The Ressources-mining feature, do you miss it ?

[Kegereneku]

Hello everybody,

After watching a video featuring ISRU (In Situ Resource Utilization), I just had the urge to gather some new opinion now that the heat dissipated.

Most player have probably been in the community long enough to know about the canceled 0.23 resources system but for information this long hoped-for feature planned for the 0.23 update before being canceled would have looked something like this Ressource Graph*, and the system was being tested.

Inevitably some players were very disappointed by its cancellation with no idea about what sort of replacement we would get and when.

*this graph might not be the last version

For all I know in the KerbalKon Announce we can quote Harvester saying the following :

2. Resource Mining: The old resource-mining plan is being shelved, which by all means, is a good thing. It wasn’t fun once we got down to it, so we’re not losing anything worth keeping here. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a need for more “end-game†activities. We aren’t ready to disclose any new ideas now because we’re focused on Career Mode and anything we bring up now could end up getting scrapped later and we’ll have the same issue we have now.

I couldn't find more information on the exact way it was expected to be played.

Was it only meant to be a complete ISRU system allowing to refuel every sort of rocket ?

Or was it (something I heard) part of a Tycoon vision with a possible resources exploitation and market ?

So do you think we lost something ?

Myself I think that KSP still lack some basic form of ISRU for at least one engines, be it liquidfuel+oxidizer or reactive mass for nuclear engines. The reason being that if new planet are being added further away than Eeloo, the best way to keep parts-count to a minimum without boosting the engines (again) is to allow mid-flight refueling. And aside from simplifying greatly the system the limitation to one fuel type would only give some incentive for a resupply run.

On the other side, I never liked the idea of an (in-game) Industrial exploitation of space resources or systems more complex than actually enjoyable. So the "Resources-mining system" as shown on the picture above looked way too complicated.

I don't feel like "we" lost something but I sure still want some ISRU in the future and it's sure and certain that this idea is going to get another try.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Kegereneku
precision

[CaptRobau]

Resource mining wasn't a 0.23 feature. It was a 0.19 feature, that was put in the fridge and only talked about at the time of 0.23. So I understand the confusion.

As far as I know the system that was didn't work out was just a more complex version Kethane (i.e. ISRU). Personally I don't really miss it, mostly because it's not necessary. You can get easily get everywhere in the current system using existing tech. There first needs to be an expanded solar system with more faraway planets/moons. Eeloo is about 6 AU (Kerbin-relative) from Kerbol. The real Pluto is 39 AU (Earth-relative) away from the Sun. When KSP's solar system is on that scale ISRU becomes a necessity.

With the current solar system, I'd rather have a better science system (that gives me more incentive than some stupid, quickly repeating blurb) so that there's more a reason to go out beyond Kerbin's SOI.

[Red Iron Crown]

Never had it, don't miss it.

[allmhuran]

The dilemma faced by Squad as they try to figure out their "end game content" is that you can't just add any old "feature" and presume that it will be fun. And fun is the whole point of the game.

I've said it dozens of times, and I'll say it dozens more: Science in KSP is a perfect example of of a failed new feature in a computer game. It's not fun. And that's not because it's not finished. Making it fun can't be done by adding more biomes, or more science parts, because the thing that isn't fun is the core mechanic involved. Click a button to open a dialog box. Click another button to close it. Repeat endlessly. More parts and more biomes just mean more of the same. I think the whole concept of science must be fundamentally reworked.

When Squad pulled resources, they thought the same thing. They felt that resources weren't fun, that the whole idea of resources, if it was going to be included at all, needed to be fundamentally reworked if it was going to be fun. And that was probably a good call.

Of course, coming up with ideas that are fun is not at all easy. Felipe came up with one fundamentally fantastically fun idea: Allow people to build rockets using a bunch of parts, like lego, and then allow them to fly said rockets. All of the construction, all of the launching, all the way up to your first landing on the Mun, is the player engaging this fundamentally fun challenge.

