The Ressources-mining feature, do you miss it ?

[coolitic]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/36863-What-not-to-suggest

Awaiting thread lockdown.

[sal_vager]

Awaiting thread lockdown.

Not helping coolitic, as long as the thread stays civil it stays open.

[Red Iron Crown]

Edit: Ninja'd by a mod.

[DoToH]

I think a better aporoach to the resource topic is asking why and not how.

Do we really need resource system? some of us believe it could be a nice feature because of:

Refueling missions (as they currently stand) are BORING. So it would be hard to go wrong with a feature that lets players circumvent them.

I read about complex or simpler possible implementations, but didn't read any reasoned answer about why not having resources. I can't consider "it's not fun" as a valid reason, because players are not suppossed to be forced to use the minning thing. Let's settle this point first. Later on, we can discuss about how complex the system should be or how much development effort would it need. The point is giving Squad a clear view of why a not funny thing could be good for general gameplay (or why not).

One example: killing debris from the tracking station, click and confirm many times is not funny, but clearing every piece of debris with a space tug could be a nightmare for some players (some other players find it funny).

Edited May 25, 2014 by DoToH

[Eric S]

Coming back to the list above, as I pointed out, the answers to most of those questions are competely dependent on the system. The simplest system I can see for resource collection is:

1. Use scanner part to find biome with H2O
   
2. Use collector part to collect H2O from scanned biome
   
3. Use processor part to hyrdolyze H20 into LiquidFuel (LH2) and Oxidizer (LOX)
   
4. Profit
   

That was what I was thinking as well (which isn't to say that that makes it a great idea, I readily admit that my view probably won't match the dev's view). For the kinds of ISRU NASA is talking, finding a compatible biome would be sufficient, they're not talking about trying to find the equivalent of natural gas or oil deposits, which for the most part gets rid of, or at least greatly simplifies, scanning. Without a simplification to scanning and deposits, we'd still be looking at Kethane, but with water taking the place of Kethane.

The important part about the discovery of water on Mars, from the ISRU point of view, was that it wasn't in specific places, it could be baked out of just about any soil on Mars. Water has been discovered on the moon as well, so it's possible that the moon may be in a similar situation, though with lower amounts of water per Kg of soil and it may be harder to extract. Maybe just having a per-biome variable of how fast a basic processor could extract fuel would work.

[G'th]

ISRU, whether its as simple as Kethane or as in-depth as that picture used in the first post, isn't really that complex at all. That has to be the weakest argument against resources in my opinion, because it has no real weight.

For one, it wouldn't even be necessary for people to utilize it. ISRU as a concept is meant to help reduce the costs of space travel as well as providing a way to extend the distances that we can actually reach. We can reach the Moon without having to utilize its resources, and we can also reach Mars without doing so. The point in suggesting it however is so that doing such things can be more easily backed financially. But where ISRU shines is when you want to go farther than that. We could build a rocket (or several) that could send a manned mission to say, Jupiter or even Neptune. But without ISRU you'd end up spending a vast amount more than you would have to make the mission a success. And thats because ISRU would cut out a massive amount of the payloads you'd need.

And that's how it would be in KSP, and exactly how it works in mods that provide such things. It isn't necessary to integrate it into every single mission, but going for it will reduce a lot of what could be required. For instance, instead of packing in the fuel needed for both transfers between Jool and Kerbin, you can pack in fuel for just one transfer, and refuel in Jool's SOI. '

Two, even if they put in a system like the one in that picture, is still not even complicated. The only complicated part about it would be learning the different converters and what you need to find for them to work (and honestly, who upon opening KSP for the first time looked at all the parts and automatically understood what they were all for and how they functioned?). Actually using those parts wouldn't be (and definitely shouldn't be) any harder then hitting the space button. Hell, SSTO's are more complicated than that.

