Budgets, Reusability and Mass Production

[regex]

There is little to no way you can prevent recovery sidestepping. The only way is to make it completely impractical by making recovery 100%. Without part reliability a ship that is never recovered is almost a 100% free ship, besides paying for a loader design and refueling it. This again shouldn't exactly be a choice for a game that offers a recovery function in the first place.

Then I don't believe there should be a recovery function at all. You basically give one type of player a massive advantage during balancing. If you never install such a feature all is fair for all players. Those with the patience to design, build, and maintain reusable craft like SSTOs get their just rewards, the rest of us don't have to worry that the game was balanced against those players.

I believe there is nothing wrong with a career that get to a point where funds are no longer an issue.

Neither do I. What I do think is wrong is a game that is balanced against a mechanism that heavily favors (mandates, even!) recovery. Adding such a mechanic without thought or balance leaves no challenge for anyone, invalidating the economy. At that point money is just something to look at, like life support that is 100% recyclable; extra code for no real reason.

The best way to keep parachute spam and "reusable" booster spam out of the equation is just keep them how they are and just make boosters CHEAP.

I'm talking not only about boosters, but cores, liquid and solid fueled. If there's a recovery mechanic for spaceplanes then why can't I have one that covers Space Shuttle type SRBs or Space-X style liquid boosters? It's ridiculous to limit it only to SSTOs.

[Red Iron Crown]

I've been thinking about this a bit, and I think Regex's "recovery discount" could be made to support reusable operations in a balanced manner without resorting to ground crew only, and without railroading the player into reusable craft.

Have the discount start at a low or zero percentage (i.e. reusability not worth it). Balance mission costs around that. Have a series of tech nodes that unlock better discounts, in stages. So the first might be 10%, the next 20%, and so on up to some reasonable limit.

Players interested in reusability can focus on unlocking those techs earlier and so start reaping the benefits of reusability. Players not interested in reusability are able to unlock the other nodes faster since they aren't spending science points on reusability nodes. So reusability essentially trades a bit of science advancement for an economic advantage.

The only difficulty I see with this is the late game, when players have a surplus of science and will unlock those nodes for completeness; players may feel that the reusability discount "forces" them to make reusable craft. I suspect, though, that in the late game budget will be less of a factor if it's anything like most economic games.

[shizophrenic]

There is little to no way you can prevent recovery sidestepping. The only way is to make it completely impractical by making recovery 100%. Without part reliability a ship that is never recovered is almost a 100% free ship, besides paying for a loader design and refueling it. This again shouldn't exactly be a choice for a game that offers a recovery function in the first place.

i think there isn't a real Need to prevent sidestepping. You Play career mode. that implemets a lot. you want to have a economic Modell, because you think ist fun. sidestepping the economic is like playing without economic with more preliminary Actions before a Mission. if you sidestepp you also can use a toggle economic off in the cheat menu. you kill your fun on your own, and shouldn't blame the game for it.

Edited May 18, 2014 by shizophrenic
typo

[Rakaydos]

I'm going to address a different part of the OP thn the rest of you... Subassembily rebates.

I would suggest a system where it costs 100% of a group of part's cost to save it as a subassembilly, and you have to pay the same cost again to pull the assembilly out and use it (so 200% of cost)

However, the next time you pull it out and launch it, it costs 90%, and the time after that, it costs 90% of that 90% (81%) (limit 1 per launch, to avoid subassenbling one orange tank and just making asparagussed monstrocities for nothing)

The more you use the same subassembiily, the cheaper it gets (though if you have recovery rebates, you would reduce them in lockstep with the cost reduction)

[Jouni]

The more you use the same subassembiily, the cheaper it gets (though if you have recovery rebates, you would reduce them in lockstep with the cost reduction)

It seems that we're already going to get a similar mechanism for individual parts. You'll have to pay science to unlock a tech tree node, a large amount of money to unlock a part, and a lesser amount of money each time you use the part. That should be enough, as long as the price of a rocket is just a sum of part prices. If we'll eventually have to pay for vehicle assembly, discounts for reusing existing subassemblies might make sense.

[regex]

Have the discount start at a low or zero percentage (i.e. reusability not worth it). Balance mission costs around that. Have a series of tech nodes that unlock better discounts, in stages. So the first might be 10%, the next 20%, and so on up to some reasonable limit.