Since then, there has only really been one new and fundamentally fun gameplay element added to KSP*: More complex intercepts. Interplanetary transfers, gravity assists, ship to ship intercepts (which turns into docking when you combine this idea with the first). This engages the player in a different challenge: the challenge of working with orbital mechanics.

Tangent time: Notice that these are also the two "hard" things about KSP. Building rockets is challenging and fun. Orbital mechanics is challenging and fun. Felipe has been quoted as saying that at first they weren't sure whether they should keep all of the orbital mechanics, intercepts, and stuff, because they were worried it was too complex. But it's the complex things that are challenging, and it's the challenges that are fun. This truth often seems to be forgotten when people claim that certain other ideas, if included, would make the game too complex (like any additional heads up or heads down telemetry and vessel information, or life support, or transmission that required line of sight between relays).

If we want resources to really be fun, then there has to be a vision greater than "land on planet with appropriate part attached to ship. Press button. Turn on physics warp. Wait." There's no additional challenges created by this. There's no additional gameplay other than the clicking of yet another dialog box. This is what Squad realised when they shelved the resource plans. This is what Felipe meant when he said that

People feel that once you land on another planet, there isn't much else to do. That does not imply the solution to that is to get out the shovels and start mining

Before the idea can work, it needs more vision. More imagination. Just creating more "activities" is not enough. Clicking a nwe button on a new dialog box is a new activity, but it's not enough. No, it needs to create new gameplay, new challenges.

I've yet to see a truly inspired vision for resources. Most ideas were just alterations to the processing flowchart that Squad had presented. The flowchart itself was never the problem.

Here are some considerations that I think might be worthwhile when trying to come up with a really inspired system for "resources":

• Resource production and resource consumption are obviously linked in terms of game mechanics. So whatever "resources" might end up being, it seems like it would be worth thinking about "supply" mechanics at the same time. Think of this as some form of life support mechanic.
  
• Resources and resource usage need not merely be "in situ", change your paradigm and consider that it can have an effect on the game as a whole. Perhaps the Mun is the only place that has some critical component material needed to produce RTG's, so in career mode your supply of RTG's is limited by your ability to bring back RTG materials from the Mun. And so on for other, more advanced, parts.
  
• Bases are "pointless" in KSP right now in the sense that they are merely static works of art in a static world. A base that "gathers resources" is also, however, pretty worthless if it is only gathering it for its own use. But imagine if you had to supply the base yourself? Imagine if Ike could *not* sustain a base, but Duna had the stuff needed to support an Ike base. Resources and life support would combine to increase the variety of challenges: Now you need your Ike base to have a large "snacks" container so you don't have to constantly resupply it. Now you have a gameplay reason to learn how to do precision landings next to other objects. Now your base is an organic, changing part of your save, not just a static work of space art.
  

These are just some of the kinds of very high level, broad ideas that I think would need to be fleshed out before any resource mechanic was a really worthwhile thing to pursue.

* Arguably there have been a couple more - aircraft parts for atmospheric flight, rover parts for rovers. But that's really just the "build and control" idea repeated in different contexts.

Edited May 23, 2014 by allmhuran

[r4pt0r]

ive always been glad resource mining wasnt stock.

[KerbMav]

One source for this problem - as I see it - is the self-imposed restriction to implement nothing that generates anything over time: no pumps gathering x resources per second, no bases building y stuff per day, no stations sciencing away ...

[Red Iron Crown]

One source for this problem - as I see it - is the self-imposed restriction to implement nothing that generates anything over time: no pumps gathering x resources per second, no bases building y stuff per day, no stations sciencing away ...

That's tricky to balance in a game with time acceleration. I suppose deadlines for contracts might help make it less exploitable.

[allmhuran]

That's tricky to balance in a game with time acceleration.