Even those who call the idea tedious really don't have it right, because while yes it could be, the fact of the matter is, most of what you'd do on the surface or in orbit of any planet or moon is going to be tedious. Until they make interactions more involved (and thus delegating possible ISRU to simple background noise that you let run while you do other things on the surface), thats not going to change.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm not sure I buy the "no such thing as overcomplicated, if players find it unenjoyable they can just not use it" line of reasoning. While it is technically true, it ignores the fact that the devs have a finite amount of development time that I suspect they want to spend on features that most, if not all, players will benefit from and enjoy. Their time is better spent either developing an ISRU system that is appealing to most of their players, or ignoring ISRU to focus on things that benefit a greater fraction of their players. I think they're in the second camp right now, but I'm starting to think they should come around to the first camp.

In thinking about DoToH's question of "Why?" rather than "How?" I can see ISRU having the following benefits for the game:

- Can support more and different mission profiles, some of which are plans for real world space programs.

- Frees us a bit from the tyranny of the rocket equation by allowing mid-trip refueling.

- Can lend more purpose to satellites, rovers, bases and tankers.

[G'th]

That is true, but it isn't fair to the people who argue in favor of ISRU to have to counter arguments that are based on the assumption that you would be forced to use ISRU, complex or otherwise, which simply is not the case. And as far as the dev's go, with Kethane being present (and Interstellar to a lesser extent), I can agree that they'd be better off focusing on other things. If anything, I'd rather see Kethane get a complexity pass rather than see it become stock.

And also, it still really isn't complicated at all. All I can say to people who think that is something that really isn't nice. Now, I can say that it is convoluted (and indeed, much of that graph is actually redundant, especially for a game), but complex? Nope. I don't think that people shouldn't use it just because its complicated and they don't like that, I just think that if you don't see a reason to use it, then don't.

Its the same issue with ARM parts. ARM parts (while admittedly slightly more efficient they should be) are meant to be used for payloads that are much larger than most people have gotten accustomed to building. Things like interplanetary vehicles that don't have to be constructed in orbit or larger space station components, for example. Just because for smaller payloads they're completely overpowered for the job doesn't mean you should use them for those payloads. Real rockets aren't built like that. You don't take just any old payload and shove the largest most powerful rocket under it when a smaller rocket can be constructed to specifically lift that payloads weight range into orbit.

But even so, a lot of these issues stem from the fact that KSP isn't limited like real rockets are. At least as far as career players are concerned, budgets are going to eliminate a lot of these issues. You aren't going to put the SLS under a small probe when you'd spend 99% of the cost of the entire mission just on the rocket to get it into orbit.

Edited May 26, 2014 by G'th

[Dodgey]

Personally while at the moment I am against most proposals of ISRU (subject to change) I don't mind the idea that the devs had. I mean look at it, in order to get liquid fuel and oxidizer you had too drill intro the ground and pump the two (only 2) raw materials into a fuel compressor to get liquid fuel and oxidizer. Pretty much what kethane does. Now if you wanted something else say monopropellant you had to do more. Which you should, to me it doesn't make sense to be able to get everything from one raw material.

I say the more depth the better.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Dodgey

[ThermalShark]

Such a system need a maximum cross-compatibility and a minimal-complexity for a first implementation

For example I would suggest limiting the ISRU to 2 new kind of resources with 1 part that do both extraction and conversion and link with a science-part that can tell you which resources you can find where its used (we will let aside the "how you use it" what's important is that it also serve for science).

At that point we could consider using the -I quote- Mobile Processing Lab (manned) but it would still require to add a part that look made for extraction, this part however could be then made easier to fit in a design that one bulky extractor/converter

I agree completely with the first sentence, but this does not means we should make it kethane-like in an attempt to keep it simple. We should place the system gradually, for example with a first update that does the following:

- Renames LiquidFuel to Hydrogen and Oxidiser to Oxygen, but keeping them as just fuel.

- Only water as an extractable resource, actually not "Water", but "Hydrogen"⁽¹⁾ and "Oxygen". Since there is no use for non-electrolyzed water, the extracting unit electrolyzes it automatically.

- 3 extracting units: a drill, an air scoop⁽²⁾ and a water scoop:

- All may return different amounts of Hydrogen and Oxygen on different locations and situations.

- They run on ElectricCharge.

- Makes the LV-N run only on Hydrogen. Using tweakables, it runs on Oxygen, but less efficiently. The reason for this is that you may be in a location/situation where it is easier to collect Oxygen than Hydrogen.

