The Ressources-mining feature, do you miss it ?

[Red Iron Crown]

Definitely agree with that. I interpret "shelved" to mean "not necessarily never, but we'll do everything else first."

[Northstar1989]

While these are challenges that an ISRU system creates, I would say they are not challenges a complicated ISRU system creates that a simple one does not. When a system starts having more than a few different raw materials, when it starts having long multi-step conversion processes that require a whole bunch of different parts, I feel it's going to be easy to just end up with a bunch of tickboxes to check at build time and an interplanetary fetch quest to make your stuff.

I agree that having too many parts could get tedious- which is why I think they'd be wise to do what KSP-Interstellar does, and just have a handful of parts that can each utilize a broad variety of resources (they got that part right in the chart on the OP- one part for atmospheric resources, one for oceanic ones, and one for land resources) That way, you would design your ISRU vessels more to the type of resources they would be exploiting rather than to any specific one...

As for the fetch-quest bit, I don't see how that would necessarily happen. Like I've stated many times, all you need to make LH2 and O2 (LFO mix), and H2O2-based RCS propellent, is water.

Some of the more advanced fuels would require multiple different resources on the same planet- such as water and CO2 to make methane-based fuel (I would suggest methane be a separate resource from LH2, since it burns in a drastically different mass ratio with O2 than does H2- but one could technically have a "methane-burning" mode for engines via tweakables, and "methane" fuel tanks that simply burn and hold LiquidFuel and Oxidizer in different mass ratios to be appropriate...), which has the advantage of giving you more fuel mass for your effort- but that would be part of the challenge and reward for more advanced players setting up more advanced ISRU infrastructure (it should be noted that as water can be present as a ground resource as ice, and CO2 is atmospheric, these could easily be present in the same location on some planets- such as Duna...)

Squad should be a bit careful here though. A scale-up may be good for the experienced players, but IIRC when I first played it took me a few hours play just to make orbit, which I did with a really inefficient rocket flown really poorly. It's not good to make things too hard for newcomers.

Things have changed a lot since the early days of KSP. Now, players can get fairly far science-wise simply by flying around on Kerbin in planes... Rocketry, meanwhile, has become easier due to stiffer join connections, more parts, and larger diameter stacks (SLS) that allow more realistic rockets that decrease in diameter with each stage up... They could reduce the difficulty even more with 5 meter parts if they wanted- and to compensate, increase the Delta-V to orbit by scaling up the solar system to 20% scale. Realism lovers would be happy, and newbies would still have a reasonable (but not overwhelming) challenge...

I only discuss that tangent here because a larger solar system- where it takes more Delta-V for interplanetary transfers- would increase the motivation to make use of ISRU... (right now, for advanced players it's too easy to launch a behemoth rocket with staging to get anywhere you want- and even with budgets such giants are cheaper than sending fuel tankers, and thus still preferable...)

Regards,

Northstar

[Kasuha]

I don't think it is possible to implement any kind of ISRU or resources mining and make the game more realistic at the same time. It's almost as paradoxical request as asking for realistic SSTOs - the only realistic SSTO is no SSTO.

I am definitely not missing resource mining in KSP but I am not completely against it being introduced to the game. In total, resource mining makes the game easier, not harder. At least considering what's available now, i.e. Kethane. It is more challenging to bring enough fuel along than to bring a rig that will mine you any amount of fuel if you give it enough time. On the other hand, such activities can keep players busy and can be a lot of fun. So why not?

[Red Iron Crown]

"Hasn't been done" is not the same as "unrealistic".

[Northstar1989]

Well, yes. The core of the game has been finished for quite a while. KSP is a game about building, launching and crashing rockets. Maybe a bit of flying them too. We've been doing that for ages. We're now at the point where they're adding all the extra stuff (such as career mode) on top of that core.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be anything in the game that builds on that core, I'm saying there shouldn't be anything which detracts from it. ISRU potentially means you could reach a point in the game where you never had to launch anything from KSP. I don't think that really matches the devs' vision for the game, from what they've said in the past.

Seret, please keep in mind that the only reason the mods are letting this discussion live is because so far it's been (mostly) civil. Please try and be a little more diplomatic... You have every right to voice your opinion- I'm just worried about it causing some sparks...

