Development cost?

[WeirdCulture]

Hi

do we know anything about development costs? I mean the cost for developing a new rocket. Will it be cheaper to reuse a previously used design, then build a rocket from scratch every time?

[Seret]

We know nuthin.

[Alshain]

From what I've seen the developers of this game don't share upcoming information quite as much as some other indie games. They do mention some of the upcoming features on the Devnotes threads but they leave the details for you to be surprised. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

However, there is a screenshot of the new building and Space Center scene UI here. (technically not a new building, just it will be usable)

Edited June 17, 2014 by Alshain

[Red Iron Crown]

Were I to hazard a guess, I would say that development costs for specific ships won't be implemented. Too much of the fun is designing ships, I think it would be a mistake to penalize that.

I could see paying to research particular parts, which would be an abstraction of the R&D costs.

[Alshain]

Were I to hazard a guess, I would say that development costs for specific ships won't be implemented. Too much of the fun is designing ships, I think it would be a mistake to penalize that.

I could see paying to research particular parts, which would be an abstraction of the R&D costs.

I think it could be scaleable. There was a discussion of difficulty levels in another thread, it would be simple to think of Easy = What we have no, no costs, science only. Normal = Science and Cost to research. Hard = every ship costs money, recovery nets money.

[Barklight]

Were I to hazard a guess, I would say that development costs for specific ships won't be implemented. Too much of the fun is designing ships, I think it would be a mistake to penalize that.

I could see paying to research particular parts, which would be an abstraction of the R&D costs.

Kind of like we are doing now by spending science points on research nodes, I would imagine. You might have noticed most equipment already has a "cost" associated with it that we don't currently use. I could see us using science to unlock nodes on the tree, then paying kerbin credits to prototype each piece of equipment in that node as needed. Maybe it gets a little bit cheaper after you use a part 1-2 times and it gets past prototype.

I'd agree with you about ships - you're not super likely to use the same exact ship more than once or twice (from the launchpad) because of upgrades as you unlock more tech

[LethalDose]

I doubt there'll be much "vessel" development cost. I think it would discourage players from making small changes to existing vessels.

Were I to hazard a guess, I would say that development costs for specific ships won't be implemented. Too much of the fun is designing ships, I think it would be a mistake to penalize that.

I could see paying to research particular parts, which would be an abstraction of the R&D costs.

I believe that the groundwork for "R&D costs" is already in place for each part. On the research tree, each part has a "cost" listed that needs to be paid when you unlock the node. As it stands as of 0.23.5, the cost of each part is paid automatically when the node is unlocked, but if you install mods that add parts to the tree after you've unlocked a node, you'll get a message in the VAB saying you have to pay to unlock a part to use it.

It will be... interesting to see how this 'two-tier' access system mechanic (pay to access part once, then pay to place individual parts on vessels) for parts influences gameplay when we finally get budgets/kurrency/contracts. On the surface, it seems like it will encourage players to be selective about the parts they unlock, instead of playing with everything they can access. It may also allow some parts to be in "weird" places (e.g. the MPL where it is, and is pretty useless w/o docking clamps and large parts), because players and "skip" unlocking it until they have the tech needed to make it useful.

Regardless, I'm going to watch it cautiously. It based on previous statements/decisions by the devs, I don't have much faith that they put much thought into how their choices for game mechanics influence game choices.

[Red Iron Crown]

Regardless, I'm going to watch it cautiously. It based on previous statements/decisions by the devs, I don't have much faith that they put much thought into how their choices for game mechanics influence game choices.

While I wouldn't have put it in quite those words, I expect the economic system and balance to be "first draft" quality and be refined as the game develops.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Hi

do we know anything about development costs? I mean the cost for developing a new rocket. Will it be cheaper to reuse a previously used design, then build a rocket from scratch every time?

Presumably you will get money back from recovering vessels. However, how things will work like recovering boosters (that may fall out of the 2.5km render range) or how much parts will cost or what % you get back is unknown. I figure we will probably hear more about that soon. The one thing I did year is that if you launch an empty tank vs. a full tank (for example), it will cost you less, so they are considering how much are in tanks as part of their price.

[magnemoe]

I'm a bit skeptical to development cost because of how hard it will be to handle.

How to diferensiate between tweaking as in adding an small fuel tank and complete redesign.

[legodragonxp]

You would just need an Kerbal accountant using Kwicken to keep track.

[r4pt0r]

i can only hope the vab is just the "blueprint" and the cost is deducted when going to launchpad. if i go broke because i accidentally went x8 symmetry on my boosters....ughh

[Red Iron Crown]

i can only hope the vab is just the "blueprint" and the cost is deducted when going to launchpad. if i go broke because i accidentally went x8 symmetry on my boosters....ughh

I would be frankly shocked if you were charged for construction in the VAB. Cost should be deducted from your balance when launching, IMO.

[malkuth]

From what I read there will be launch cost. And resource cost too. So I can see a new value being added to resource (IE COST).

Parts already have a cost = whatever. They always have this will be I think AllParts + All Resources at launch.

Parts also have an Entry Cost which is what I believe is the cost in Money to research the actual part off the Nodes.

Now if all this is going to be in .24 not sure. But the frame work is already in place. Unless it takes a drastic change in development.

It’s not hard having an economy in game, if the stuff is balanced ok. For instance In MCE I have set up the economy the player does a few Contract missions, build up Budget. Then do what you want, while you drain your budget. At least that’s the way I play MCE and made it work. Not meant to be an only choice is to do contracts. That’s it. That is not good in my opinion. Contracts should make a good profit to help you do your own missions you want.