- Maybe: an monopropellant creator, which makes monopropellant from hydrogen and oxygen.⁽³⁾

Now, who would not like an update like that? Well, i am sure most of the community would love this, and would want more. Imagine sending a capture mission to a huge asteroid, then collecting water from it to make the fuel you will use to move it! and maybe even monopropellant!

Also look at this thread. Its creator sends fuel tanks all the way from Kerbin to the surface of Laythe⁽⁴⁾, but he could set up a simple floating water collection platform, and have all the fuel produced right on the surface of Laythe.

Note 1: I know it would be weird for jet engines to consume "Hydrogen", but making a separate "JetFuel" would not be worth it.

Note 2: Air scoops should not be the same as air intakes, because air scoops need to consume electricity, and there are balancing reasons. For the same reasons, IntakeAir should be different from Oxygen.

Note 3: Actually there is a monopropellant in real life that is made only from Hydrogen, Oxygen, and a bit of water. That's hydrogen peroxide, and Northstar mentioned it.

Note 4: At least it was that way when i last read it... And i am not 100% sure if Brotoro is male.

---

As other did I invite Northstar1989 to tone a little down, you've made like a triple post selling a suggestion more than discussing the subject.

Myself I find your proposal to be self-defeating. This is neither simple to use for people who do not want it to be a whole new game, neither that interesting/challenging for more skilled player. Probably because you are focusing on "realism" when you should be thinking "believability" and in term of game-design.

It actually is pretty simple unless you want to dive head-first into it. Remember that the KSP orbital mechanics are very complex, but not only this complexity is fun, but the starting player only needs it gradually, and has a lot of help from others.

And saying that this will make KSP a whole new game is exaggerating; it would be just a major update like 0.18 was.

Not "interesting/challenging for more skilled player"? Well, here are the main alternatives, which are much less interesting and challenging:

- Spending a lot of time (and soon enough, MONEY) sending fuel from Kerbin to Laythe.

- A kethane-like mod that has a single magical resource that is everywhere and does everything. (What i described used only "water", but that was meant to exemplify an initial update on ISRU.)

Interesting and challenging is setting up a second KSC on Dres, or making an huge ship that goes to every celestial body and deploys landers and satellites on all of them, using ISRU to get water from asteroids to fuel the nuclear thermal rockets, then arriving on Jool and deploying hydrogen-collecting probes. Or an orbital construction outpost on the asteroid belt. (i know that goes beyond ISRU, but ISRU would be a major part in it.)

And with a complex system like the one Northstar proposed, it would be a great engineering challenge, much more fun than if using a kethane-like system, and it would also make a great story to post on the forums.

[Rowsdower]

Forgive me for bringing up some older pieces of the post, but I'd like to clarify a few things about team tasks, WNTS, etc.

If you want to change my mind about SQUAD dropping the ball on resource collection, you can address the reasons I've provided in my original post. Either way, I don't expect to be posting again on this thread. The mods are clearly already looking for a reason to lock it.

Please do not think we sit there clamoring for the chance to lock a thread, especially ones in which we make an appearance. It's a an unfortunate, but necessary evil to have to do so during thread where it's felt it must be done, but so far, the course of the thread has thus far proved otherwise. I stepped in initially to reiterate the topic's place on WNTS and to ensure that things stay civil, which leads me to this...

Which is why things get on the do-not-discuss list. They gave their answer, and you don't consider it valid. This leaves them with rather limited choices. They can waste time giving the same answer over and over again, they can just be uncommunicative on the topic, they can add the topic to the do-not-discuss list, or they can give in to the demands. You may have convinced yourself that your argument is flawless, but you haven't convinced me, and I'm in favor of ISRU. Heck, at the time they killed it, I said that while I could understand their reasoning, it's not the decision I would have made. That's still my opinion, in fact.

Please note that WNTS is not an official Squad list. It is not a company mandate. The main reason for resources being on WNTS is because the particular topic is well known and tends to carry a lot of heat with it whenever it's brought up. It makes our (the forum staff) job harder and attributes to a lot of bad feelings in the threads where the topic has carried on - bad feelings that could cause confusion, misdirection and could be carried to other areas around the forum if not careful.

