The Ressources-mining feature, do you miss it ?

[LaydeeDem]

What I don't like is how Squad implements things halfway and never finishes. See: Kerbol System, Spaceplane Parts, Re-Entry Heating, Science, and according to the testers, Contracts were almost going to be on this list too.

I don't give a damn if updates take two months to finish if it means we get features that aren't half-done.

[ThirdHorseman]

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.

And they, IMHO, correctly dropped a system that was far more complicated than was required. All I need from a resource system is a way of supplying fuel to far-off ships/rovers/bases without having to constantly bring it all from Kerbin...requiring time-intensive and boring supply runs repeated over-and-over. I don't see how that over-complicates anything or removes any "fun" from the game. You want to keep shipping orange tanks from Kerbin to your base on Minmus? Go right ahead...

And I always bring up Kethane because I think it is an excellent example of how to perform the above with minimal complexity and maximal immersion. If there were a better system I'd use it as a reference instead.

[Red Iron Crown]

Motivation and goals in this game come from the player, not from the game.

This is such an important point that it needs singling out. I feel like more and more of the gameplay mechanics are being designed to give us something to do. Personally, I've never had a problem finding new things to do in KSP, there are always more difficult things to attempt. I can see how many players might be turned off by the complete lack of scoring, achievements, specific goals, win/lose conditions, or any other external motivations, but for me that's part of why the game has held my attention for so long. The more the game moves to directing the player what needs to be done, the more that charm evaporates for me.

I know that KSP always needs to be attracting new players, and that many (most?) players respond to external motivation and direct, explicit reward. I just think the game is at risk of losing a big part of its appeal and charm if it gives in to the temptation to cater to those who can't find anything interesting to do in KSP.

[Redwizard000]

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.

[Edited to address arguments presented while typing]

Both of these features would be pretty cool. Especially if you could harvest things off of asteroids. You could capture an asteroid and build your orbital refueling base around the asteroid. Then you wouldn't need to continuously ship fuel tanks into orbit. You could also strip mine the asteroids into materials needed to build ships in orbit. Building ships in orbit would be cool because you would be able to easily build extremely complex or asymmetrical things in orbit that would be difficult to build on the planet. Isn't that one of the proposed things to do with a captured asteroid in RL?

It would also be neat to be able to build bases on planets that actually do something, like build new ships, repair ships, mine fuel.

I think something like this should be added to the game at some point, I don't think it needs to be right this second though. When resource management becomes a feature it needs to be well thought out and developed, not a quick patch that adds another dialogue box to click OK on.

Also I would love to see food and life support added to the game at some point. My lost Kerbal that has literally been orbiting the sun for 40 years with a big smile on his face is really killing the realism for me...

[Eric S]

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.

I assume you mean the feature, not the whole game. I agree with this even though I don't agree with everything you say. I respect your opinion even where we disagree, and as long as we all follow that, we'll probably have a discussion that the moderators don't have to jump into.

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 agree completely here. In fact, I think the devs do as well. They haven't said "no resources ever." What they did say was "not that way." In fact, they sounded like they were interested in finding a more interesting way to do ISRU. Nothing has come of it because career mode takes priority, but that isn't saying that there won't be a simplified ISRU system after career mode is at least mostly in place.

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.

Agreed. I think the original mechanic was to cover both ISRU and orbital construction. While I think that the devs intend to cover ISRU type stuff, I think that orbital construction belongs to mods or an expansion, it really doesn't fit well with the dev's current focus of KSP.

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.

I think that the point of view on AFK gaming revolves around the fact that the longer you do it, the greater your gain. Waiting longer for a launch window might get you a better window, but diminishing returns set in fast. Waiting longer on a transit orbit means you miss the target.

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.

The devs made it very clear early on that they wanted to stay away from time-based incomes for precisely this reason, so I don't think we'll see this.

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.

I think that this is where we start disagreeing. The devs have stated why they scrapped the resource system the chart was based on, and you even seem to agree with that decision. They did not say that there would never be an ISRU system in game. And then they turned their focus to career mode, and not a lot that isn't career mode is going to happen until career mode is more fleshed out. What part of that are you disagreeing with? It seems to me that the only points of disagreement would be 1) the original resource system shouldn't have been scrapped, or 2) a replacement system that can cover ISRU should be prioritized higher than career mode, with a possible 3) the devs should commit to covering ISRU before the game is considered finished. The first has been responded to. The second assumes that ISRU would be more important to the finished game than career mode. The third assumes that the devs consider ISRU important enough to commit to doing something they have yet to find an acceptable (to them) way to implement.

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.

Here's were we more strongly disagree. Just because they don't follow the community input in every case doesn't mean that they aren't interested in community input. Ever want to go to the movies, and ask what movie someone else wants to see and they suggest something you're not at all interested in? Just because you aren't interested in seeing that movie doesn't mean that you're not interested in finding some other movie that you're both interested in seeing. The community is not in charge. I believe our input is valuable, but it's not going to force the devs to do something that they consider unacceptable. The customer is not always right.

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.

They have given what I see as valid reasons. The reason that this is such a touchy subject is because some people don't consider those reasons valid, and some of these people can get rather insulting about their disagreement. Even with how "friendly" this community is, usually as soon as this comes up, there will be people leveling accusations at the devs about being lazy, incompetent, and similar, without any more evidence than they didn't get what they want.

There's not much reason to discuss something when the people starting the dialog aren't saying anything new and don't consider the previous answer to be acceptable unless you've got a different answer, as all that will happen is that the previous discussion is going to get repeated. Repeating the same argument over and over without anyone changing their opinion may be a popular internet past time, but I don't think it has a valid place in software development.

That said, being insulting is not the exclusive domain of people that are upset with Squad, and I don't support that either. I may be indelicate expressing my opinion to someone being likewise indelicate (not referring to you, I hope I haven't insulted you, I'm legitimately trying to answer what I can and I'm open to discuss what I can't), but I've got no reason to be insulting. Insults don't win debates. Not that there's much that does win debates on the internet, but what can you do?

[Aghanim]

So, if vanilla ISRU won't be implemented, how do we refuel our ship in the outer planet? Bring more fuel from Kerbin, like now? But well, without something that requires us to go to a planet back and forth that isn't useful. This applies to KSPi and Kethane too

Like, an option to start a new civilization or so

Conclusion: No, ISRU won't be really necessary until we got a real other solar system

Edited May 24, 2014 by Aghanim

[LethalDose]

I assume you mean the feature, not the whole game. I agree with this even though I don't agree with everything you say. I respect your opinion even where we disagree, and as long as we all follow that, we'll probably have a discussion that the moderators don't have to jump into.