Pertaining to your views themselves, though- I can't possibly see where you're coming from. ISRU, if implemented, would be an entirely optional feature. One you could easily ignore if you so choose. If you wanted to continue launching ALL your fuel from Kerbin, as unrealistic as that might be (like I've said, *every* recent NASA design reference plan for interplanetary manned exploration calls for ISRU in some form...), than go right ahead- nobody would be forcing you to use ISRU. But if you wanted to give ISRU a try some day, you could do that too...

Why would having ISRU in the stock game in any way detract from what you call the "core" of the game if it were entirely optional to use?

Regards,

Northstar

[Red Iron Crown]

That was uncivil? Seemed like a perfectly diplomatic reply to me.

[Northstar1989]

I don't think it is possible to implement any kind of ISRU or resources mining and make the game more realistic at the same time. It's almost as paradoxical request as asking for realistic SSTOs - the only realistic SSTO is no SSTO.

I am definitely not missing resource mining in KSP but I am not completely against it being introduced to the game. In total, resource mining makes the game easier, not harder. At least considering what's available now, i.e. Kethane. It is more challenging to bring enough fuel along than to bring a rig that will mine you any amount of fuel if you give it enough time. On the other hand, such activities can keep players busy and can be a lot of fun. So why not?

I have to agree with Red Iron Crown. Kashusha, why is something unrealistic that can be done with current understanding of chemistry, physics, engineering, etc., and in fact *is* being proposed and actively developed by NASA *as we speak* (I can re-post the links to the Sabatier Reactor on the ISS, the prototypes for CO2 capture equipment for Mars, the Design Reference Missions calling for ISRU on both Mars and Callisto, and just about anything else if you'd like...) in any way "unrealistic".

Just because something hasn't been done doesn't make it unrealistic. By that logic, reductio ad absurdum, every single rocket that's ever been built in KSP is unrealistic simply because it's not a replica design of a real-life rocket, even if the player is playing with so many realism mods that its performance essentially is identical to real life (it's not that hard, really: install FAR, Realism Overhaul, and Real Solar System and you're 90% of the way there...), and every single new rocket design proposed in real life is unrealistic simply because it's never been built before either...

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

That was uncivil? Seemed like a perfectly diplomatic reply to me.

I was actually referring to his post *before* the one I quoted... (post #123)

I found the phrase "but I'll repeat if you like" particularly abrasive, for example...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited May 30, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Seret]

I found the phrase "but I'll repeat if you like" particularly abrasive, for example...

That was an optional phrase, you're not under any compulsion to read it.

[Dodgey]

Yea how was that uncivil? In anycase I do have to ask you to stop bringing up NASA as a reason to put a feature into the game, just because NASA does it doesn't mean that we have to. It's an extension of the argument of "because it's realistic it should be in the game". Which doesn't work because the aim isn't to create a realistic simulator. It is to create a fun anologe of owning and running a space center.

The optional feature argument doesn't really work (I say this because it has some merit) because when you are considering how you want your game to play out and features to play out you want to add features which add to the core as Seret said, not detract from it, even optional features. This can boil down to multiple reasons, limited devlopment resources, inherent challenges in the game, and scope of the game (not what the devs mean, something different). What I mean is that the devs want the game to have a certain feel to it, a vibe to it (The Castle reference....anyone?). I wish I could be more specific but it is hard to formulate my words on the matter. If you don't understand what I mean please disregard that last point.

[Kasuha]

Kashusha,

That's not my name. If you have trouble reading and still need to add my name to your text, please use copy/paste.

why is something unrealistic that can be done with current understanding of chemistry, physics, engineering, etc., and in fact *is* being proposed and actively developed by NASA *as we speak* (I can re-post the links to the Sabatier Reactor on the ISS, the prototypes for CO2 capture equipment for Mars, the Design Reference Missions calling for ISRU on both Mars and Callisto, and just about anything else if you'd like...) in any way "unrealistic".

The matter is, realistic is not fun. It's not about filling up your rocket's fuel tanks. It's about keeping your rover or maybe your crew alive a bit longer.

Deploying oil refinery on Titan is theoretically possible at current understanding of chemistry, physics, engineering and so on, but that does not make it realistic.

But I guess you should read all of my post, not just the first sentence. I'm not really at odds with you.