[Esme]

My two penn'orth is this -

1. I think KSP exactly as supplied, unmodded, is a pretty durned good game, and both better value for money and less buggy than a few games I've bought in years gone by that were supposedly ready for prime time.

2. By inclination, I'm a science geek. I've been just a teeny-weeny bit apprehensive of what adding contracts to the game might bring to it until I read in one of the earlier posts about money and science and reputation (? first I've heard of reputation in the game, but I can imagine ways that could be incorporated) being likely to be inetrchangeable. Excellent! That should let me stay mostly in my mental sciency heaven where the claim that 'the beancounters will come get you!' is a threat used to scare naughty little Kerbals into being good.

3. The fact that KSP has by design been made so that it's so easy to apply mods means that right now, you can take the base game and mod it to your liking. For this, all I can say is 'thank you SQUAD, a thousand times thank you!'. That means that I can gradually add mods to increase the realism until one day I'll be ready to start a game in which I attempt Duna Direct , the Kerbal-fied version of Zubrin's Mars Direct plan (and which last I knew, NASA was kind of going for in a surprisingly only slightly less efficient form called Mars semi-Direct).

4. If - please note I say IF - Squad took away the ability to tailor the game to a large extent, that could possibly mean that they'd also make it less fun for me. Totally depends on what they adjusted of course - could be they'd adjust it so I'd find it even more fun! But the point I'm trying to get across here really is that for me, the fact that KSP can be played so many different ways ('hey. let's throw stuff together and see what happens' through to 'I'm going to design the equipment on paper, plot all the trajectories and manouvres beforehand and essentially make NASA look like a bunch of sloppy yahoos in my nerdy OCD-ness') is an absolutely huge part of what makes the game not merely good, but great.

5. I'd like real resources in suitable real-world-analogue sites, please, ideally. Barring that, a simplification of realistic, but using real-world names for preference. Failing that, I'll give whatever is created a go and then voice my opinion on it after - hey, it might turn out better than I'd anticipate with made up resources. But please be warned - if you dare stick something called 'unobtainium' in the game, SQUAD, I may have to have a few stern words with you. Foot-tapping and eye-squinting might be involved. ;-}

6. I like Northstar's posts in this thread.

7. I've used the Kethane mod - I think it's pretty good, but it;d be better if it covered a few different resources, so maybe kethane itself on a Titan analogue, but two separate ingredients for synthesising kethane on Duna - and no kethane on the Mun, but maybe plenty of stuff good for making parts or structures from.

8. At the moment, in the unmodded game, we can choose to start career or sandbox games. Might it not be possible to have a variety of options (just as one does with graphics and audio settings) so that you could toggle contracts on or off, science on or off, maybe even have a realism low-medium-high (in terms of physics) selector, life support on/off realistic comms on/off and so on? That way, we can all set up the base game the way we like it - and then there's STILL mods too!

Right - off to do some fun stuff (setting up my first Mun base with a kethane mining unit) :-)

[LethalDose]

Please do not think we sit there clamoring for the chance to lock a thread, especially ones in which we make an appearance. It's a an unfortunate, but necessary evil to have to do so during thread where it's felt it must be done, but so far, the course of the thread has thus far proved otherwise. I stepped in initially to reiterate the topic's place on WNTS and to ensure that things stay civil, which leads me to this...

Well, we can't very well discuss it since the rules expressly forbid "open discussions on staff decisions". Suffice it to say my view that led me to make the statement quoted above did not form in a vacuum, but obviously I can't bring up those reasons because of rule 3.4. Sooooo... whatever?

I'm not sure I buy the "no such thing as overcomplicated, if players find it unenjoyable they can just not use it" line of reasoning. While it is technically true, it ignores the fact that the devs have a finite amount of development time that I suspect they want to spend on features that most, if not all, players will benefit from and enjoy. Their time is better spent either developing an ISRU system that is appealing to most of their players, or ignoring ISRU to focus on things that benefit a greater fraction of their players. I think they're in the second camp right now, but I'm starting to think they should come around to the first camp.

In thinking about DoToH's question of "Why?" rather than "How?" I can see ISRU having the following benefits for the game:

- Can support more and different mission profiles, some of which are plans for real world space programs.