The mods already have jumped into the argument. Rowsdower has already issued a veiled warning above. And yes, it's a typo.

I agree completely here. In fact, I think the devs do as well. They haven't said "no resources ever." What they did say was "not that way." In fact, they sounded like they were interested in finding a more interesting way to do ISRU. Nothing has come of it because career mode takes priority, but that isn't saying that there won't be a simplified ISRU system after career mode is at least mostly in place.

If they've repeatedly made it very clear that they currently have no plans on revisiting any form of resource collection in the game. The point of threads like this and posts like mine is to express interest.

Agreed. I think the original mechanic was to cover both ISRU and orbital construction. While I think that the devs intend to cover ISRU type stuff, I think that orbital construction belongs to mods or an expansion, it really doesn't fit well with the dev's current focus of KSP.

See above, devs have said repeatedly they have no intention of resource collection/ISRU/

I think that the point of view on AFK gaming revolves around the fact that the longer you do it, the greater your gain. Waiting longer for a launch window might get you a better window, but diminishing returns set in fast. Waiting longer on a transit orbit means you miss the target.

In practically every other game, resources collection has some capacity. KSP has containers with limited sizes. Waiting beyond containers being full would be pointless, because there were would be no further gain. At the end of a transfer, you need to perform a manuever; at the end of harvesting, you would need to build something, or otherwise interact with the craft. Both situations have set intervals where the player waits. One isn't "AFK gaming" more than the other, as both have set endpoints that require player interaction.

The devs made it very clear early on that they wanted to stay away from time-based incomes for precisely this reason, so I don't think we'll see this.

Source? But I seriously don't care since the veracity of that statement is completely unnecessary for my opinion to be valid.

I think that this is where we start disagreeing. The devs have stated why they scrapped the resource system the chart was based on, and you even seem to agree with that decision. They did not say that there would never be an ISRU system in game. And then they turned their focus to career mode, and not a lot that isn't career mode is going to happen until career mode is more fleshed out. What part of that are you disagreeing with? It seems to me that the only points of disagreement would be 1) the original resource system shouldn't have been scrapped, or 2) a replacement system that can cover ISRU should be prioritized higher than career mode, with a possible 3) the devs should commit to covering ISRU before the game is considered finished. The first has been responded to. The second assumes that ISRU would be more important to the finished game than career mode. The third assumes that the devs consider ISRU important enough to commit to doing something they have yet to find an acceptable (to them) way to implement.

No one is forcing a choice between the a complete career mode OR ISRU, and you're second point is forcing at best forcing a false equivalency (ISRU means incomplete career mode) and at worst forcing words into my mouth. I don't know what assumptions you're talking about in the third point. Again, they've made it very clear they aren't interested in looking at it all. From all indications I can find, they tried to incorporate ISRU in one horribly flawed implementation, and then concluded it was impossible to implement it into the game. That's like human flight is impossible because Icarus fell from the the sky.

Here's were we more strongly disagree. Just because they don't follow the community input in every case doesn't mean that they aren't interested in community input. Ever want to go to the movies, and ask what movie someone else wants to see and they suggest something you're not at all interested in? Just because you aren't interested in seeing that movie doesn't mean that you're not interested in finding some other movie that you're both interested in seeing. The community is not in charge. I believe our input is valuable, but it's not going to force the devs to do something that they consider unacceptable. The customer is not always right.

If they want us to stop asking, they need to give a substantial reason.

They have given what I see as valid reasons. The reason that this is such a touchy subject is because some people don't consider those reasons valid, and some of these people can get rather insulting about their disagreement. Even with how "friendly" this community is, usually as soon as this comes up, there will be people leveling accusations at the devs about being lazy, incompetent, and similar, without any more evidence than they didn't get what they want.

If they don't want to keep seeing these threads, than they have to provide substantial reasons they aren't pursuing the mechanici. I explained why the reasons provided by HarvestR and the mods here are completely insufficient. Nothing in this post, or elsewhere, refutes these critiques. If you're not going to fully address either what's wrong with ISRU mechanics being included in KSP or address why my critques are wrong, there's no point to continuing this line of discussion.

There's not much reason to discuss something when the people starting the dialog aren't saying anything new and don't consider the previous answer to be acceptable unless you've got a different answer, as all that will happen is that the previous discussion is going to get repeated. Repeating the same argument over and over without anyone changing their opinion may be a popular internet past time, but I don't think it has a valid place in software development.

A different (and reasonable) answer is what I'm asking for, and IMO is going to be necessary for the huge portion of the community that wants this feature to let it go. Again, I've addressed why the reasons that have been provided are insufficient, and I don't see anyone providing any convincing evidence to why any of them are incorrect. You certainly aren't. In fact, it seems that you've hacked all those discussions out of what you chose to respond to.

That said, being insulting is not the exclusive domain of people that are upset with Squad, and I don't support that either. I may be indelicate expressing my opinion to someone being likewise indelicate (not referring to you, I hope I haven't insulted you, I'm legitimately trying to answer what I can and I'm open to discuss what I can't), but I've got no reason to be insulting. Insults don't win debates. Not that there's much that does win debates on the internet, but what can you do?

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.

[Superfluous J]

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

Oh I know it. I can pretty much credit Kethane and ELP for my still playing this game.

I wasn't talking about ISRU in general. I was talking about Squad's implementation of it. I can't miss it any more than I can miss dating that supermodel.

For me personally, I want the game to direct me a little bit. Give me stuff to do, and sure give me a few goals and pat me on the head when I complete them. That won't stop me from trying to set up a Tylo base, but it may give me a few preferable targets on its surface.

[allmhuran]

I really think that this topic keeps coming up because there has never been a solid argument against it.

I haven't seen any post that came out and said "I don't want any kind of "resource" mechanic in the game no matter what". After all, we do already have a couple of kinds of "resource" mechanics in the game (fuel/oxidizer/electric charge, and "science points").

The problem has always been figuring out how to make it fun an interesting, and this is what Squad struggled with.