I like this idea. It ties the economy to the tech tree and adds extra choices. I also don't think the late game should be balanced; at that point players have put in the hard work and should reap the benefits.

[LethalDose]

Just as a clarification, when people say "Recoverable", do they mean getting parts/money back for clicking "recover vessel"?

If so, making anything recoverable beyond the command pod and it's attachments (or whatever you're piloting to the surface) is going to be nearly impossible due to the physics system in the game. If you just put chutes on boosters or lifting stages, those parts just disappear when they get beyond the render/simulation distance (2.5 km by deafault), so there's nothing left to click on to recover.

Has anyone suggested solutions/work-arounds to this yet?

[shizophrenic]

Just as a clarification, when people say "Recoverable", do they mean getting parts/money back for clicking "recover vessel"?

If so, making anything recoverable beyond the command pod and it's attachments (or whatever you're piloting to the surface) is going to be nearly impossible due to the physics system in the game. If you just put chutes on boosters or lifting stages, those parts just disappear when they get beyond the render/simulation distance (2.5 km by deafault), so there's nothing left to click on to recover.

Has anyone suggested solutions/work-arounds to this yet?

for my post, its clicking "recover vessel"

for disappearing: as far i know only parts with a periapis below a certein height get deletet when not controlled. some write it isn't height dependend but pressure dependent but in a certain degree its practically the same. also i think certain parts in Orbit get deleted if they leave the 2,5km radius sphere.

for if height/pressure dependend deletion, they could make a it look like:

1. check on the velocity is,

1.1 over a certain velocity it is considerd burned up or crashed so hard that wouldn't be any use.

2. under that velocity check are paracutes

2.1 no--> Crashed so hard that wouldn't be any use.

2.2 paracute are there. calculate the stable descending velocity the craft would have at 200 m above ground. simulate the the Crash at that Speed.

3. for landing Point: just assume Point mass with graviational pull with an constant decleration factor based on the drag the craft would have at a certain height/pressure

i know thats not accurate physics and doesn't takes in account planelike crafts , but no one would witness the criminal wrong landing of the craft , so the crime would be perfect.

[makinyashikino]

Maybe things that re-enter the atmosphere, it would do a series of checks to see if it is recoverable or not, rather than just deleting the parts that fall back outright. Like Speed, under a certain amount of m/s? okay, it survives re-entry, does it have a parachute? Okay, it survives landing. Did it fall over land or water? Increase refurbish cost for saltwater if water. etc.

EDIT: Ninja'd! I really should have checked the last page!

Edited May 18, 2014 by Cavenyanson

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm going to address a different part of the OP thn the rest of you... Subassembily rebates.

I would suggest a system where it costs 100% of a group of part's cost to save it as a subassembilly, and you have to pay the same cost again to pull the assembilly out and use it (so 200% of cost)

However, the next time you pull it out and launch it, it costs 90%, and the time after that, it costs 90% of that 90% (81%) (limit 1 per launch, to avoid subassenbling one orange tank and just making asparagussed monstrocities for nothing)

The more you use the same subassembiily, the cheaper it gets (though if you have recovery rebates, you would reduce them in lockstep with the cost reduction)

While that is a somewhat realistic mechanic, I don't think it makes for easy sharability or description of craft among players. If someone describes a ship to me as "120 tons, 250 parts, 2500m/s delta V", I have a reasonable idea of the scale of that ship. Cost should work the same way, IMO, so it becomes "120 tons, 250 parts, 2500m/s dV, 12,000 Kerbucks." I'd like to know that the 12,000 Kerbucks is the same for everyone, and not have to wonder how many reused assemblies with varying multipliers were used to arrive at that price.

[Dodgey]

To get past that problem RedIronCrown all we need is a base price. Before and after re usability discount.

[Valley]

Reusable Vehicles & Mass Produced Vehicles

I am a fan of both of this - kind of - as I like making craft that can be used to do many different types of jobs once in orbit (kind of like making a space truck that can be used to move cargo, crew, and fuel AS well as sometimes land back on Kerbal to delivery crew back to their home planet). But I also use simple rockets to refuel stations and ships in orbit - in fact I found out the same designs could refuel craft and stations in orbit around Kerbal and the moons - so mass produced vehicles is also a good idea. If using the same rocket design again and again for refueling missions becomes cheaper it makes the fuel cheaper to delivery.