- Frees us a bit from the tyranny of the rocket equation by allowing mid-trip refueling.

- Can lend more purpose to satellites, rovers, bases and tankers.

I'm not G'th, but I don't think he was saying that there's "No such thing as overcomplicated". There absolutely is, but I don't think most resource collection proposals on this thread would qualify, and by all means the system should be implemented in a very simple manner first, then built on further. A resource system should be built from the ground up, and after each round of revision the devs should ask "Is there a reason to build on this system?". If the answer is 'yes', then they should expand the system. If the answer is 'no', then they should stop.

The stock resource system as it stands now is extremely simplistic. I think there are about 6 stock resources (LF, Ox, Xe, Electricity, monoprop, intake air?). They all have exactly one use, except for LF that has two (can be burnt with Ox or intake air) and electricity (has a lot of uses). LF, Ox, Xe, and MP must all be replenished from KSC. To me, this is boring, and mods that increase the complexity of the resource system like TAC-LS go a long way to increasing my enjoyment of the game.

Anyway, I'm glad that you're starting to see some of the benefits of a resource collection system. Maybe one day the devs will come around as well.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm not G'th, but I don't think he was saying that there's "No such thing as overcomplicated". There absolutely is, but I don't think most resource collection proposals on this thread would qualify, and by all means the system should be implemented in a very simple manner first, then built on further. A resource system should be built from the ground up, and after each round of revision the devs should ask "Is there a reason to build on this system?". If the answer is 'yes', then they should expand the system. If the answer is 'no', then they should stop.

I wasn't necessarily referring to G'th, though he was nosing around that line of thought, too. I was mostly saying that implementing a feature that many wouldn't use (an overly complex resource system) is not a good use of dev resources, even if players aren't forced to use it. A simple system has the virtue of being more accessible and thus usable to most players, but I think we're on the same page about that.

The stock resource system as it stands now is extremely simplistic. I think there are about 6 stock resources (LF, Ox, Xe, Electricity, monoprop, intake air?). They all have exactly one use, except for LF that has two (can be burnt with Ox or intake air) and electricity (has a lot of uses). LF, Ox, Xe, and MP must all be replenished from KSC. To me, this is boring, and mods that increase the complexity of the resource system like TAC-LS go a long way to increasing my enjoyment of the game.

It's a good thing that the resource system is simplistic. I would suggest that if ISRU is implemented it should take the simplest form possible (H2O + Ec -> LF + Ox or H2O + Ec -> MP). For that matter, water could be an abstraction for the life support resource, too; I've seen it suggested that kerbals are photosynthetic.

Anyway, I'm glad that you're starting to see some of the benefits of a resource collection system. Maybe one day the devs will come around as well.

Just as long as the implementation doesn't involve me staring at a refinery/converter/dril/whatever while it does its thing, and the system isn't complex for complexity's sake, I'm on board. Maybe the devs will come around, maybe not. They've got a lot of other fish to fry, too.

[ThermalShark]

When squad said they have no plans for implementing this system, they didn't mean they planned to not implement it. This is one of those things that will with no doubt be eventually added to KSP, because a complete space program game simply cannot be complete without them. Imagine playing KSP, many years from now, and trying to make a colony in Eeloo, but being forced to send all supplies (other than ElectricCharge) from Kerbin, activity which wastes 98.2% of the money invested in the project. And all that with lots of water ice just below the base. This would be stupid, and the same as not having bases in career mode. So, obviously this will be implemented in KSP some day, and i hope this day to be in this year. Even if just water extracting, that would be great just on it's own. Mods would be made to use the water and oxygen for life support, and the system could be made so that mods can add more extractable resources.

[LethalDose]

@R.I.C. I would consider any resource collection/mining/IRSU in stock a step in the right direction. I also agree with you that it should not be complex for complexity's sake (I think that's where the presented chart failed miserably). Overall, I think we're on the same page about the value of the system being implemented, despite having different tastes re: complexity.

I would like to offer the following comparison, though, as food for thought:

Space planes have been included in the game, and are very complex and not very approachable to many players.

I'm not going to defend or rebut that point, and I'd ask other posters not to delve into it either (at least just not on this thread). I'm simply asking community members (and, hey, maybe even a dev) to think about the complexity and approachability of space planes compared to the complexity and approachability of proposed ISRU systems of low to moderate complexity.