[Kegereneku]

Northstar1989 if you want to talk of civility, you could avoid multiple post by.... making more concise answer without trying to convince us that your ISRU+life_support+bigger_system proposal is the greatest thing that should ever happen for KSP. We are all quite already used to overhyped suggestions.

The point is not so much that ISRU "must" happen because it's realist, than it "could" bring something new in term of gameplay.

I'll certainly make your head explode but KSP isn't about realism. If it was it would be called Orbiter Space Simulator and wouldn't be "fun" for most.

So I'll repeat myself in a non-abrasive way :

Implementing a feature like ISRU need to be done with maximum cross-compatibility (with other part) and minimum complexity in mind. Also I believe we cannot go the "optional feature" way, you can't balance this separately of the game core dynamic.

We've been trying to discuss the "Why" rather than the "How", but I think we could try to answer the "What ?", as it :

- What is the point of ISRU ?

- What make KSP enjoyable ?

- What is KSP aiming for ?

This could be interesting because if everybody can agree on a few answers for the first, the second and third questions will create gravity wave strong enough to tear apart the forum until only vacuum fluctuation subsist. I know some players would answer something like "the realism", problem is that it is half-false or too simplistic (my personal pick would be : The illusion of realism and a simplified gameplay).

Maybe it could help to try to classify the LOUD MINORITY that populate the suggestion sub-forum.

- There's Tycoons who want/know KSP to evolve into colonization and asteroid exploitation.

- There's realism freak who want/know KSP to "realistically" go with alien-life-support.

- There's some idiots thinking in term of game experience and not seeing the "big picture".

... and so on.

My view? You can't miss something you never had.

Personally I'm happy that resource mining isn't included in the stock game. The tyranny of the rocket equation is the core challenge in the game. I'm not in any rush to change that. The kethane mod has proved that you can implement an ISRU system through mods, so for those that want to play that way they've got an option open.

Making the tyranny of the rocket equation irrelevant would indeed destroy the "Core" gameplay of the game, however I think most ISRU proposal wouldn't even dent it. Not even if you made possible to produce every type of fuel.

All parts still come from Kerbin, and since only a few hard-players are going to make a "single design to rule them all" the impact for most player would be that they can launch more rocket from Kerbin without fearing as much to run out of fuel.

In short, ISRU don't have to turn the game inside out. Building away from KSC however...

[LethalDose]

A few comments without going back and requoting anyone/everyone:

• There are concepts in the core/stock game that are already optional and can be completely ignored. Examples include space planes (as mentioned above), probes, and asteroid redirection. It's perfectly okay for ISRU/resource mining to be added and still be optional. The purpose of raising the "optional" argument is not to state that it should be optional, but to counter-point the argument that players must be forced into it if it were included in stock.
  
• Mods are a poor solution to the problem. Mods must be maintained by unpaid community members and their development must lag behind core game development. Current examples of unsupported mods are RT2 and B9. The purpose of including important material in the core game, regardless of it's source, is to avoid this kind of lost functionality.
  
• If realism were an issue in the game, we shouldn't be able to send kerbals on interplanetary missions because it's never been done IRL. There's no point in nit-picking the definition of "realism" when a poster's point is clear. A good discussion of this can be found at (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80928-I-don-t-want-realism-I-want-believability). I think there's little debate that ISRU is believable.
  
• Everyone on this forum has made typos at one point or another. Let it go, even if it was your handle. I've had the community manager screw up my name repeatedly after I brought it to his attention. Just get over it and don't derail the thread.
  

Edit: I suppose all of those points should start with "In my opinion..."

Edited May 30, 2014 by LethalDose

[Hyomoto]

I'd wager the most ardent supporters of resources are also largely sandbox-centric players. That isn't an issue, but is a feature that only a small percentage of players will be willing to grind through worth it? That's a question I don't see most supporters asking themselvesâ€â€because they like the idea. What about everyone else? At this point, it makes perfect sense to focus on the broad idea of KSP than to buckle down to build an intricate micromanagement sub-game bolted onto the end for the few people with the fortitude to go do it. Giving the players a reason to do it is more useful than the means right now. After all, having a colony of Kerbals on Laythe is ... just what it is. Science isn't a long term prospect, so spending five minutes on the Mun is, in many ways, better than spending two days.