I agree with both KerbMav's comment and your own. But there are several ways to balance it out. Contract deadlines is certainly one, but if there was also something being consumed in order to perform the activity, then the balance becomes implicit. Electricity and or life support are two examples. Indeed, even "deadlines" is an example of this - in the case of deadlines, the resource being consumed is time itself.

[Guest]

Never had it, don't miss it.

Basically this. Also, the diagram that keeps getting thrown around looks like a convoluted mess of complexity for complexity's sake, very tedious and not at all "fun". It goes beyond complexity, though. Kethane and ORS have the same problem in that they're not "fun" at the basic level, or even really interesting, because the basic mechanic is "wait". People don't play video games to wait.

[technicalfool]

I do rather like KSP Interstellar's ISRU units, and yes, please give me more complexity. I want to mine hydrogen from Kerbin's oceans. I want Eve's oceans to be full of some kind of high-density fuel that makes it worth bothering with that heavy-G giant. Getting alumina from Mün and cracking water apart in the ISRUs for feeding into a hybrid rocket engine make the game more fun than stock could ever be. Mining thorium and uranium to put into breeder reactors, beaming power to remote spacecraft, refining actinides into new fuel, disposing of the depleted fuel (usually by high velocity impact with Münar surface), being able to create a Minmus hopper-craft that can refuel while up there and come back with science from multiple biomes, I think it's all awesome.

You're right, it probably isn't 5-year-old friendly. I care not. You don't have to use resources if you don't want them. You don't have to use the SLS parts if you don't want them. You don't have to use the infinite-fuel RTGs if you don't want them. If all you want is a rocket engine, some fuel, a pod and a joystick, well, be my guest.

If resource mining is "not fun", howcomes Kethane and KSPi continue to be enduringly popular mods, despite Kethane's rather awful scanning method? Should the game be feature-crippled because a few people are scared by the idea of landing on a deposit, clicking a button and time warping? And really, what's wrong with time warp? It gets rid of the wait, if you can't think of anything else to launch while you wait.

Make it a difficulty-level-selector option (along with life support perhaps), sure, but don't go throwing out features that various mods have shown are fun and are popular because a few people don't like it. Let them chop those features out with a check box.

[Guest]

Make it a difficulty-level-selector option (along with life support perhaps), sure, but don't go throwing out features that various mods have shown are fun and are popular because a few people don't like it. Let them chop those features out with a check box.

I think resources are better added as a DLC later on, they're not critical to the core game.

[Superfluous J]

To quote a wise man (and space cowboy), can't miss a place you've never been.

[technicalfool]

To quote a wise man (and space cowboy), can't miss a place you've never been.

And yet once you've had a taste of the ISRU and Beamed Power, it's difficult not to want more.

They're like boosters, in that regard.

[sal_vager]

Resource mining, this topic keeps coming up but have you really thought how much fun something like this would be?

Let's look at resource gathering in some other games, as a game mechanic it's a long way from new.

I'm going to go way back here and bring up Command & Conquer, not the first RTS certainly, Dune beat it by a few years but definitely one of the earliest and best known games to introduce resource gathering so you can build other stuff, and the mechanic was reused in nearly all RTS games since including the beloved Homeworld.

Build a harvester unit, leave it to its own fate, get on with other stuff, fun stuff like building your base, tank rushes....

Sometimes you'd point the harvester at specific tiberium fields, sometimes you'd assign a few combat units to guard it, you'd never want to actually drive it.

Only remember it when you're short on resources for your Mammoth.

With Homeworld it's the same, send a harvester to an asteroid or let it roam free, assign the occasional guard, build a new one if it gets blown up, forget it and do fun stuff that isn't resource gathering.

Warcraft is the same, as is almost every other RTS with resource gathering, it's a side to the meat of the game, like the little side salads you get at restaurants, it's not the steak you ordered but you eat it anyway.

Then there's games where resource gathering is more hands on, like in EVE online.

Set up your hauler of choice with your little mining laser, then go AFK or fly as your alt while the miner zaps a rock for a few hours, no one actually sits there and presses the trigger for every mining laser blast, they'd be mad with boredom.

