_resources/). Having plenty of something reduces your return on investment so quickly that it's totally pointless to do it - TL;DR - if it takes me $100m to launch a rocket to an asteroid to mine some precious metal, I'd have to bring back $100m worth of that precious metal to make the trip viable, minimum. Problem is that by bringing back $100m worth of that precious metal, i flood the market and my $100m is now worth $1m, or worse. Exercise is left to the viewer to see how that scenario plays out for the shareholders...

Secondly, adding orbital construction to career mode (which you have said should be a difficult task, and I appreciate that), which is the only place it makes sense (because in sandbox just use hyperedit? like you say, it's a sandbox, do what you want), means you'd have to build an end game structure around someone acheiving the goal of building an orbital construction output.

This presents two problems:

1. not everyone wants this - a lot of the joy I personally get from KSP is the design and launching of that design from the launchpad - getting the dV requirements right, TWRs correct for each stage, ensuring aerodynamic stability, etc etc. You yourself have said you are bored by this - perhaps you may want to get hyperedit, if that's the case, as it sounds like there's a large chunk of KSP gameplay you don't enjoy any more.

2. not everyone would be able to achieve this - since you've pointed out it would be very hard, it means two things - 1. to complete the most difficult contracts it presumes you would need this infrastructure in place and 2. it means that this would leave part of the game out of reach for players who were unable to perform this difficult feat.

Do you see where I'm going? Adding something like this into the game removes the challenge post-orbital construction, and presents a challenge to a lot of people pre-orbital construction. Plus, the irony isn't lost on me that to build an orbital construction post you'd probably have to do rocket launches 'a billion odd times' to unlock and build it.

[Monger]

How would it? I dont see how? I mean if there are multiple ways of makieng money, say contracts and resources ect then you can pick and choose how you make the money.

Yeah, but for what purpose? This would center the game around making money, instead of exploration.

Even if this was desired, balancing a market place is a complicated matter. This is not X3 (thank god)!

Currently the plan seems to be that money is only used as a "complexity limiter", and fulfilling contracts unlocks bigger and more expensive ship designs. It's not like you need to consume money again and again for every rocket you are launching, and then have to grind again to fill up your purse.

By the way: "resource missions" could be just a subset from contracts. Land in biome X with part Y, get back to Kerbin, get cash for it. No need for fixed resources to do that.

[crazyewok]

There's no need to be defensive or aggressive about your idea.

Sorry if I came off that way It wasnt meant to.

[crazyewok]

This presents two problems:

1. not everyone wants this - a lot of the joy I personally get from KSP is the design and launching of that design from the launchpad - getting the dV requirements right, TWRs correct for each stage, ensuring aerodynamic stability, etc etc. You yourself have said you are bored by this - perhaps you may want to get hyperedit, if that's the case, as it sounds like there's a large chunk of KSP gameplay you don't enjoy any more.

again I dont see the problem? If you dont enjoy that then no one is going to force you build a orbital construction are they? Just ignore and carry on launching from the surface is that whay you enjoy? I would rather see my option expand and evolve.

2. not everyone would be able to achieve this - since you've pointed out it would be very hard, it means two things - 1. to complete the most difficult contracts it presumes you would need this infrastructure in place and 2. it means that this would leave part of the game out of reach for players who were unable to perform this difficult feat.

So they can do something else? Its a sandbox game so whats the issue? They can always come back to it later on and try again.

[crazyewok]

Yeah, but for what purpose? This would center the game around making money, instead of exploration.

Even if this was desired, balancing a market place is a complicated matter.

Not that hard. Lots of games manage it. SQUAD have done much more complicated things and anyway I would rather have a indepth money system rather than some childish silly version of money.

By the way: "resource missions" could be just a subset from contracts. Land in biome X with part Y, get back to Kerbin, get cash for it. No need for fixed resources to do that.

WHy not have something phyical to bring back? Land here with such and such seems far to abstract and boring for me! Id rather land at a certain place for a certain reason and SEE that reason.

[Monger]

Not that hard. Lots of games manage it.

A dynamic marketplace? For example? Besides the X series, only a few very exotic economy simulations come into mind, like Port Royale.

SQUAD have done much more complicated things and anyway I would rather have a indepth money system rather than some childish silly version of money.

Again, why? KSP is not a strategy game, why should it need a complex resource and money system?

Id rather land at a certain place for a certain reason and SEE that reason.

If there were resources implemented, how would that look like? Do you expect a puddle of oil? A pile of yellow rubble? I don't see how you could properly visualize a resource system.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Monger

[crazyewok]

A dynamic marketplace? For example? Besides the X series, only a few very exotic economy simulations come into mind, like Port Royale.

Your over thinking it. It doesn't have to be that complicated. You bring lithium in gain 1000 credits, you bring it in again it goes down 800 ect in mean time Uranium has gone up to 1200 a shipment. Over time it resets.

Again, why? KSP is not a strategy game,

I ague that it is as there is a lot of strategy involved.

why should it need a complex resource and money system?

Why not? Everything else in the game is done in detail and fleshed out. A lot enjoy this. If you don't? Well don't do it gain money with other contracts. OPEN ENDED GAMEPLAY.