Also, nothing is necessary in KSP: there are no driving motivators other than to pat yourself on the back. You don't need to build anything to fight off an alien invasion or create habitation for a crowded worldâ€â€science only unlocks parts so you can ... unlock parts. You can't ignore the pointlessness of KSP. It's sort of why I'm doubtful about career mode. Sure it will exist, but without the ability to 'lose', there is no ability to 'win'. And without that dichotomy, without any principle driving motivators, why bother with mechanics the player isn't even encouraged to use? I think resources could be done well, in a way many players would enjoy, but not right now, and not with the way the game is currently structured. This isn't Endless Space, this is Space Engineers. One game has a goal and direction, the other is a toy you play with.

[Jouni]

Some people seem to want a resource mining system that's essentially "gather different resources and combine them in different ways to get different products". Such systems are common in RPGs, but I find them boring, and try to ignore them to the extent it's possible.

I still use kethane from time to time, as I find it superior to the multi-resource systems. It's main problem is that the converters are too tiny to be believable. I almost stopped using it when I realized that the proper way to use kethane is to build a single ship that can function as a kethane scanner, a kethane miner, a kethane refinery, a fuel tanker, and an interplanetary transfer stage. Specialization is for insects.

The easiest way to fix kethane would be to have two different refinery units. A small refinery unit would weight a tonne or so, but it would run out of supplies and become useless after producing an orange tank worth of fuel. A large refinery could work indefinitely, but it would weight 100 tonnes and be similar to the S3-14400 fuel tank in size. That would be enough resource mining for me.

[Northstar1989]

Northstar1989 if you want to talk of civility, you could avoid multiple post by...

Multi-posting is the only way I can really address multiple people's post without any one post becoming (even more) unreadably long...

proposal is the greatest thing that should ever happen for KSP. We are all quite already used to overhyped suggestions.

I'm just putting forward ideas' date=' like anybody else. Everybody has a different vision for the game. And the beauty of a sandbox game like KSP is, there is no one "right" vision- which is why I'm personally a fan of including as many features as possible as long as it doesn't degrade performance... (and there's a LOT that could be done on that end- hiring a dev dedicated purely to performance improvements, for instance...)

[quote=Kegereneku;1184520The point is not so much that ISRU "must" happen because it's realist, than it "could" bring something new in term of gameplay.

I'll certainly make your head explode but KSP [u']isn't about realism. If it was it would be called Orbiter Space Simulator and wouldn't be "fun" for most.

So I'll repeat myself in a non-abrasive way :

Implementing a feature like ISRU need to be done with maximum cross-compatibility (with other part) and minimum complexity in mind. Also I believe we cannot go the "optional feature" way, you can't balance this separately of the game core dynamic.

The whole point of optional features is that they don't have to be completely balanced against the "core dynamic" (which there will enver be agreement on), but OK...

[quote name=Kegereneku;1184520We've been trying to discuss the "Why" rather than the "How"' date=' but I think we could try to answer the "What ?", as it :

- What is the point of ISRU ?

- What make KSP enjoyable ?

- What is KSP aiming for ?

Everybody's going to have a different answer to those questions...

For instance, I enjoy the open-endedness and realism of KSP (yes, it's not completely realistic- but it's better than most games, and I would prefer if it were more so. The only reason I don't install a bunch of realism mods is because I'm already close to memory limit... Overwriting stock files with realism re-balances tends to degrade game performance...)

I see the point of ISRU as expanding that scope and open-endedness. I like a game that is "vast". The more features allow me to realistically imitate real space program ideas/propositions, or some crazy but realistic idea of my own, the better...

KSP doesn't have a specific aim. That's the beauty of a sandbox game. The development of this game started off as a passion-project, after all, not an attempt to create one coherent gaming experience... I think the open-endedness and lack of a specific focus is the game's greatest strength. Rocket equation hogwash- I don't come to a game just to be ruled by the "tyranny" (as one astronaut described it) of an equation that we already have ways to work around in real life... The Sabatier Reaction has been known for over 100 years, for instance...