There's a very good reason why this didn't sell....

Other games too like World of Warcraft, gathering basic resources is a long slow boring grind and players only do it until they don't have to anymore.

Even Minecraft, while caving and extracting the minerals you find on the way can be fun, it's the exploration that's fun, not the mining, when players stripmine they use TNT, they get friends to help, they use MCedit...

Resource mining really isn't that great.

[technicalfool]

...but there's no reason that resource mining has to be in-focus? Maybe right now in the game's alpha state, but when finished, why not have the ability to refuel your craft from an ISRU while you go launch something else?

You state various methods by which resource collection happens, and you're showing various *good* ways of doing it. So why not use one of the good ways?

Incidentally, you forgot about Battlezone, where your harvester units and bio-scrap mines are usually a primary target. Play a fire-and-forget game with those and you'll soon end up with no miners and no resources!

[Red Iron Crown]

Those are good points sal_vager, I agree that resource systems work best when they're "set it and forget it".

[Rowsdower]

now that the heat dissipated.

It's still a hot topic and we're going to be watching the thread accordingly. It's on the WNTS list for a reason As long as it's remembered that resources have been shelved and the thread doesn't turn into requests and flames, it's should be alright.

but don't go throwing out features that various mods have shown are fun and are popular because a few people don't like it.

Those "few people" are the devs. It's ultimately their decision that determines what makes the cut.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Rowsdower

[sal_vager]

To technicalfool, Battlezone's great, actually it's really great and everyone should own a copy, but again the resource gathering is just so you can make combat units, your bio-metal extractor sits there doing its thing while you drive tanks.

Sure mining can be on rails, then it's no different to going afk in EVE or forgetting about your Harvesters, mining in all those games is a means to an end, not the end itself, and in KSP we'll have contracts and science to provide meat to the game without a mechanism that just rewards afk gaming.

[Guest]

Incidentally, you forgot about Battlezone, where your harvester units and bio-scrap mines are usually a primary target. Play a fire-and-forget game with those and you'll soon end up with no miners and no resources!

That's a strategy in any RTS or competitive game that relies on gathering resources. In Homeworld, for example, an early strategy is to build some fighters and harrass your opponent's resource collecters. The same with Total Annihilation. In fact, that was also something you did back in the grand-daddy of RTS, Dune 2. The point was, though, that you never really played the resource collectors; they were simply a means to an end and possibly a source of conflict.

Now, I get the desire for ISRU and the need for it to be on rails (because waiting is boring). The problem is that when you add complexity to waiting you end up with very not fun gameplay. That's what that resource diagram represented. Not only do you have to wait, but you also have to move a bunch of crap around in order to get anything done. Add to the the "something for nothing" of timewarp and allmhuran's suggestion of bases requiring you to ferry around resources, and the game quickly becomes an exercise in tedium. At the end of the day it'd probably just be better to have a magical part that fills up your fuel tanks.

[sal_vager]

To take this a step further, you'd have resource mining in KSP to get materials to build rocket parts and make fuel, but where's the need for this?

It'd just be for moving more resource gathering parts around, to get materials to build rocket parts and make fuel, which is a dull "timewarp till you have enough minerals" exercise.

We'd be pretty much where we were before career, but with the added hassle of waiting for mining to complete before launching the next big rocket, lather, rinse, repeat.

Instead, with science, contracts and reputation you have a system that gives you goals and rewards you for playing, it's not just a game mechanic to enable you to build stuff and zerg rush, I mean fly rockets, it becomes the reason we send rockets up to begin with.

[Eric S]

Kethane and ORS have the same problem in that they're not "fun" at the basic level, or even really interesting, because the basic mechanic is "wait". People don't play video games to wait.

