Fuel Tanks, an Idea

[KASASpace]

Okay, so I was thinking, maybe, once really far down the tech tree, you can have fuel tanks that are editable.

I mean that you physically and dynamically change it's size, and thus the mass and fuel count changes with it as well. I'm not demanding, I'm just saying, it would be pretty cool!

Plus, perhaps the cost can be measured per cubic meter.

[MKI]

Tweakables already allow this to a degree. I doubt changing the direct size of a part is viable or even easy. Plus odd part sizes could make some interesting issues.

Plus why change the sizes if the tanks aren't going to look very good because they don't line up with other parts?

[Red Iron Crown]

Modular Fuel Tanks does exactly this (and allows changing what sort of fuel a tank carries), if you're into mods. You can specifiy the diameter of the tanks to match up with other parts, or go your own way.

[Hyomoto]

This is a sort of gray area for me, it goes right along with anything procedural. One the one hand it's obviously great because it allows you the precise freedom to do whatever it is that you want. In the case of things like wings it reduces part counts tremendously. And on the opposite side, it sort of damages the ease of building. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but I just don't know if it really supports the 'Kerbal spirit'. Limitations make the game interesting in other ways.

I feel the same way about letting us put whatever we want in a tank. On the one hand, how can I not support that? It makes plenty of sense! But on the other hand, static parts creates engineering challenges. I can't say yea or nay, but if they did do it, they might as well just give us one procedural tank, meaning they might as well just delete everything that isn't a unique shape. At that point any physical changes are just cosmetic anyways.

[KASASpace]

This is a sort of gray area for me, it goes right along with anything procedural. One the one hand it's obviously great because it allows you the precise freedom to do whatever it is that you want. In the case of things like wings it reduces part counts tremendously. And on the opposite side, it sort of damages the ease of building. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but I just don't know if it really supports the 'Kerbal spirit'. Limitations make the game interesting in other ways.

I feel the same way about letting us put whatever we want in a tank. On the one hand, how can I not support that? It makes plenty of sense! But on the other hand, static parts creates engineering challenges. I can't say yea or nay, but if they did do it, they might as well just give us one procedural tank, meaning they might as well just delete everything that isn't a unique shape. At that point any physical changes are just cosmetic anyways.

The entire point is that it is a career thing, far down on the tech tree, paying per the cubic meter.

So, it would be helpful for things where stock tanks are too big, or too small.

And there would be a limit on size, so it can't be worked to ultimate death.

And I never said it would be easy.

[John FX]

This is a sort of gray area for me, it goes right along with anything procedural. One the one hand it's obviously great because it allows you the precise freedom to do whatever it is that you want. In the case of things like wings it reduces part counts tremendously. And on the opposite side, it sort of damages the ease of building. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but I just don't know if it really supports the 'Kerbal spirit'. Limitations make the game interesting in other ways.

I feel the same way about letting us put whatever we want in a tank. On the one hand, how can I not support that? It makes plenty of sense! But on the other hand, static parts creates engineering challenges. I can't say yea or nay, but if they did do it, they might as well just give us one procedural tank, meaning they might as well just delete everything that isn't a unique shape. At that point any physical changes are just cosmetic anyways.

*disclaimer* This is more a general reply about procedurals, not specifically responding to things you have said. Your post seemed quite reasonable n stuff.

I have noticed the opposition to procedural parts is pretty much "Things would be too easy and the best craft builders would be less special as a result" (I know that`s not exactly what you were saying but I`m mixing a lot of things I have read and reading a little into all of them).

I totally agree that having restrictions improves gameplay but I don`t agree that having a limited range of parts is the best way to do that. That is only a sandbox solution.

Cash money or some form of earned scientific credit to buy the parts is what is needed. Then the super-duper part that does everything simply can`t be used for everything because it is too expensive in some way.

This gives the building freedom people crave whilst at the same time not eradicating the gameplay that makes the game fun (both very very important).

`Sure, you can repurpose that orange tank to hold RCS but it will cost you about the same as building a whole rocket.`

`Sure, you can have a custom shaped micro fuel tank smaller than an oscar but it will cost more than a huge standard tank`

`Sure, you can have structural panels that are half size but they are twice the price`

`Sure, you can have a super duper ridiculous sized fuel tank but it costs a super duper ridiculous amount of cash and science`

etc

Sandbox would then be totally blue sky building. Whatever you think can be built with hardly any restrictions but in the `real` game there would be all the restrictions as to what can be put on a rocket that are needed to maintain a good level of gameplay (because that is the `game` as opposed to sandbox which is not).

People need to move away from `the restricted part list is what enables good gameplay and I only play sandbox` to `Career is the actual game and the financial and scientific considerations enable good gameplay`

I feel the game is being held back by the stock purists and the established builders who both resist new parts, especially procedural ones.

In the game Total Annihilation for example there was a tech tree (a lot of the main game was working through the tech tree) and many robots which were good at certain points in the game but not in the endgame (because they were too underpowered compared to tech3 robots) existed.

They were not made worthless by the tech 3 robots except when you played sandbox (unlocked skirmish) at which point the tech 3 robots were the only robots worth building and in a similar way, procedural parts will not affect gameplay except in sandbox where they will be the only parts worth using due to the lack of financial or other considerations. In the `real` game there will be restrictions in place to balance the gameplay and keep it fun.

EDIT : Myself I would suggest the price should be a multiplier to the standard cost based on how much you changed the original item. If you make it half or twice the size, it costs twice as much. Four times the size? four times the cost. Then the prices are related to the item cost and also take into account the amount of bespoke work done to alter it to be the part you want.

Edited April 10, 2014 by John FX

[aeTIos]

You gotta press CTRL+Shift on your keyboard But yeah I agree with you there.

[Sirrobert]

Reduce-wall-of-text-edit

This very much.

I feel that the addition of money (soon I hope) will change alot of ballance issues people are having, and force everyone to concider all ballance suggestions differently