When squad said they have no plans for implementing this system, they didn't mean they planned to not implement it. This is one of those things that will with no doubt be eventually added to KSP, because a complete space program game simply cannot be complete without them.

ThermalShark, I applaud your optimism, and truly wish I shared it.

[quasarrgames]

I'm glad they scrapped the Resource mining instead of giving us a boring, overly complicated, and unnecessary feature. I prefer kethane anyways.

That being said, i wish Squad would have made the resource system a company-made mod that people could install if they wanted to, or not. that way the people who wanted to use realistic resource mining could use it, and those who didn't wouldn't be stuck with the feature they didn't want.

[Red Iron Crown]

I would like to offer the following comparison, though, as food for thought:

Space planes have been included in the game, and are very complex and not very approachable to many players.

I'm not going to defend or rebut that point, and I'd ask other posters not to delve into it either (at least just not on this thread). I'm simply asking community members (and, hey, maybe even a dev) to think about the complexity and approachability of space planes compared to the complexity and approachability of proposed ISRU systems of low to moderate complexity.

That's an interesting comparison, in that it illustrates how a relatively simple addition can change the nature of the game.

Before C7's mod hit the scene, KSP was about rockets, period. The aerodynamic model, while flawed, was generally considered adequate, because all we were doing was chugging through it on the way up and burning through it on the way down. We didn't care about CoL, and the control surfaces in the game allowed us to use the atmosphere for control authority in the lower atmosphere. We spent most of our time in space anyway.

That all changed with spaceplane parts, when the mod arrived and later when it was incorporated into the core game.

Suddenly, the flaws in the aerodynamic system became glaringly apparent. Designing planes is, as you say, complex so the devs felt some construction aids were needed to make the process more approachable. (Try constructing a working plane without CoL and CoT markers to see what I mean.) We even needed a runway and hangar added to make planes more usable.

The player base changed, too. Instead of just rocketry types, the piloting/flight sim players began to be more attracted to KSP. With them came calls for better aero, IVA views, and more things to explore on Kerbin's surface, features that were a lower priority to the rocketry crowd. The focus of the game started to shift a little bit away from doing things in orbit/space to doing things in the atmosphere.

Whether these changes were good for the game as a whole is debatable, and very much depends on what you like to do in KSP and your vision of what the game should be. My point is that incorporating a mod consisting of a few dozen parts has had a ripple effect through the rest of the game, in ways I'm not sure anyone would have predicted. The same might be true of adding ISRU, in that changing some of the core mechanics might affect the game in ways that are difficult to predict.

So, while I personally agree that an ISRU system might be desirable, I can understand the devs treading carefully about it.

[DoToH]

Just as long as the implementation doesn't involve me staring at a refinery/converter/dril/whatever while it does its thing, and the system isn't complex for complexity's sake, I'm on board. Maybe the devs will come around, maybe not. They've got a lot of other fish to fry, too.

This reminds me the first problem (and many times addressed as a Kethane weak point) with resource mining. Other feature is needed before resource mining: we need resource consumption/production while on rails and unfocussed.

Launch a probe with 10 units of electric charge, without batteries or solar panels, get to LKO and switch to the tracking station, timewarp for a year and when you get back to the probe.... magically near full of electric charge!!. You can get to Jool and back without panels. Also... deplete your comsat/mapsat charge (extend panels before), stop energy consumption and leave it in HKO, switch to the tracking station and timewarp for a year. No additional charge from panels when you get back.

This has to be resolved before any form of resource mining is implemented. Once done, no need to be "staring at a refinery/converter/dril/whatever while it does its thing".

I am planning to make a mod/API to simulate electric charge comsumption/production while unfoccused but I found one big problem (my programing skills limited mostly to C and knowing near to nothing about KSP API are little problems XD). While fixed rate consumption/production is easy to implement, solar panel production is a pain. I played with some aproaches, but none of them looks good enough.

If devs take on this task (they clearly have more odds than me to succeed), any resource mining addon/feature would be easier to make and more user friendly. The player would build the base/refinery/whatever, turn it on and leave it running, going there later on to collect products, i.e. build, land and fly rockets around (which is what this game is about). Simple or complex resource chain implementations would be possible.