Even when I play with Kethane, Kethane itself isn't "fun." I had a moment of fun the first time I started filling a kethane tank and then again the first time I started converting it, but other than that, Kethane has always been a means to an end, not something fun in and of itself. If the devs can find a way to enable those same ends without the tedium that Kethane brings, then I'm all for it. If they don't, then we've got a mod to enable them.

And yes, the original chart was interesting in its detail, but that detail really just mostly teased my OCD, it didn't actually look that much more fun than Kethane.

[ThirdHorseman]

For me the reason for having a resource system is simple: provide a method for getting fuel to remote locations without having to constantly transport it there.

You want to have a refueling base on the Mun? Mine the resources. You want a long-term outpost on Laythe? Mine the resources. I don't see how constantly trying to ship tons and tons of orange tanks to remote outposts is any more fun than scanning for resources, setting up mining operations, and then transporting the resulting fuel to depots.

But maybe most people here don't setup long-term outposts. I'm working on pretty much covering the Mun with bases and outposts, and trying to supply all of them with fuel from Kerbin would take forever and be boring as hell. It's much easier to use the Kethane mod to setup mining and fuel-conversion bases right there.

I find the Kethane mod to be incredibly simple to use, so just popping that right into the stock game seems like a piece of cake. Perhaps by doing that they could also put in mining-while-not-in-focus so you could be off doing other stuff while the mining operations do their thing, and just pop back into control when the boring part is done.

[LethalDose]

Yes, I miss the idea of having resource mining, and I think the game will be of poorer quality for it's absence. I strongly believe that ISRU will be an important part of future space exploration, and it therefore has a place in KSP.

Based on what has been said about the canceled resource mining feature by the devs, I agree that resource mining in that form should have been canceled. However, that does not mean that resource mining in any form simply cannot be fun in KSP. My interpretation of what has been said by the devs is that any resource mining that has been considered was based on that earlier, complex, and apparently unfun implementation.

I think a resource mining mechanic would be best implemented by first figuring out what the mechanic is intended to do, then building a system that suits that need. I'm not aware of any dev making any statement about how the resource system was inteneded to be used, and OP of this thread also pointed out that he couldn't find "how the resource system was intended to be played". IMO, there are at least two purposes that resource mining could serve: in situ fuel production and orbital construction.

in situ fuel production

If a fuel resource (e.g. Liquid fuel) or a fuel resource precursor (e.g. asteroid ice) was added to asteroids, then refueling depots could be set up away from Kerbin, with fuel produced away from Kerbin. This would allow smaller vessels to make interplanetary trips. The purpose of this style of resource mining is to allow players the option of either continuing to rely Kerbin for all fuel resoures OR setting up a more complex logistics system using ISRU.

Orbital construction

The surface of Kerbin is the second worst place in the Kerbol system from which to launch vessels into orbit, after the the surface of Eve (not including the surface of Jool, which isn't supposed to really exist). If other resources (e.g. Metal, silicon, blutonium, etc) were included in the game, either on asteroids or on planets, then vessels could be built in space using these resources. This would allow players to choose to spend resources launching missions with relatively inefficient launch vehicles, OR spend resources on a getting an off-world refinery/construction site started to boot-strap up a more efficient launch site.

I'm recommending these options because these options could be completely ignorable if balanced right. I also don't think that the possibility that the systems could be balanced poorly is a good reason to not include the system. The same could be said about the science system (which I feel is balanced poorly with Minmus' biomes, but I don't think that's a reason to remove science) or the up-coming budgets in 0.24 (Which had the potential to make some career play-styles unworkable). There are parts of the game that are completely ignorable already, like space planes or even science (if playing in sandbox).

I understand what the mods and other posters are saying about the grind of active resource collection isn't fun (at least not in a game like this). And even the passive resource collection isn't necessarily fun by itself. It's what you can do with the resources that you had to work for that is fun, though. In any RTS, telling your worker to harvest resources isn't fun, what is fun is doing something with those resources you've collected! And this is fun because it expands the options and choices presented to a player.