[MKI]

Then I don't believe there should be a recovery function at all. You basically give one type of player a massive advantage during balancing. If you never install such a feature all is fair for all players. Those with the patience to design, build, and maintain reusable craft like SSTOs get their just rewards, the rest of us don't have to worry that the game was balanced against those players.

I'm talking not only about boosters, but cores, liquid and solid fueled. If there's a recovery mechanic for spaceplanes then why can't I have one that covers Space Shuttle type SRBs or Space-X style liquid boosters? It's ridiculous to limit it only to SSTOs.

EDIT1: this post got REALLY long oops!

I meant that its very important that the game isn't built to favor ground crews. The game should be balanced to disregard those players completely. If ground crews were much more efficient than landing an ssto and utilizing the recovery button, the whole idea of recovery is balanced AGAINST.

This is a pretty minor thing, but the idea that if you get the rewards ONLY if you sidestep a vital function (recovering a plane) pits things against the core game, which is spaceflight not ground operations.

The limitation to limit expendable boosters i feel is based more on how the game works, rather than economics. Implementing a system JUST so we can have re-usable boosters is kind of a waste of resources. The idea behind and SSTO reusability still fits, since the game is calculating your ship when it lands. A spent solid booster 5k below your Space Shuttle with parachutes flaring would be whole other realm that currently isn't in the game at all.

If a system were to be built, what about a spent booster with parachutes open on DUNA? Such questions would have to be handled and a whole new system would have to be implemented JUST so we can get re-usable boosters. Its impractical for the Devs to devote a lot of time for a system. Unless they can make it simple, I'm all for the idea of re-usable boosters and parachutes working outside of rez range, but such problems lie at the core of the game.

This goes for ANYTHING that would fall off the main "ship", which is why fuel tanks/ boosters should be kept cheap. As recovering them with parachutes is impractical on anything but an SSTO.

@Red Iron Crown. I feel by end game, a balanced economy would allow a player to have a surplus of money also. With or without going to SSTO's ever. Really by end game the only factor should be your own will. If career is to much of a hassle forever, no one would want to play it since the end game is literally just a grind. So having a surplus at the end of the tech tree should be a good thing.

IDK about having tech tree nodes early for reusable crafts. Such things are impractical early simply because of tech. I doubt early part will be expensive anyways, so why invest into making them reusable early if things aren't worth re-using? The fuzzy middle game would still be filled with more efficient and bigger missions, not so much flashy and economically friendly SSTO's. Middle game is where missions are made to finish the tech tree, so SSTO's could be used here to help sustain economics. But why invest science so you can make bigger missions to get more or less the same science?

There's so much talk with tilting re-usable crafts to make them only marginally more efficient than rocket launches. I don't really believe this is an important thing to deal with. Career will still be about getting more science. With Funds and reputations putting direct limitations on how you can build your rocket(s). (no more 20+ stage asparagus monsters)

By the time SSTO's show up (middle late game, once ramjets appear) their usefulness outside of saving money and transporting a kerbal places will be extremely limited until the most advance tech appears (high end wings, better SSTO engines). By then the player just wants money to become care free. THEN SSTO can be as broken as they want, it would only benefit a non grindy end game. Even if they DO NOT CHOOSE to utilize re-usable craft at end game or ever, contracts should still be able to fulfill launch costs and provide profit to allow a player to build something else.

You must ask yourself in the current career when would building an SSTO ever be actually worth it? It never is. Now imagine if you put in budgets, but planned your mission so you will make enough cash to pay for the current one, AND invest in a new one? Would building an SSTO be efficient if you had to invest MORE initial cost only to get generally LESS science, if you get full return on your SSTO? In the long run yes its efficient money wise, but you are sort of wasting your time. You get less science in the same amount of time as a normal expendable mission(disregarding designing, building and flying). This is of course considering the cheapness but strength of a cheaper launch system rather than a full on re-usable craft. (try to build a SSTO with a lab)

In the end SSTO's always suffer from the Space Shuttle Syndrome. They seem great on paper, but their limitations from all their "re-usability" functions hinders them in advancing the space programs tech. If contracts reward daring missions much more than easier missions that re-usable crafts could achieved, then re-usable crafts again would still be cool, but not game breaking. As they don't really do anything. If you can achieve a lab reusable vehicle with DUNA capabilities, good you deserve the full reward, because such a design either utilizes support missions or is bottom line amazing. (seriously without mods, this is nearly impossible)

This applies only to pre-end game missions. Once end-game arrives, where science no longer matters for tech unlock, and SSTOs have full options of engines. Then i believe SSTO's can have their day, but contracted missions still will do what they have always done, be efficient.