I prefer simple resource chain implementations like this one

I would suggest that if ISRU is implemented it should take the simplest form possible (H2O + Ec -> LF + Ox or H2O + Ec -> MP). For that matter, water could be an abstraction for the life support resource, too

Just add ICE to get water (ICE -> WATER -> LOX + LH2) and tweak the ice production rate to be different at each celestial body.

Simple enough to prevent heavy management and complex enough to give players more things to do (which is what this is all about).

The key is off-focus consumption/production. Without it, any ISRU would lead to the same complains as kethane (babysitting facilities), like Red Iron Crown pointed about aerodynamics with the addition of plane parts.

Personally, I have Kethane installed because it's (IMO) the best approach available at the time to the system I would like to have

Edited May 26, 2014 by DoToH

[Northstar1989]

KSP has some pretty advanced orbital mechanics, and interplanetary transfers are extremely complex to a player sending their first mission to the Mun. But a new player don't need to know interplanetary transfers, they just need to know basic orbital mechanics and munar injection.

They do need mastering rendezvous and knowing interplanetary transfers, but only much later in the game. That way, KSP can have advanced orbital mechanics, while still not being 'too advanced', as the player only needs to learn it gradually. The result is that the player learns physics, orbital mechanics and a bit of astronomy and rocket engineering, while doing something that they like.

And that is without mentioning that said player will have lots of help: There are the in-game tutorials, YouTube tutorials, the wiki, the forum...

With Northstar's idea of a complex chemical system, the same thing would happen. A player that has already landed unmanned rovers on Duna will be wanting to take a step forward, and decide it is time to launch a long duration manned mission to Duna, or set up a base on the Mun. For that, the player will only need to use the basics of the ISRU system, which is to use H2O to make H2 and O2, not only for fuel but also for life support.

(And of course, the same player can also just get a huge lifter and assemble in orbit the 2-3 parts of the interplanetary ship, with all the fuel that will be needed.)

When this player decide to take still another step forward, they will also get a lot of help, again from in-game tutorials, the wiki, YouTube and the forums, and they may also have a quick reference chart when planning the mission.

On the other side, a very experienced player with ambitious plans to make a base Laythe that is not only self-sufficient but self-expandable, will need to use the most advanced of reactions and construction methods, which i don't even know, even though i know that are possible.

In short, my point is that as long as it's implemented in a good way, there is no such thing as 'too complex', because games have the power to make anyone easily learn anything.

How did I miss replying to this post before? It's AWESOME!

But seriously, I'm in total agreement. The advantage of a *properly* done ISRU system (not the one on the chart in the OP that the devs were originally considering) is that it is scalable in terms of difficulty and complexity. It allows players to pick it up just a little bit at a time.

The fact that the easiest way to do this is to follow the path of realism (simply mining water and electrolyzing it to ice gives you O2 and water for life-support, and combustible rations of H2 and O2, for instance) is just a bonus...

I didn't like the idea posted in the chart because it was complex for complexity's sake. A complex system based on real resources and reactions would have been (a) easier to understand and more intuitive and ( more scalable in terms of difficult- players wouldn't have needed to learn a complex chart, just how to mine ice...

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

Well. Kethane is the ultimate simple of resource-gathering as you already know. KSPi's resource gathering does strike a nice balance of complexity though (which I know you probably know, Nemoricus, but not everyone has tried KSPi yet). It's not a horrendous map of chemical reactions requiring degrees in organic and inorganic chemistry, but there's more than one type of thing you can do. Alumina plus water electrolysis for hybrid engines. Basically you can drop yourself down anywhere on Mün, which is all alumina with a small water concentration, fire up the ISRU, and fuel up. Thorium/uranium mining for the beamed-power reactors. Nuclear reprocessing for making the nuclear fuel last longer. Ammonium and peroxide (which itself is made from water) for making monopropellant with.

KSP-Interstellar does indeed strike a nice balance. Most players would be well off to try it. I also like that the resources aren't limited- if you play with Kethane, you can mine out an entire moon, and only get one or two Rockomax-Jumbo tanks of LFO out of it...