It may be that most people are locked into one particular view of what resources must mean, and it's basically the same as the Kethane mod: "Land, get out, gather, spend". And if that is the case, then sal's comments about resource gathering in RTS games really does seem to apply: "Gather" is usually not really very inspired, it simply means clicking the "gather" button and waiting. But it's not worth Squad's time to implement all of this simply for the player to click a dialog box. (Which, again, is exactly the problem with science at the moment).

For resources to introduce fun and interesting gameplay, it needs to be a different kind of mechanic. But no-one has, as yet, come up with what that might involve. I mean both the abstract concept and the details of how it would be implemented, so that we see what makes it fun.

I think KerbMav's comment from page one is a critical piece of this: In order for resources to "work", we might need ships to be able to do stuff when they're not focused, and even in rails warp. But if we only enable gathering during warp, then again, the mechanic hasn't changed much. Click dialog box, wait, turn on rails warp so you don't have to wait as long. It may be a necessary change, but it's not sufficient. There needs to be a counterbalancing mechanic.

Another approach would be to make gathering itself somehow fun. I'm not sure what this might entail. Simply driving a rover around looking for where resources might be isn't really fun, it's just a tedious exercise in chance. There needs to be some kind of directed, clear challenge to the player. And again, I've yet to see anyone provide a detailed description of an idea that might achieve something like this. I've seen dozens of very high level, sentence-or-two ideas without any detail, but when you really flesh them out they usually turn into something that doesn't really engage the player.

Another way of putting all of that would be in the form of the following: Whaever resources involves, it must give the player something to do. And that thing must be able to be done both poorly and done well, so that the player is faced with a challenge and a skill that they can improve upon.

Edited May 24, 2014 by allmhuran

[NERVAfan]

I'd like to see some kind of resource gathering, but I really would like to see what contracts provide in terms of "goals" before suggesting a particular way to implement it.

I do think it would be good if it encouraged a real connection between the different things you're doing in different places. I think it would be nice if, say, Minmus had one thing and Mun had another, and to supply a base in either place without shipments from Kerbin, you needed both. (Or if you had to find them on two different places on Mun - say polar craters vs rock outcroppings elsewhere -- or whatever).

OTOH, that would be really hard to do in the existing game when there's only one kind of fuel and oxidizer (barring ion engines) and no life support resources, so again, I think what form it should take will be dependent on future developments (will there be stock life support?)

If that doesn't turn out to be feasible, though, I'd have no objection to just putting Kethane into the stock game wholesale.

[Eric S]

The mods already have jumped into the argument. Rowsdower has already issued a veiled warning above. And yes, it's a typo.

He issued a warning. I wouldn't call it veiled, that's pretty much a standard warning the mods issue any time a thread starts discussing something that's either close to but not over the line on something on the do-not-suggest list (or on occasion even something over the line provided it's discussed reasonably), or something highly polarizing within the community. This is more the former than the latter, I don't think there's very many people that would argue against ISRU in any form, and yet it's still a rather sensitive subject because we're all dealing with something we're passionate about.

See above, devs have said repeatedly they have no intention of resource collection/ISRU/

Source? As I said, when they discussed the cancellation, they said that resources as diagrammed in that chart where dead because that mechanism wasn't fun or fitting into the game the way they wanted to. They said at that time that they'd consider alternative mechanisms provided that the alternative met their criteria (this was in one of Harvester's live discussions during the KerbalCon that coincided with the announcement that they were ditching the proposed resource system). They've repeatedly said that they won't put something into the game resembling that resource chart but I've never seen them give a blanket rejection to ISRU in any form. They're not interested in making a stock but more complicated version of kethane, and at least some of their criticism and comments would apply to something as simple as kethane as well.

I've never seen anyone suggest an ISRU system that wasn't derived from the chart or a clone of kethane, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that they've said no ISRU at all. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time imagining an ISRU system that could avoid all their concerns without messing up the game.

No one is forcing a choice between the a complete career mode OR ISRU, and you're second point is forcing at best forcing a false equivalency (ISRU means incomplete career mode) and at worst forcing words into my mouth.

No, I'm not forcing words into your mouth and I never said anything about an incomplete career mode. They've been working on career mode since the time they decided to can that version of resources, and in order to have worked on a replacement ISRU system by now, they'd have to have prioritized it ahead of career mode. Which is not saying that we'd end up with an incomplete career mode, it's a question of which gets worked on first. Since I haven't seen them shoot down all forms of ISRU despite following the forums, the dev streams, etc., I'm working from the assumption that they may or may not get back to ISRU after things with a higher priority, such as career mode, are functional enough. You're assuming that since they've decided against anything kethane-like or more complicated that they're against all forms of ISRU and I haven't seen any evidence of that.

If they don't want to keep seeing these threads, than they have to provide substantial reasons they aren't pursuing the mechanici. I explained why the reasons provided by HarvestR and the mods here are completely insufficient. Nothing in this post, or elsewhere, refutes these critiques. If you're not going to fully address either what's wrong with ISRU mechanics being included in KSP or address why my critques are wrong, there's no point to continuing this line of discussion.

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.

I'm not about to say that ISRU mechanics shouldn't be in KSP because I want them. My point is that the devs have said no to that specific implementation for their own reasons and for importing Kethane (they generally give that answer when asked to make a mod stock even when they code up a very similar implementation themselves).

If you want to change things, throw out ideas that haven't already been brought up. Some form of ISRU that addresses their concerns, or even alterations to a system like Kethane that would address their concerns. If I had an idea for an ISRU system that did address their concerns, I'd be throwing it out for discussion, but I really haven't come up with anything. Then again, new game mechanics really aren't my area of expertise.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Eric S

[TMS]

The problem has always been figuring out how to make it fun an interesting, and this is what Squad struggled with.

They should make ISRU into a series of mini-games.

"Hey Jeb, let's go bowling..."

[Northstar1989]

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.

I'm in absolute agreement. I think the "loss" of resources (who know, the devs are always free to change their minds again) was HUGE. Especially considering ISRU is the direction NASA is moving with in their own reference mission plans for Mars and Calliston (yes, Callisto- the moon of Jupiter. I was just reading a Design Reference Mission for Callisto created by NASA just a little while ago. Admittedly, its timeframe, which will probably be subject to delay, was 2045-2050...)

The thing about Resources, is that it is an entirely optional feature. If players don't want to use it, they can get along without it... There's nothing forcing it down a player's throat, like Science. It's not 5-year old friendly either, but neither is getting to orbit (that you have to burn *horizontally*, or things will fall back, runs contrary to the myths people believe about space)- and yet there are actual 5-year old children who have built and launched orbits to stable orbit in this game...