If there were resources implemented, how would that look like? Do you expect a poodle of oil? A pile of yellow rubble? I don't see how you could properly visualize a resource system.

Why not? Why would I want to do a mission that says go here and land there without any reason or point in doing it? Seems a hollow pointless exercise and if contracts are like that il lose intrest.

[Atoning Unifex]

I think what you need to remember is that KSP is primarily a space rocket simulation, not a resource basted strategy, hence the direction the devs are going in is in line with keeping the simulation side as the main focus. What you are talking about is moving KSP into a more strategy focus, almost like a 4x game but without any enemies.

Whilst I think that having resource mining for cash might be fun, I really think that the devs should focus on the expansion of the simulation and leave the addition of resources (at the levels you are talking about) to modders so people can grab it if they want.

I think the contracts missions to certain locations could fill the resource gap quite well. It could be described as a prospecting mission. You build a scanning probe to locate a rough landing area from orbit then land in that area with a core sampling tool to confirm resource presence, return of the core may or may not be needed. The successful completion of the mission provides you with cash. As resources are generally underground you don't even need any surface graphics to show it.

As for orbital construction, that I'm not really keen on for the same reason that was given previousy - it would make getting around the planets very easy and the gameplay would become very boring very quickly. I do certainly think that we should be able to use local materials to create simple habitats on planet surfaces though, for me that would be fun to try out.

And as for your continual argument that players don't have to do things if they don't want to. That may be entirely true, however the devs still need to add it in the first place, which takes time and money, and ultimately means that other things might not make it into the game. I would much prefer them to spend their time doing things in line with the pure simulation rather than going off on too many tangents

[crazyewok]

I think what you need to remember is that KSP is primarily a space rocket simulation, not a resource basted strategy, hence the direction the devs are going in is in line with keeping the simulation side as the main focus. What you are talking about is moving KSP into a more strategy focus, almost like a 4x game but without any enemies.

Whilst I think that having resource mining for cash might be fun, I really think that the devs should focus on the expansion of the simulation and leave the addition of resources (at the levels you are talking about) to modders so people can grab it if they want.

I think the contracts missions to certain locations could fill the resource gap quite well. It could be described as a prospecting mission. You build a scanning probe to locate a rough landing area from orbit then land in that area with a core sampling tool to confirm resource presence, return of the core may or may not be needed. The successful completion of the mission provides you with cash. As resources are generally underground you don't even need any surface graphics to show it.

As for orbital construction, that I'm not really keen on for the same reason that was given previousy - it would make getting around the planets very easy and the gameplay would become very boring very quickly. I do certainly think that we should be able to use local materials to create simple habitats on planet surfaces though, for me that would be fun to try out.s

And as for your continual argument that players don't have to do things if they don't want to. That may be entirely true, however the devs still need to add it in the first place, which takes time and money, and ultimately means that other things might not make it into the game. I would much prefer them to spend their time doing things in line with the pure simulation rather than going off on too many tangents

You see im less intreasted in the simulation side and more on the strategy of running a space program. Unfortunatly there are no other games out there that even come close to being able to run a space program. This game seems to be a mix of both and attracts a multitude of players. Some want a simulation? some like me get more fun out of running a space program. I say give both and let the player decide in game what they want to do!

Edited January 28, 2014 by crazyewok

[Atoning Unifex]

How about Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager? I've literally just found it myself. It's a true management style game with none of the actual flying involved in KSP. It's still early access but the let's play I just watched seems pretty good. I might consider it myself

[crazyewok]

How about Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager? I've literally just found it myself. It's a true management style game with none of the actual flying involved in KSP. It's still early access but the let's play I just watched seems pretty good. I might consider it myself

Still I think KSP has a lot of room for both players, its a open ended game so no reason both types of gameplay cant mix as players can pick and choose what they do. Bigger market to that way.

[Monger]

As for orbital construction, that I'm not really keen on for the same reason that was given previousy - it would make getting around the planets very easy and the gameplay would become very boring very quickly. I do certainly think that we should be able to use local materials to create simple habitats on planet surfaces though, for me that would be fun to try out.

I think an orbital construction dock might still be an interesting idea, if you still have to transport all resources there. Yes, it would make the game a lot easier, but only in very late game. If you are able to deliver so much payload into orbit, then you don't really need the orbital construction anyway.

This game seems to be a mix of both and attracts a multitude of players.

I wonder what gave you that impression. True: Squad writest that it plans a "Tycoon-style career mode". So far, there is very little evidence what they exactly mean with this. And what Tycoon game are they referencing? Transport Tycoon? Hospital Tycoon?

However, what they said again and again ist that they consider KSP a simulation.

I say give both and let the player decide in game what they want to do!

Games that to try to be the Jack-of-all-trades regularly fail miserably. SQUAD is still a very young and small team, if they are not careful it is still possible that KSP might bomb horribly. They need to stay focused, to maintain a clear vision of what KSP needs to be. If you expect of KSP to become something else entirely in the next year or so, you probably will be disappointed.