There are more advanced reactions, but I must say I've never used them (yet) because they aren't really essential. They're a "nice to have" feature for getting more out of your reactors, for instance.

Uhhh, what advanced reactions? Unless you're talking about the Sabatier Reaction- which is actually simpler than producing Monopropellent (simply combine hydrogen, as LiquidFuel, and CO2 in the atmosphere- get methane and water, both potential propellents for thermal rockets. Electrolyze the water, and you've got some Oxidizer to burn a portion of the methane with and hydrogen to feed back into the cycle. Repeat, until done), there aren't really any "advanced" ISRU reactions that I'm aware of. You can't even produced Xenon yet- from isolation from Munar/Ike regolith (some regolith on Luna contains Xenon bubbles in real life).

Of course, it's still a really awesome, and surprisingly intuitive, mod nonetheless...

Of course resource gathering is a means rather than an end, which is something I guess I didn't make clear in my first post. However, the end is "yay, I don't have to keep shipping huge numbers of massive craft to Jool". The end is "great, I can send one rocket with a boatload of science parts and analyze five different Minmus biomes before returning". This has got to be worth some consideration.

Indeed. ISRU couldn't possibly make KSP worse, even if they messed it up, because it's only a means to an end- and can safely be ignored if desired.

So long as the basic version of ISRU isn't complex (and it needn't be, water is possibly the most abundant molecule in the known universe), then I can't see how it would be too intimidating. Find water deposit, land on water deposit, electrolyse. LiquidFuel and Oxidizer obtained. Job done. Have advanced ISRU/ISCF features there for later-game activities, and balance it so that the advanced features are not required to make the game possible, but are very nice to have.

Definitely! I agree 100% and wholeheartedly!

The scalability of ISRU, and its accessibility to new players (all you need to know is that water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom- who doesn't know that?) would make it a valuable addition to the game.

And, as suggested in another post, it might attract new types of players to KSP- which is rarely a bad thing...

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

I think a better aporoach to the resource topic is asking why and not how.

I read about complex or simpler possible implementations, but didn't read any reasoned answer about why not having resources. I can't consider "it's not fun" as a valid reason, because players are not suppossed to be forced to use the minning thing. Let's settle this point first. Later on, we can discuss about how complex the system should be or how much development effort would it need. The point is giving Squad a clear view of why a not funny thing could be good for general gameplay (or why not).

One example: killing debris from the tracking station, click and confirm many times is not funny, but clearing every piece of debris with a space tug could be a nightmare for some players (some other players find it funny).

Total. Agreement.

You're right- maybe we should spend a bit more time discussing why and not how first...

Does anyone have an argument to put forward about why an ISRU system would *not* be a good idea? Keep in mind that nothing would force a player to use it if they didn't want to... (although they might miss out on some minor benefits/rewards for doing so through the Contracts system or such)

Regards,

Northstar

[allmhuran]

I think I said before that I've never seen anyone argue that a resource system is necessarily bad in and of itself. The argument as to "why not" is simply "because development time is itself a finite resource".

[cantab]

Time spent developing the ISRU is time spent not developing something else. Such as better aerodynamics, more parts, fixing the bugs that continue to plague the game, or even getting the 1.0 release out and Squad going on to develop their next big thing.

And while it's highly likely to be enjoyable, highly likely to enrich the game, I don't see ISRU as a core part of the game. I wouldn't say it's something KSP needs to be an accurate and fun experience, in the same sense that it needs better aerodynamics and needs bug fixes.

True, you can level these accusations at most game features (career mode, for example), but it should still be remembered that there's an opportunity cost to everything. And that, as I previously stated, if Squad put in every cool feature they'll end up with a bloated mess.

[Northstar1989]

I think I said before that I've never seen anyone argue that a resource system is necessarily bad in and of itself. The argument as to "why not" is simply "because development time is itself a finite resource".

Indeed, dev time is a finite resource- determined mainly by how long KSP continues to attract new players and game purchases.

Adding ISRU might attract a few players (I'm sure SOMEONE would make an awesome YouTube video showing it off), and it certainly isn't going to drive any away in and of itself...

Regards,

Northstar