Looking at the chart in the OP, though, that would have been an absolutely horrid implementation of the "Resources" concept. A much better system would be something more similar to KSP-Interstellar, or even Kethane (I prefer Interstellar hands-down). Something with complexity, *gasp* realism (this would make it much easier to figure out what planets/moons should have what resources- for instance regolith you could electrolyze for Oxidizer on the Mun or Ike...), and most importantly, variability...

That is, a *GOOD* implementation wouldn't have had the same resources on every planet, like that chart suggested. Rather, each planet/mmon would need to be unique, with its own challenges to exploitation... To make a comparison, the excellent ISRU system in place in KSP-Interstellar doesn't have any source of hydrogen (LiquidFuel) available on Ike. In fact, the only resources you can produce there are Alumina, Oxidizer, and fission reactor fuels. To get LiquidFuel to burn with the Oxidizer, you need to produce it elsewhere and ship it elsewhere... Or Jool, for example, is a gas giant with a hydrogen-rich atmosphere. But to profitably harvest hydrogen from it, you need to find a cost-effective way to overcome its gravity well and make it back to orbit (operating Thermal Turbojet spaceplanes in its atmosphere, powered by Thermal Receivers, heated by beamed Phased Beam Microwave Power, from large fusion power plants on Laythe, that operate off elements in its oceans are one effective method...)

In short, there needs to be challenge and complexity to the resource system. Add In-Situ Resource Utilization, by all means, but make it COMPLEX and CHALLENGING- those are the things that make this game fun. KSP is *NOT* a game for the instant-gratification seekers among us, and it wouldn't be interesting to implement a system where all you have to do is sit and mine. Put only certain resources on certain planets. Make the players have to locate them (perhaps a system where they can only be detected by taking surface samples- or would that be too hardcore?) And create engineering challenges to get at them in the first place (like any atmospheric resource on Jool), and leave it up to the players to figure out creative solutions how...

Of course, all this is worthless talk at the moment, since Resources were officially cancelled. What a shame...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. The Science system isn't such a failure as people think. Remember, its primary purpose in its current state is to drip-feed parts to new players; not to be a primary game element as of yet. Unless you're playing with mods, of course...

Edited May 24, 2014 by Northstar1989

[CaptRobau]

There's nothing forcing it down a player's throat, like Science.

Which will probably change with the introduction of contracts. The devs have said on multiple occasions that they intend to have science, money and reputation be convertable to one another, as to prevent any type of playstyle from being completely necessary. So in the future you might be able to for example skip harvesting science in Kerbin orbit, by instead completing a contract that has you build a jet that can go to Mach 3 or something. You convert the money you get from the contract to science and use it to unlock another tech node.

P.S. The Science system isn't such a failure as people think. Remember, its primary purpose in its current state is to drip-feed parts to new players; not to be a primary game element as of yet. Unless you're playing with mods, of course...

The issue people have with science is not necessarily with it's current state, but rather its future state. If it stays the way it is right now, it'd be such a waste because you make it so much more.

[Northstar1989]

The problem has always been figuring out how to make it fun an interesting, and this is what Squad struggled with.

Indeed. It can be done though... More on how in a second.

It may be that most people are locked into one particular view of what resources must mean, and it's basically the same as the Kethane mod: "Land, get out, gather, spend". And if that is the case, then sal's comments about resource gathering in RTS games really does seem to apply: "Gather" is usually not really very inspired, it simply means clicking the "gather" button and waiting. But it's not worth Squad's time to implement all of this simply for the player to click a dialog box. (Which, again, is exactly the problem with science at the moment).

The problem with Kethane mod isn't the "waiting" part (which *can* be done when vessels are on rails, by the game keeping track of how long since the vessel was last loaded, and updating accordingly- as KSP Interstellar currently does with ISRU), it's that it's simple and relatively uninspired...

For resources to introduce fun and interesting gameplay, it needs to be a different kind of mechanic. But no-one has, as yet, come up with what that might involve. I mean both the abstract concept and the details of how it would be implemented, so that we see what makes it fun.

In-Situ Resource Utilization isn't, and shouldn't, ever be an "active" activity. It's not like you're going to have a Kerbal get out with a shovel and physically start digging through the ground (while that might actually be fun, it would completely break immersion- and be very hard to code the terrain being alterable...)

What makes a Resource-gathering system (ISRU- to use the abbreviation used by NASA) fun and interesting is the engineering challenges you build into it. It should be an engineering challenge- not some sort of piloting challenge...

It's much like building a rocket that gets into orbit- it's not easy, and a lot of thought goes into it- therefore making it challenging... The same needs to be part of any ISRU system...

How? Well, let's say that you find ice deposits on some planet or moon (for starters, they need to make it so you have to FIND randomly-generated resources. That should be the FIRST challenge. They shouldn't be in the same place every game, or everywhere. Kethane's scanning system, while tedious as it doesn't play well with higher time-warps, is the best idea of that mod...) And yes, *ICE*, not "Zenonium" or some silly thing like that. Immersion adds to the fun and suspension of disbelief...

The second challenge should be that the parts to harvest resources in the first place are HEAVY. And specialized. Meaning that it's a challenge just to get the right drill and electrolyzer to that moon with ice in the first place- creating incentive to build heavier lifters (not easy) and whatnot...

The third challenge needs to be operating the equipment in the first place. For instance, ice should mainly only be found on planets and moons that are far from the Sun (the closest locations to Kerbol might be a few craters on the Mun's poles, or at low concentrations on Minmus- much like in KSP Interstellar), though even that should not be an absolute- NASA recently found evidence of ice in permanently dark polar craters on MERCURY. So there should always be a chance of finding it somewhere unusual- which unpredictability would add to the fun and create a REAL feeling of exploration...

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/media/PressConf20121129.html

Anyways, back to the ice. Solar panels don't work well when you get far away from the Sun (a proper inverse-square rule should probably be implemented before ISRU- making solar panels even weaker further from Kerbol...) So you would need a LOT of them to melt+electrolyze large amounts of water-ice on an icy moon of Jool or Gas Giant #2 (whenever it's released), for instance. An alternative could be a fission nuclear power (NASA is looking at using them on Callisto and Mars for ISRU, why can't KSP?), but that could pose its own engineering challenged such as a heat radiation system (like in KSP Interstellar).