I applaud your optimism, but KPS players will NEVER agree on what the game is really about. That's precisely why the devs should be willing to add optional features like ISRU. If I want it, and you don't, what's the harm in my having and using it in the stock game, and your not? ISRU is, by its very nature, something you have to *BUILD* with parts on a rocket or spaceplane. If you don't want to do that, then don't. Your inclinations shouldn't negatively effect my gameplay experience, when my getting what *I* want won't harm you in any way... That is the nature of freedom...

LOUD MINORITY that populate the suggestion sub-forum.

- There's Tycoons who want/know KSP to evolve into colonization and asteroid exploitation.

- There's realism freak who want/know KSP to "realistically" go with alien-life-support.

- There's some idiots thinking in term of game experience and not seeing the "big picture".

... and so on.

That over-simplifies things. Everybody is a little of all of those...

For instance' date=' I would love to play tycoon and colonize other planets (in fact, that's precisely what I've been up to in my Mission Reports thread for a long time now...)

But I want to do so as realistically as possible- interplanetary colonization *WILL* happen someday in real life, if we don't blow ourselves up first. I just want to speed the process up as much as possible in my little game, by attempting to establish permanent self-sufficient outposts with modern technology (and while I don't want/expect to see this in the stock game, I *will* play with mods that allow extraplanetary construction, as long as it's appropriately balanced... This goes along with the idea of creating a self-expanding outpost in a very late stage of its development...)

And, as for gameplay experience, there are some areas where I'm perfectly happy to see realism a bit compromised- for instance with the thrust of ion engines (although I would [b']prefer to see implementation of more realistic ion engines to allow that, for instance the VASIMR with nuclear reactors, and downgrading of the thrust of the stock ion engines a bit...)

[quote name=Kegereneku;1184520Making the tyranny of the rocket equation irrelevant would indeed destroy the "Core" gameplay of the game' date=' however I think most ISRU proposal wouldn't even dent it. Not even if you made possible to produce every type of fuel.

All parts still come from Kerbin, and since only a few hard-players are going to make a "single design to rule them all" the impact for most player would be that they can launch more rocket from Kerbin without fearing as much to run out of fuel.

In short, ISRU don't have to turn the game inside out. Building away from KSC however...

I agree. ISRU would hardly dent the tyranny of the Rocket Equation for most players... Even if you can create fuel on every planet (for balance and realism, you shouldn't be able to), there's still the matter of establishing the infrastructure in the first place...

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

Some people seem to want a resource mining system that's essentially "gather different resources and combine them in different ways to get different products". Such systems are common in RPGs, but I find them boring, and try to ignore them to the extent it's possible.

In KSP, you would be perfectly capable of ignoring the ISRU system. Personally, I think having a realistic setting and chemical reactions, amidst the backdrop of a *realistic* space program, makes it a lot more interesting... And this isn't just wishful thinking or unproved predictions- I'm having an awful lot of fun with just the beamed power system of KSP-Interstellar... (I haven't even dented the rest of the ISRU system yet, despite having it installed)

I still use kethane from time to time, as I find it superior to the multi-resource systems. It's main problem is that the converters are too tiny to be believable. I almost stopped using it when I realized that the proper way to use kethane is to build a single ship that can function as a kethane scanner, a kethane miner, a kethane refinery, a fuel tanker, and an interplanetary transfer stage. Specialization is for insects.

That's not the proper way to use Kethane at all. Specialization improves your efficiency. Efficiency gives you more fuel to play with... And specialization also creates a much more interesting set of design challenges...

The easiest way to fix kethane would be to have two different refinery units. A small refinery unit would weight a tonne or so, but it would run out of supplies and become useless after producing an orange tank worth of fuel. A large refinery could work indefinitely, but it would weight 100 tonnes and be similar to the S3-14400 fuel tank in size. That would be enough resource mining for me.

I'm glad you're not in charge of Kethane then... That sounds absolutely horrendous to me... Limited supplies is entirely arbitrary without a realistic (plausible) explanation for them in the form of a real chemical equation, for instance. And I don't like arbitrary...

In the end I'd remind you that Kethane, like anything else, is all about how you use it... Where was that link to the Constellation YouTube video again...