I don't see how you can consider resource mining a mechanic that "rewards AFK gaming" in KSP. The game already has events that take substantial amounts of time to occur. A short list includes:

• Launch windows to open
  
• Vessels traveling on transit orbits (e.g. kerbin to Jool)
  
• Landing on planets (parachutes don't play well with time warp)
  
• Power recharging after data transmission
  

All these are events where the player can choose to sit and wait for the necessary event to happen ("AFK gaming") or they can do something else while waiting (why KAC is such a godsend of a mod). However, no one is saying "launch windows take too long to open, so we need to be able to move planet locations", or "Vessels take too long to get places, planets need to be closer", or "Solar panels take too long to make energy, one panel should be enough to provide instant infinite energy forever" (We actually can complain about the parachute one, though). Soon, we may have to wait for new "kerbal fiscal years" to get more income, so it's another mechanic in the game that requires waiting.

So why is waiting for passive resource collection so much different than all these other mechanics that take time?

There's also a comment about "what's the need, you can already get stuff into space". The "need" or "want", call it whatever you want, is for there to be different ways to get "stuff" into space. Space plane parts were included as a new way to get kerbals into space and to other planets (more the former than the latter). Resource mining is another way to get kerbals into space and other places (more the latter, than the former). Where's the harm in creating more options.

I really think that this topic keeps coming up because there has never been a solid argument against it and there are plenty of arguments for it.

If it can be wrong? Okay, don't do it wrong.

If it requires waiting? so what? We already have waiting in the game.

If we can do this one way already? so what? This is a new way to do it.

It's not fun? Okay, why? Can it be used for a different purpose that is fun?

Shove off, its our game and we're going to code it however we want? Okay, fine, but then be clear that you're not open to community input.

Finally, I don't understand the rationale behind the mods scolding/warning/reprimanding members of the community for asking this question repeatedly when the devs either can't or won't give valid reasons for including it.

I'm not trying to start a fight, or call anyone names, I just think that the reasons that have been presented (here and elsewhere) aren't valid reasons for completely scrapping the game.

And yes, I've said this before. Obviously this topic keeps coming up, and community members that have weighed in before are able to weigh in again. I think I should be afforded the same opportunity.

[Edited to address arguments presented while typing]

Edited May 23, 2014 by LethalDose

[PDCWolf]

Gotta love how people talk about resources with kethane in mind. Kethane is as far from what the devs promised as it could possibly be. You mine kethane just so that you can go somewhere else and mine some more.

With resources, supposedly, you would be able to repair ships, maintain bases, have true re-usability, life support-support, and an actual motivation to do all the things you can actually do in the game. It would have added a complexity and replayability layer to the game that an RNG "go to <insert planet> and do <insert goal>"/"Put a satellite in <orbital parameters>" contracts system could ever do without being as grindy as science either.

[Guest]

Gotta love how people talk about resources with kethane in mind. Kethane is as far from what the devs promised as it could possibly be. You mine kethane just so that you can go somewhere else and mine some more.

No one's talking about just Kethane. ORS and EXPL have added additional functionality but, in the end, the mechanics are the same. Set something up and then wait.

With resources, supposedly, you would be able to repair ships, maintain bases, have true re-usability, life support-support, and an actual motivation to do all the things you can actually do in the game. It would have added a complexity and replayability layer to the game that an RNG "go to <insert planet> and do <insert goal>"/"Put a satellite in <orbital parameters>" contracts system could ever do without being as grindy as science either.

In other words, "You mine <X> just so that you can go somewhere else and mine some more". Motivation and goals in this game come from the player, not from the game. Even if you had resources, they'd simply be a means to an end as you just pointed out. They're not a reason to be out there doing things.

E: To answer an earlier post I missed, yes, it would be nice to have some form of ISRU in the game, perhaps to refuel nuclear rockets, but I don't feel it's a core feature that's needed any time soon, especially in such complexity.

Edited May 23, 2014 by regex