So far, it probably sounds like I'm talking about a KSP Interstellar clone, with a detection system from Kethane, but I'm NOT (though both mods have good ideas to lend). Here's where things get a bit more interesting... Resources would need to have real relevance to the Science/Reputation system to be fun. I don't just mean it takes a certain amount of Science to get the parts. Resources should be a SOURCE of Science.

That is, the Science Points costs should all be increased (effectively nerfing the existing sources- but actually nerfing them would require a lot more effort I suspect...), and there should be BIG rewards in Science and Reputation Points for discovering a resource in the first place- especially any form of water or ice (after all, the search for water has been a big part of NASA's exploration missions over the past decade- and we've found a surprisingly large amount of it in an awful lot of places we didn't expect...) That would make the Science system feel a little more relevant and interesting, and allow the player to relate KSP to REAL space programs if they were searching for REAL resources... (such as water-ice, methane/CO2-ice, rocks containing bubbles of Xenon like on the Moon, oxygen in atmospheres, and alumina in regoliths...)

There should be specific parts to detect the resources, of course, and the first tier of rewards should be achievable using probes (like the probes that have discovered all water-ice in the solar system so far in real life). but the biggest rewards should come from taking ACTUAL SAMPLES of a resource- whether through soil/water samples (currently implemented) or through atmospheric samples for atmospheric resources (new action/feature). Early on, the most interesting thing about resources should be simply finding them, as it should yield big Science and Reputation rewards...

The next interesting thing about resources should be figuring out ways to use them. There would need to be some diversification of engines, for instance, to include at the least some type of solid-liquid hybrid rocket with intermediate performance characteristics (there are several resources in the real solar system that can be burned in solid powders, Alumina from the Moon only being the most prominent...), and some resources that are only really useful in their raw form as reactant mass for thermal rockets (like ammonia- though it could also be useful to make Hydrazine) or in alternative ion engines (Argon, CO2, and N2), but can be refined into other resources (like CO2 into Kerosene in combination with H2 via the Fischer-Tropsch Cycle, or into methane via the Sabatier reaction). Here, they could take a page out of the book of KSP-Interstellar, with its diverse resources and ways of using them... The key is, though, not every resource should be useful for everything, but every resource should have multiple uses...

I know it sounds like I'm describing a huge encyclopedia of resources- but that should be half the fun. Complexity and (limited) realism should be one of the draws of the system- players should feel a bit like a chemical engineer trying to figure out how to make useful rocket fuel out of local resources, rather than just a Kethane-style "land and refine" system... This would make ISRU a whole complex part of ISRU that players would have to set aside some considerable time to learn to do properly if they wanted to make use of it, much like spaceplanes (most players start with rockets, and learn spaceplanes much later) or learning how to build modular bases off-planet (something *I* still haven't learned, even with a huge fleet currently en-route to Duna to do precisely that...)

So, have the player go through a phase of locating water and other resources in the solar system as an important source of science. Make visiting and obtaining samples of the resources the second step. Make the third step (perhaps only unlockable after a sample of a given resource has been returned to Kerbin- though perhaps probes could somehow be allowed to gather and return samples- though this would make Kerbals even more useless...) actually figuring out how to use the resources. Make this challenging and complex (and not as mundane as processing "Dirt"- make players work with real substrates, like CO2, ammonia, water, methane, hydrogen, and nitrogen), and give rewards in Science and Reputation for developing successful ISRU systems, and you'll have a system that's sure to engage interested players for days of gameplay...

And if you don't like the system? Find it too complex or boring? The beauty is that you don't have to use it- it would be completely optional; as there are plenty of other ways to obtain Science (and will be for Reputation, I'm sure), and you can always just keep relying of fuel tankers or mammoth vessels with staging, like you would have had to do otherwise if you hadn't had the system as an option to play around with...

I think this post has been long enough, so I'm just going to end it here, instead of addressing the rest of your post, allmhuran

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

All this about how a Resources system *SHOULD* be done. I just hope I don't incite the devs to come down with the ban-hammer or close-thread scissors. I'm just talking theoreticals here, and I'll still respect the devs even if they miss the amazing opportunity to follow in the footsteps NASA will (someday) be setting and develop ISRU systems in the game...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. Don't believe NASA is serious about ISRU? Look at their Design Reference Architecture for a Mars mission:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373665main_NASA-SP-2009-566.pdf

Edited May 24, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Red Iron Crown]

I think this discussion is a civil one and some of the ideas being tossed around are quite good, so I hope it stays open.

I've been of the opinion that an ISRU implementation is undesirable, but some of the posts here are starting to convince me otherwise. As long as the gameplay doesn't involve me staring at a refinery for extended periods it could be a useful thing that opens new possibilities. I'd prefer that it be kept relatively simple, just harvesting liquid fuel, oxidizer and monopropellant (and maybe life support resources if they're ever implemented). Harvesting ores and such to make new ship pieces is a bit undesirable to me, it seems a bit cheaty considering how much infrastructure is really necessary to build highly-engineered parts.

[allmhuran]

The problem with Kethane mod isn't the "waiting" part

I agree that the problem isn't the waiting part per-se, since you can sort of "skip" it with rails warp. But last I used it, you couldn't go and do something else while scanning, you had to just watch the damn satellite go around and around.

Now, if you could give me a scanning system where I could skillfully put a satellite into a good scanning orbit (ie, probably inclined, but maybe you have some "hints" about where resources might be and should focus your attentions there if you can), and then I could just leave it to scan while I go and do other things, then eventually go back to the satellite, transmit its collected data back to Kerbin (preferably requring line of sight through relays, so I have a completely new geometry challenge to solve), well, then you'd definitely get my attention.

In-Situ Resource Utilization isn't, and shouldn't, ever be an "active" activity.

Well, that depends. It certainly doesn't have to be an active thing requring constant player control (so long as it can go on without me having to babysit - see above). But it also doesn't have to not be if that can't be made fun. One could turn it into a fun thing by involving the player in the actual activity - if anyone could figure out a way that was fun.

Personally, like you, I'd go with the passive (without focus) solution, but I wouldn't exclude the possibility of the "player does it" method being a potential solution.

The second challenge should be that the parts to harvest resources in the first place are HEAVY.

I agree that heavy parts are more challenging, but I don't think an answer to making resources fun (or making any other mechanic fun - I'm looking at you science lab) is just to make things heavier. Lifting heavy payloads is a challenge we can already have simply by deciding to lift a heavy payload. I don't think Squad should sink huge amounts of time into all of the new code required for something like resources just so that we can have exactly the same challenge that we already have. I think that amount of effort should provide something truly new, much like the addition of orbital mechanics and intercepts did.