Ah yes, here:

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

I'd wager the most ardent supporters of resources are also largely sandbox-centric players. That isn't an issue, but is a feature that only a small percentage of players will be willing to grind through worth it? That's a question I don't see most supporters asking themselvesâ€â€because they like the idea. What about everyone else? At this point, it makes perfect sense to focus on the broad idea of KSP than to buckle down to build an intricate micromanagement sub-game bolted onto the end for the few people with the fortitude to go do it. Giving the players a reason to do it is more useful than the means right now. After all, having a colony of Kerbals on Laythe is ... just what it is. Science isn't a long term prospect, so spending five minutes on the Mun is, in many ways, better than spending two days.

ISRU is a goal in itself. It's something to do. If it doesn't interest you, then don't do it...

Of course, yes, it'd be nice if there was more to do on planets. But, aside from science, which would be hard to actually simulate in detail because, ya' know, most of us don't have PhD's in astrophysics, what is there they can realistically add besides ISRU? Speak up, because I'm all-ears.

In real life, the two main motivations for space exploration are science in the short term, and colonization in the long term. ISRU allows us to at least imagine we are paving the way a bit for the latter goal- even if we'll never get any actual colonization mechanics in KSP...

Also, nothing is necessary in KSP: there are no driving motivators other than to pat yourself on the back. You don't need to build anything to fight off an alien invasion or create habitation for a crowded worldâ€â€science only unlocks parts so you can ... unlock parts. You can't ignore the pointlessness of KSP. It's sort of why I'm doubtful about career mode. Sure it will exist, but without the ability to 'lose', there is no ability to 'win'. And without that dichotomy, without any principle driving motivators, why bother with mechanics the player isn't even encouraged to use? I think resources could be done well, in a way many players would enjoy, but not right now, and not with the way the game is currently structured. This isn't Endless Space, this is Space Engineers. One game has a goal and direction, the other is a toy you play with.

I actually can't believe I'm seeing Endless Space being held up as a *good* game. It's a terrible game. I would know- I've played way too much of it myself (and still do, sometimes, for variety). You go and conquer the galaxy- and then what? You get told you won, and that's all. That's just not interesting in the long run... There's a reason games with "Win" or "Lose" conditions lose replay value very quickly. The devs were right to explicitly *AVOID* structuring KSP as a closed-ended game like that...

Space Engineers, on the other hand, is an interesting game that I'd like to play if my graphics card could only handle it...

Life is an open-ended game. Nobody will ever tell you you've "Won" at life- that is entirely up to your own definition (that being said, we can certainly fail to meet the goals we set for ourselves). Why should our actual games be any different?

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. If you *REALLY* want a set of win/lose conditions for KSP, create your own. There's nobody stopping you. Write them down on a piece of paper somewhere, and make a commitment that if you ever fulfill either of them, you'll delete that particular save then and there and start a new one...

Edited May 30, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Rowsdower]

• Everyone on this forum has made typos at one point or another. Let it go, even if it was your handle. I've had the community manager screw up my name repeatedly after I brought it to his attention. Just get over it and don't derail the thread.
  

I can remember once to my knowledge, but I apologize if it's happened after. I admit my typing can be a bit sloppy at times.

[Red Iron Crown]

Half the forum calls you Rowsdowner, so a bit of turnabout isn't out of line.

[Jouni]

That's not the proper way to use Kethane at all. Specialization improves your efficiency. Efficiency gives you more fuel to play with... And specialization also creates a much more interesting set of design challenges...

I used to have more complex kethane infrastructure, but then I slowly realized that it didn't make any sense. Fuel tankers and transfer stages are essentially the same: fuel tanks, nuclear engines, and a docking port. Because kethane containers weight less than fuel tanks and the conversion process creates mass from nothing, it's better to store kethane as kethane and convert it only when needed. Given that the kethane miner also needs engines, fuel tanks, and kethane tanks, and you already have those in the tanker/transfer stage, it's better to add landing struts to that ship, instead of using a separate lander with a lot of duplicate parts.

By making my kethane infrastructure simpler, I also made it more efficient and faster to use, until I had combined everything into a single class of ships. That's what I call successful engineering.

I'm glad you're not in charge of Kethane then... That sounds absolutely horrendous to me... Limited supplies is entirely arbitrary without a realistic (plausible) explanation for them in the form of a real chemical equation, for instance. And I don't like arbitrary...