Edited May 19, 2014 by MKI

[shizophrenic]

EDIT1: this post got REALLY long oops! -- snip

if the economic Modell bases only on the parts you probably right. but if put in daily costs for maintance of buildings and salarys for the employes. it becomes different. even while the Craft flies your wallet shrinks and shrinks. then you would be happy for any extra way to increase the Overall Profit of a mission. the Voyager missions were started years ago the 'parts' already paid, but still they cost NASA about x Million Dollars each year

[nholzric]

A lot of good thoughts have gone into this thread but my prediction (and hope) is that recovery - and re-usability - won't be part of KSP. I suspect when issues are this complex and contentious it's a sign to us on the forum's that we're totally missing the "real" answer.

KSP has always been about having fun building and flying rockets - science, money, reputation will hopefully add to the fun. By adding a new mechanic to support recovery, I think you're skewing the building/flying/fun aspect only to emulate an IRL near-term economic development. It doesn't seem right that SSTO's will become necessary to a career game, and I don't think that parachute spamming would be a fun thing to worry about either.

Let me suggest an alternative. Budgets will emphasize leaner more efficient rockets/aircraft/SSTO/etc and it will be balanced in such a way to allow progression along the tech tree - from a little two stage solid rocket that gets you outside the atmosphere to refueling capable Duna mission and then as the career features come to a close you'll have a budget that's practically unlimited. There won't be a recovery mechanic for recouping the cost of parts but there will be contracts that incentivize - or require - SSTO's or reusable stages or whatever.

Building reusable rockets is a great challenge and an exciting near-term IRL development - a development that almost can't be ignored in KSP. But I don't think it's a mechanic that belongs in KSP's economy as demonstrated by the proceeding discussion. I think contracts "requiring" or rewarding this type of design prowess would work great while avoiding the pitfalls and balancing issues we've been discussing on this thread.

[shizophrenic]

well this disscussion is in one Point really senseless. regardless want we are here say, Squad has already choosen a economic Modell. it is only not implemented yet. their testers made them realise that, only with Features they planned to implement in 0.25, the contracts would give the Players the Feeling to have a proper reward for fullfilling the contract.

[Red Iron Crown]

well this disscussion is in one Point really senseless. regardless want we are here say, Squad has already choosen a economic Modell. it is only not implemented yet. their testers made them realise that, only with Features they planned to implement in 0.25, the contracts would give the Players the Feeling to have a proper reward for fullfilling the contract.

Doesn't hurt anyone to kick around ideas about how we think the economic system should work. And we have no idea how far along the developers are into designing and implementing the system, so they might glean an idea out of our discussion. Who knows?

[shizophrenic]

Doesn't hurt anyone to kick around ideas about how we think the economic system should work. And we have no idea how far along the developers are into designing and implementing the system, so they might glean an idea out of our discussion. Who knows?

i totally agree, my post before was intended to remind the ppl that even if we discuss how it could be implemented there is already a concept that the devs have realised (to a quite high percentage)

[thorfinn]

With budgets coming in 0.24 and development of that system still not being completely finalized (judging by dev comments), I thought it’d make sense for me to share some of my views on the issue of reusable and mass produced spacecraft [....]

I can only link the usual Astronautix page about cost curves, that I've been spamming on this forum since it existed

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/costhing.htm

My comments: you think like I do. Every unlocked part should be on a cost curve, so RT-10s for example will become really cheap in the late game, after using hundreds if not thousands of them, and this would keep old small launchers economically meaningful for small missions even after unlocking much more advanced parts. Subassemblies should also be on a cost curve, even if that would probably be trickier to do, so reusing the exact same stages will save money in the long term.

On the other hand, space shuttles and SSTOs are so hard to make compared to traditional rockets that they should have a very large capital cost but very small recurring costs, yes. I would also like to have a turnaround time for reusable vehicles, but it would be hard for the game to auto-detect what should take a day to turn around (fighter plane style SSTOs) and what should take a month (shuttles), so, maybe not...

To those who are worried of being railroaded into a particular style: actually, I think that this system would give a big and meaningful choice between two very different styles of play: either you go "Russian" style and build lots and lots of cheap launchers, or you shoot towards bigger-and-better every time "American" style. The balance should enable you to succeed either way.