So there should always be a chance of finding it somewhere unusual- which unpredictability would add to the fun and create a REAL feeling of exploration...

Are you sure this would actually be fun, though? Doesn't this mean you'd just have to wait around doing nothing (on rails warp) for longer on the off chance that you might happen to find something? Possibly not, but I'm not seeing how randomized locations of potentially interesting things increases the fun factor.

The next interesting thing about resources should be figuring out ways to use them. There would need to be some diversification of engines, for instance, to include at the least some type of solid-liquid hybrid rocket with intermediate performance characteristics

I definitely agree with this line of thinking. I think resources shouldn't be generic, there should be particular resources at particular locations, and they should be used for particular things. Want to build LVN's to make your interstellar craft more efficient? Well, you're going to have to drop by the Mun and pick up some whatever-material-is-on-the-mun-that-is-needed-for-LVN's. This would give resources two purposes: A reason to go to different places, and a mechanism to "balance" out the various parts. We'd still need the "fun/challenging" bit, but I think that these kinds of additional considerations are really important.

Edited May 24, 2014 by allmhuran

[CaptRobau]

I really like your approach Northstar. Coupling resource gathering to science gathering would make both more interesting and meaningful. If you wan't to go to Jool to read the science blurbs, at least you'll be learning that you can find Xenon there for harvesting later.

[Northstar1989]

I think this discussion is a civil one and some of the ideas being tossed around are quite good, so I hope it stays open.

I've been of the opinion that an ISRU implementation is undesirable, but some of the posts here are starting to convince me otherwise. As long as the gameplay doesn't involve me staring at a refinery for extended periods it could be a useful thing that opens new possibilities. I'd prefer that it be kept relatively simple, just harvesting liquid fuel, oxidizer and monopropellant (and maybe life support resources if they're ever implemented). Harvesting ores and such to make new ship pieces is a bit undesirable to me, it seems a bit cheaty considering how much infrastructure is really necessary to build highly-engineered parts.

Complexity is the fun! That's part of my point. Rather than hunting down some generic "Zenonium" (that was ACTUALLY one of the resources on the chart on the OP), actually looking for water-ice or Xenon-containing regolith (there are Xenon bubbles in some Lunar rocks...) would be more interesting. Especially if finding it had a reward entirely separate from actually harvesting it...

Having to learn how to refine those raw materials through multiple (sometimes complex) steps would make it all the more interesting. For instance, a real-life example to make Hydrazine (Monopropellent) from nothing but Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Hydrogen gas...

N2 + 3 H2 --> 3 NH3

H2 + O2 --> H2O2

2 NH3 + H2O2 --> N2H4 + 2 H2O

Made all the more interesting when you consider that H2 and O2 gas aren't just going to be floating around anywhere- for instance you might have to source H2 and O2 from water-ice in a crater of a rocky moon, but get the N2 from an entirely different planet...

Regards,

Northstar

[allmhuran]

Having to learn how to refine those raw materials through multiple (sometimes complex) steps would make it all the more interesting.

Yeah, it worried me that Squad posts (or perhaps livestream comments?) suggested that they thought one of the problems with the system was the complexity of combinations. "It'll scare off new players" was the basic message.

But there's two things to keep in mind here: First of all, new players wouldn't face this challenge. You're not going to encounter this puzzle until you're well past your first Mun landing, because you don't need exotic parts and oodles of fuel to accomplish this. Indeed, that was pointed out by Harvester himself when explaining the tech tree as a "way of introducing new players to the game". A good call, that was, and the implication of course is that new players won't be exposed to the advanced parts in the first place.

The second thing to keep in mind is something that, again, Harv said himself in an interview (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/22/kerbal-space-program-why-nasa-minecraft)

“When we did our first public release we weren’t even sure if we would keep the orbital mechanics in the game or not, as we couldn’t be sure before if players would receive it well, or think it was too complex to be fun. It was only after we released we saw players not only liked the orbits, they wanted more of it.â€Â

As you say, complexity is fun. Puzzles are fun. There are a bunch of tower defense games out there, but one of the most successful is "element TD", where you combine towers of different elements for new effects. Another is Gem TD with pretty much the same mechanic: combine different coloured gems for new effects. Nobody would ever argue that the addition of this element to the otherwise incredibly simple tower defense idea made them "too complex". On the contrary, it's what made them interesting and successful.

[Northstar1989]

I agree that the problem isn't the waiting part per-se, since you can sort of "skip" it with rails warp. But last I used it, you couldn't go and do something else while scanning, you had to just watch the damn satellite go around and around.

Ack, yeah. But that's a coding issue. If that could only work over high time-warp, then you'd only have to turn the speed up to say 1000x, and it would be done it no time...

So, yeah, making things take time isn't a problem- you can always time-warp. But you might have a contract expire, or life-support ticking down while that's going on, so finding the fastest and most efficient way to do things is still important...

Now, if you could give me a scanning system where I could skillfully put a satellite into a good scanning orbit (ie, probably inclined, but maybe you have some "hints" about where resources might be and should focus your attentions there if you can), and then I could just leave it to scan while I go and do other things, then eventually go back to the satellite, transmit its collected data back to Kerbin (preferably requring line of sight through relays, so I have a completely new geometry challenge to solve), well, then you'd definitely get my attention.

Hmmm, interesting. I didn't even think about how the complexity could tie in to some sort of a probe-control system (like in RemoteTech), but since most of this would probably be done unmanned after the addition of life-support, you're right... That would make it even more interesting/complex. The thing is, I don't know if the stock game will ever have a RT-like control system either... (all theoretical- since resources might never get added in any form, even a good revised one like I'm pondering...)

Well, that depends. It certainly doesn't have to be an active thing requring constant player control (so long as it can go on without me having to babysit - see above). But it also doesn't have to not be if that can't be made fun. One could turn it into a fun thing by involving the player in the actual activity - if anyone could figure out a way that was fun.

The thing is, I can't think of any way to involve the player in it- much like the process of actually fabricating the components you click together in your rocket, I can only imagine it being appropriate to leave the actual resource-harvesting behind-the-scenes... I would think the main challenge once you had harvested the resource would be finding a use for it, and refining it, like I mentioned earlier; transporting it to where it's needed cost-effectively; and getting the electricity/resources in place to run the harvesting/refining/transport systems in the first place...