I'm more concerned about the big refinery that doesn't run out of supplies myself. Everything runs out of supplies sooner or later, and usually it happens sooner rather than later. Also, making things to require less maintenance usually makes them bigger, heavier, more expensive, and less efficient, which are all rather bad attributes when space travel is concerned.

The idea was that the small refinery unit is something you might include in a lander to produce the fuel for the return trip, saving you a lot of mass. If the refinery stops working after producing enough fuel, with a reasonable margin of error, nobody cares. The big refinery is supposed to big enough that you'll actually want to build infrastructure for faraway colonies, instead of carrying small converters with almost every ship just in case.

[LethalDose]

Some people seem to want a resource mining system that's essentially "gather different resources and combine them in different ways to get different products". Such systems are common in RPGs, but I find them boring, and try to ignore them to the extent it's possible.

Which is fine if that is your play-style, and it's a great example of how you find those RPGs fun overall (at least, I assume you do, that's why you play them) despite them having mechanics that you avoid/ignore where possible. Other player's have play-styles that thrive on these systems. As it stands, you can choose to ignore the system, while other players can choose to engage with the system. Both players get what they want.

If you were to remove the system, there would be no choice. You may not mind, but the other player could no longer choose to engage with the system since the devs removed it. This is basically the crux of why it's okay to have some ignorable game mechanics in the core.

I'd wager the most ardent supporters of resources are also largely sandbox-centric players. That isn't an issue, but is a feature that only a small percentage of players will be willing to grind through worth it?

I disagree with you that the most ardent supporters of resources are sandbox-centric players. Anecdotally, it's not true for me (I only play career and I really want resource collection). Even if that is true, I think it's going to change when players realize that they're wasting 4.5km/s of dv and gobs of cash just to launch refueling missions into LKO when there's a game mechanic that could be included to allow orbital fuel generation.

Also, the system is only as grindy as the devs make it. As I've said before, the fact that something could be done wrong is not a reason not to attempt it.

[Kegereneku]

Just a clarification : Sandbox mode doesn't mean a goal-less game. It only describe a game where you can "progress" in several ways and roam freely, but there is still some hard-coded goal.

Minecraft for example, which have no leveling system (the character never change one inch) still have a progression of sort represented by what you can craft.

KSP is an entirely different sort of sandbox, for starter the "sandbox-mode" is actually the "test zone sandbox". The Career-mode while having a tech-tree as a sort of progression can still be considered as a "sandbox/free-roaming" game.

Now a point :

As said before, the ISRU isn't necessarily a goal in itself. Not the machine at least, but the will to use local resources for fuel refueling.

But it can become a goal depending of how it work along career mode which does a progression. For example if you needed ISRU to get science-point, get money or... save money, setting up the machine become a goal.

Now, a functional ISRU system will obligatorily have an influence over career-mode progressiong so I don't think it can be made "optional". You don't HAVE to use it, but not using it will have an influence over the way you play. Making it a full-fledged feature and not just "a mods".

[cantab]

ISRU potentially means you could reach a point in the game where you never had to launch anything from KSP. I don't think that really matches the devs' vision for the game, from what they've said in the past.

Well, if you want you can already reach the stage where you won't have to launch anything to orbit for ages. "Just" create some modules using docking ports that you can combine to make ships for various missions, send a bunch of them into space along with a giant fuel depot and a boatload of Kerbals, and you'll be laying off the VAB and launchpad staff.

[Northstar1989]

Well, if you want you can already reach the stage where you won't have to launch anything to orbit for ages. "Just" create some modules using docking ports that you can combine to make ships for various missions, send a bunch of them into space along with a giant fuel depot and a boatload of Kerbals, and you'll be laying off the VAB and launchpad staff.

Agreed. I've already done that in my Career Mode game in fact- with over 15 Kerbals and 12 kilotons (that's 12,000 tons) of fuel launched to LKO (all by "conventional" means- no ISRU required) I could easily never launch another ship again if I choose to just send up a handful of multipurpose module. Instead, I choose to build specialized vessels for every mission- why, because it's fun? Adding a way to harvest fuel off-planet (in fact I already run both KSP-Interstellar and Kethane, which allow me to do precisely that, and have choose to ignore them so far...) wouldn't have forced me to do anything differently...

Regards,

Northstar