Edited May 20, 2014 by thorfinn

[SpeedDaemon]

Well, here are my thoughts on re-usability.

When you click "Recover Vessel" you are presented with a few options:

1. Scrap - You get 95% of the cost of remaining fuel, and 10% or so of the cost of parts back immediately in cash. A sliding scale might be best - up to 20% back for tiny craft, and down to 5% for huge ones.

2. Recover - This is a bit more complicated. You still get 95% of the remaining fuel back in cash immediately, but you get charged a cost per ton (plus perhaps an amount of wait time per distance to KSC) to move the entire assembly back to a tab in the VAB/SPH similar to the sub-assembly tab. Unlike the sub-assembly tab, when you pull this out, you only pay 10-20% of the normal cost (to account for refurbishment, etc.), plus the cost of fuel. Additionally, if you remove a part from the assembly, it's immediately considered scrapped (the exception would be separating docking ports, etc.). This should reward the effort of building good reusable craft and allow minor updates, while preventing the recovery mechanic from being used as a generic parts bank. You can re-use the space plane or booster you managed to land, but you can't go and rebuild it into something else for free.

3. Analyze - You still get 95% back for remaining fuel. The craft is taken to the lab to be deconstructed and examined. You get between 0 and 2 science points per recovered part towards any nodes in the tech tree that the part's node points to (if you don't already have those nodes). I wouldn't want this to be a major source of science, just a small bonus. This is the only way to get the science points for "Recovery of craft returned from <x>."

I don't think recovering things like spent SRBs that are jettisoned during ascent would be easy currently, based on how the game works.

EDIT: Another really cool feature would be to add any recovered resources that are not normally available in the VAB to a bank that can be drawn from to fill normally empty tanks on new craft. For now, this would really only be useful for resources added by mods.

Edited May 20, 2014 by SpeedDaemon

[JedTech]

I suggest the following:

1. Researching a Part initially should cost about x10 more than the cost of buying the part for a single launch.

2. Charge a significant Fee per amount of Fuel used.

3. Upon recovery, the player should get a 100% refund for all safely returned parts.

4. Fuel is unrecoverable.

Explanation:

Making Research expensive but individual parts cheap makes use of the contract system without stifling the fun and creativity that players have while building (and crashing) all manner of spaceships. Who wants to use the same ship over and over?

Charging a significant amount for fuel challenges the player to think about efficiency and to design wisely. (I find this to be fun)

[tutrakan4e]

Doesn't a "reusable launch stage" count as a big launch stage with 20 parachutes on it?

[R0cketC0der]

Doesn't a "reusable launch stage" count as a big launch stage with 20 parachutes on it?

Ever heard of a powered landing?

[nholzric]

I can only link the usual Astronautix page about cost curves, that I've been spamming on this forum since it existed

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/costhing.htm

Thanks so much for the link - very interesting read!

I think a lot of the complications everyone is talking about can be done away with by moving the incentives/mechanisms for encouraging reusable subassemblies/pieces/stages from budgets to contracts! For example, you could accept a contract that requires you to use a subassembly to put something in some orbit - voila you have a reusable booster. Subsequent contracts can reward you for using said booster. You want to incentivize SSTO's, make a contract that requires a Kerbal to get to LKO on a craft that doesn't have any decouplers.. and only an aerospike or some similar criteria.

In my mind this is better because the contracts system is already going to need hooks into all sorts of aspects of the game - at least to the extent that the contracts' goals will be specific. This keeps the budget/money system *simple*. It is hard to overemphasis how valuable it is to keep such an integral part of career mode simple and accessible. As far as I can tell the contract system will allow the additional layer of "realism"/nuance/challenge/etc to be overlaid even on a simple budget system.

Finally, I read the dev's talking about how contracts are not going to *drive* the game, just give some context and flavor along the way. These cool reusable type goals fit perfectly with that spirit, soft goals, context, and flavor - the theme of KSP is not SSTO's and isn't even efficient rockets, in fact isn't one of the unofficial mottos "MOAR BOOSTERS!!!". Let these "optional" (sorry, I hate that word - "make it an option" psgh) contracts handle the type of challenges we're otherwise trying to shoehorn into the budget/money system.

[Red Iron Crown]

I am seriously curious as to what the money generating mechanic will be if contracts are optional.