Personally, like you, I'd go with the passive (without focus) solution, but I wouldn't exclude the possibility of the "player does it" method being a potential solution.

If you could think of a good (non-repetitive/boring) way to do that, I think a lot of players would adore you... But I think it can still be very fun even without it if done right.

I agree that heavy parts are more challenging, but I don't think an answer to making resources fun (or making any other mechanic fun - I'm looking at you science lab) is just to make things heavier. Lifting heavy payloads is a challenge we can already have simply by deciding to lift a heavy payload. I don't think Squad should sink huge amounts of time into all of the new code required for something like resources just so that we can have exactly the same challenge that we already have. I think that amount of effort should provide something truly new, much like the addition of orbital mechanics and intercepts did.

It would add to realism/balance, and give us a REASON to lift a heavy payload though. Other than awesomeness.

Are you sure this would actually be fun, though? Doesn't this mean you'd just have to wait around doing nothing (on rails warp) for longer on the off chance that you might happen to find something? Possibly not, but I'm not seeing how randomized locations of potentially interesting things increases the fun factor.

I didn't mean a "random spawn every tick" sort of system. I meant one where when you start a new save, it randomly generates static resources that are hidden and you have to go out and find (inexhaustible- because otherwise there'd have to be some way to make more deposits, and honestly it's not realistic for something on the tiny scale of a couple drills or ice-scrapers or whatnot to exhaust resources on the scale you would find them anyways... It's also not FUN to constantly track down new deposits.) So, in one player's save, there might be a couple ice-deposits on the north pole of Moho (like real-life Mercury's suspected ice in polar craters). In another, only on the south pole. In another, deep inside the Moholes, now fixed to not explode your ship.

I definitely agree with this line of thinking. I think resources shouldn't be generic, there should be particular resources at particular locations, and they should be used for particular things. Want to build LVN's to make your interstellar craft more efficient? Well, you're going to have to drop by the Mun and pick up some whatever-material-is-on-the-mun-that-is-needed-for-LVN's. This would give resources two purposes: A reason to go to different places, and a mechanism to "balance" out the various parts. We'd still need the "fun/challenging" bit, but I think that these kinds of additional considerations are really important.

I wasn't thinking along the lines of particular parts requiring particular resources- and in fact I strongly discourage that idea, because it's not fun, unrealistic, and would force the ISRU system down players' throats by penalizing those who want to simply ignore it...

Rather, there should be rewards (like Reputation, maybe even Contract goals) for finding particular resources, rewards for recovering samples, rewards for setting up a working ISRU system (Reputation, Science, and Contracts again...), and then the rewards of the fun trying to figure out how to turn these different raw materials into useful resources, and the best way to use them (methane, for instance, could either be passed through a thermal rocket like the LV-N, or burned as a tweakable alternative methane-burning version of the LFO engines that has to be selected instead at construction in the VAB... Which is best for your needs and playstyle? Figuring that out from trial/error could be interesting...)

Regards,

Northstar

[Red Iron Crown]

Complexity is the fun! That's part of my point. Rather than hunting down some generic "Zenonium" (that was ACTUALLY one of the resources on the chart on the OP), actually looking for water-ice or Xenon-containing regolith (there are Xenon bubbles in some Lunar rocks...) would be more interesting. Especially if finding it had a reward entirely separate from actually harvesting it...

Having to learn how to refine those raw materials through multiple (sometimes complex) steps would make it all the more interesting. For instance, a real-life example to make Hydrazine (Monopropellent) from nothing but Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Hydrogen gas...

N2 + 3 H2 --> 3 NH3

H2 + O2 --> H2O2

2 NH3 + H2O2 --> N2H4 + 2 H2O

Made all the more interesting when you consider that H2 and O2 gas aren't just going to be floating around anywhere- for instance you might have to source H2 and O2 from water-ice in a crater of a rocky moon, but get the N2 from an entirely different planet...

I'm not sure I'd like the system to be that complex, I certainly don't want to be hauling puzzle pieces around the system just to produce a bit of fuel. Might just be easier to have water be the discoverable resource to harvest, which can then be processed into hydrogen and oxygen for liquid fuel and oxidizer, or processed into hydrogen peroxide for monopropellant.

It may be an ideological difference between us here, in that I'm not really all that interested in resource harvesting being a scavenger hunt and chemistry minigame; I'd prefer it to just be a method to replenish ships at faraway destinations in exchange for some infrastructure deployment. I see where you're coming from about having resource discovery and harvesting being more of a puzzle than a simple mechanic, it just doesn't appeal to me like it does to you (and some others in the thread).

[Northstar1989]

Yeah, it worried me that Squad posts (or perhaps livestream comments?) suggested that they thought one of the problems with the system was the complexity of combinations. "It'll scare off new players" was the basic message.

Yeah... I can't imagine an idea being further from the truth. I know the main things that drew me to KSP in the first place just over 10 months ago were the realistic/complex orbital mechanics (would you believe I taught myself orbital mechanics in a couple afternoons, right down to the high-level stuff like the Oberth Effect, before launching my first rocket? And ENJOYED doing it when I actually saw a purpose for it... I am a bit of a nerd, and a genius, but still...) and just the overall scope of the game. I imagine the same holds true for many other players...

But there's two things to keep in mind here: First of all, new players wouldn't face this challenge. You're not going to encounter this puzzle until you're well past your first Mun landing, because you don't need exotic parts and oodles of fuel to accomplish this. Indeed, that was pointed out by Harvester himself when explaining the tech tree as a "way of introducing new players to the game". A good call, that was, and the implication of course is that new players won't be exposed to the advanced parts in the first place.

Exactly. Assuming new players start with Career Mode (which indeed seems to be the pattern, from all the help posts I've seen from newbies), they wouldn't even see ISRU until the late-game when they should already be looking for a new challenge...

The second thing to keep in mind is something that, again, Harv said himself in an interview (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/22/kerbal-space-program-why-nasa-minecraft)

“When we did our first public release we weren’t even sure if we would keep the orbital mechanics in the game or not, as we couldn’t be sure before if players would receive it well, or think it was too complex to be fun. It was only after we released we saw players not only liked the orbits, they wanted more of it.â€Â

As you say, complexity is fun. Puzzles are fun. There are a bunch of tower defense games out there, but one of the most successful is "element TD", where you combine towers of different elements for new effects. Another is Gem TD with pretty much the same mechanic: combine different coloured gems for new effects. Nobody would ever argue that the addition of this element to the otherwise incredibly simple tower defense idea made them "too complex". On the contrary, it's what made them interesting and successful.

I wholeheartedly agree. And there is nothing on Earth quite as much like a puzzle as actual chemical engineering- which is what ISRU really boils down to. Saying "I have Nitrogen, and I have methane-ice, and I have CO2, and I want to make Kerosene-LOX rocket fuel and Monopropellant. How do I do it? And what's the most efficient way?" (That's actually a pretty challenging set-up, perhaps worse than you'd ever see in-game, but it can be done- hint, you need to pyrolyze some of the methane into raw Carbon and H2 gas, and CO2 into CO and O2 gas, and work from there...)

Logistics systems can also be fun/interesting for some players- after all there are whole standalone games devoted to the concept. I imagine some players (myself included) would spend just as much time trying to figure out the most efficient supply-chains to get their raw resources to refineries and refined resources to where they're needed as they would designing a new heavy-lifter rocket... And I would enjoy doing it too...

Regards,

Northstar

(Haha, reading all this, maybe I should have been a Systems Engineer instead of a Biologist...)

[Northstar1989]

I'm not sure I'd like the system to be that complex, I certainly don't want to be hauling puzzle pieces around the system just to produce a bit of fuel. Might just be easier to have water be the discoverable resource to harvest, which can then be processed into hydrogen and oxygen for liquid fuel and oxidizer, or processed into hydrogen peroxide for monopropellant.

Hydrogen Peroxide is indeed used as a low-efficiency RCS propellent in the real world. It could be in the game as well...

A big part of what I was trying to get at is that some resources could be a lot easier to make with ISRU than others, thus putting a premium on those that are difficult to manufacture, and rewarding players who go through the extra effort to make the harder-to-get stuff...

This would be fun *AND* realistic. For instance, Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) is rather easy to make- but Hydrazine (N2H4) is a more efficient RCS propellent. However, Hydrazine requires an extra step- combining Hydrogen Peroxide with Ammonia- making it a 3rd level product made out of two 2nd-level products (Ammonia, like Hydrogen Peroxide, isn't exactly likely to be found lying around many places- except Eve...)

Thus, players could get as in-depth or simple as they wanted with ISRU. If they just wanted to find ice and electrolyze it for LH2-LOX rocket fuel, for instance, then fine. But if they wanted to go through the complex steps of making Hydrazine or Kerosene on-site, then there could be benefits to match.

One thing that would also be useful, of course, to really make ISRU shine, would be a greater variety of fuels and propellents- so you can have "premium" fuels that are more difficult to make, like Kerosene, but have benefits (Kerosene, for instance, is much denser than LH2- so you can pack a lot more propellent mass, and thus Delta-V, into a given sized/mass fuel can... but it gets less ISP than LH2 when burned wit LOX.) Rather than needing to introduce entirely new parts for the different fuels and such, most of these could be handled with tweakables- much like RealFuels mod currently does with selecting a fuel can to carry Kerosene/LOX vs. LH2/LOX...

There I go mentioning another mod though... It's no coincidence that modders have chosen some of the best ideas to implement, however- otherwise why would they have bothered with the effort?

It may be an ideological difference between us here, in that I'm not really all that interested in resource harvesting being a scavenger hunt and chemistry minigame; I'd prefer it to just be a method to replenish ships at faraway destinations in exchange for some infrastructure deployment. I see where you're coming from about having resource discovery and harvesting being more of a puzzle than a simple mechanic, it just doesn't appeal to me like it does to you (and some others in the thread).

If you wanted to make use of ISRU (rather than ignore it), but wanted a more hands-off approach, there would be a solution for that too... Spend a lot of time/effort scouting out a location with multiple useful resources, and build a single integrated (with docking ports in stock, or KAS with mods) ground base that can process all these different resources in one place. If you can find such an ideal location, of course- one might not exist in your save. If not, you could always build a single orbital station somewhere like the Jool system, with all the needed refineries, and just transport various raw materials to it (from the different moons) to make what you need.

And, like I said, part of the fun/complexity would be that there would usually be an "easy solution" and an "efficient/best solution"- with the latter requiring a lot more effort on the player's part, but getting you more useful fuels, or higher production rates.

In ISRU, there's always a simple way to brute-force it, and a complex way to be efficient. Need lots of fuel for propellent, and O2 for life support and Oxidizer, on Duna, for instance? You *could* set up a simple brute-force station with a lot of power to simply mine lots of water-ice, and simply electrolyze it to get all the H2 and O2 you could ever want, for low-density, high-ISP chemical propellent (though you might have to cryogenically store it in real life, I doubt this would ever be added in-game, even though it would just be a matter of costing EC/s...)

*OR* you could take the same H2 and O2, and combine it with CO2 harvested from the atmosphere in the Sabatier Reaction to make methane (CH4- which can pack more densely into fuel cans than H2) and more water (H2O- which you can electrolyze for more H2 and O2).

*OR* if you're REALLY ambitious, you could combine the H2 with CO2 in the Reverse Water Gas Shift Reaction to get H2O and CO, and then combine the CO with H2 in the Fischer-Tropsch Reaction to make Kerosene (6-12 Carbon hydrocarbon mixture), which can be packed even more densely into fuel cans for even more Delta-V, but lower ISP...

The sky and your imagination (and your available equipment/storage space) is the limit with In Situ Resource Utilization! It's an end-game feature that could be expanded as long and as far as the devs want (all the way to making plastics with the Fischer-Tropsch Reaction for a very different type of resource harvesting: greenhouses for life-support...)

Of course, it would have to start simple. But it's one of those features that could be expanded and expanded and expanded upon whenever the devs got bored with other stuff, if ISRU turned out to be a hit with players... And if not, it could always be a nice supplemental feature that nobody would really have to use if they didn't want to...

I've said quite enough for a while, so let me wind up by saying I truly hope the devs re-consider adding "Resources" (ISRU) some day soon... I just hope it'll get a chance to shine someday- though of course not until other "more important" things are improved (like improved aerodynamics, Career Mode, and at the least diversifying the fuels a bit more- so you can choose to use Kerosene/LOX vs. CH4/LOX vs. LH2/LOX with tweakables at the very least...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited May 24, 2014 by Northstar1989