In MCE you’re not charged for vessel until you hit the spacebar at launch. Not charged in VAB. Unless the devs go a little more dramatic with some sort of Ordering System for vessel, purchase 2 Type 1 rockets. You can then push the launch button and take off with Type 1 rockets. Next time in VAB you still have 1 type 1 left and still can push launch button. That would be neat, but I doubt it.

But keeping in mind that having your game cluttered with 1000 Mission Objective vessels (like satellites) is not a very good idea. So Balance is the key word.

Edited June 17, 2014 by malkuth

[xcorps]

I think a parts inventory is an interesting concept for this game. You don't just order up a bakers dozen mainsails for a launch and **poof*** they magically appear.

Edited June 17, 2014 by xcorps

[r4pt0r]

I think a parts inventory is an interesting concept for this game. You don't just order up a bakers dozen mainsails for a launch and **poof*** they magically appear.

to be fair you cant just drop a bakers dozen mainsails from 50m and they just *boom*** when they hit the ground. there should be shrapnel. unless they are a hollow 1 piece item. from this we can clearly deduce mainsails are grown in underground vaults. probably under the mountains behind KSC

[LethalDose]

While I wouldn't have put it in quite those words, I expect the economic system and balance to be "first draft" quality and be refined as the game develops.

And thats fine, I hear what you're saying. I'm not expecting the balance to parts to be great at the start either, but I expect them to adjust the costs attached to the parts, not the method by which the parts are accessed.

The point, in brief, is that I foresee two outcomes of the "two-tiered" (an initial "buy in" cost, followed by a per-part cost) system for accessing parts:

1. The "buy-in" cost is trivial, and doesn't really limit part variety you can access. In this case, why is it there?
   
2. The "buy-in" cost in not trivial, and limits the parts players have access to. I worry this could inhibit player experimentation. Also, I would expect players will complain that it's "restricting play choice" and "forcing play styles".
   

It's going to be one or the other, because if the cost doesn't limit part choice, then I'm defining it as "trivial".

Personally, I'm somewhat okay with restriction of player choice, because it means that player decisions can have consequences. However, to support the player learning curve, which I think may be of greater importance in a simulation game like this, I think it's important to allow a relatively painless change in strategy, and IMO new players shouldn't be punished for being ignorant of what comes later in game-play if the game provides no way to view it.

Currently, I think the game makes it difficult for new players to see what's coming down the pipe in career mode. Potentially this could be solved by showing the entire research tree, instead of only what can be purchased immediately, but that runs the risk of information overload. I also think that it's better for new players to start in career mode so they can learn by doing. With only about 5 parts in the VAB at the start, it's easy to assemble your first rocket that flies relatively well. Starting in sandbox mode, I think new players get overwhelmed with part choice and can miss early simple lessons.

But I'm still getting deeper into game design than I should.

tl;dr I don't see a situation where the devs create a balanced design that allows easy change of strategy and the uses two-tiered with non-trivial buy-in costs. And I worry that they'll try to force it instead of ditching the two-tiered parts access.

Also, before anyone asks why I don't have much faith in Squads decision-making about game mechanics, I would directly point to the Mainsail/LFB balance. It led to tons of threads, lots of arguments, etc. AFAIK, no explanations were given as to why it was balanced where it was, and when they did decide to change it, it was a small "btw" in the dev notes instead of acknowledging the community and saying "yep, okay, we see your point."

Edited June 17, 2014 by LethalDose

[Paul Kingtiger]

I doubt this will be in the stock game, but I really hope it's something modders can create. I love building missions with set designs of known and proven rockets and having this in career mode would be great.

[Red Iron Crown]

LethalDose, while I don't always agree with your posts I do appreciate that you take the time to make your points clearly and well.

IMO, two-tiered monetary part purchase is a bit redundant. A player is already paying for one tier when they spend science to unlock a node, another monetary charge just seems redundant, especially when science and money are interchangeable. New players won't suffer parts overload anyway because they're only unlocking a few parts at a time at most. So it seems to me that spending science to unlock and money to purchase is already enough of a two tiered system.

I am interested to see exactly how the economics work and how the initial balance is. I'm not getting my hopes up that it will be well balanced given it's the first iteration; I think it will improve over time with player and tester feedback.

[LethalDose]

LethalDose, while I don't always agree with your posts I do appreciate that you take the time to make your points clearly and well.

First, Thank you. Second, Ditto. Third, I don't need you to agree with me, as long as it's respectful. Finally, I'll try to do the same.

IMO, two-tiered monetary part purchase is a bit redundant. A player is already paying for one tier when they spend science to unlock a node, another monetary charge just seems redundant, especially when science and money are interchangeable. New players won't suffer parts overload anyway because they're only unlocking a few parts at a time at most. So it seems to me that spending science to unlock and money to purchase is already enough of a two tiered system.

Yup. 100% here. I'm mostly not a fan of the 2-tiered system that currently appears in the game, albeit inactive.

I am interested to see exactly how the economics work and how the initial balance is. I'm not getting my hopes up that it will be well balanced given it's the first iteration; I think it will improve over time with player and tester feedback.

Let's hope.

Edited June 18, 2014 by LethalDose
Typo

[WafflesToo]

Regardless, I'm going to watch it cautiously. It based on previous statements/decisions by the devs, I don't have much faith that they put much thought into how their choices for game mechanics influence game choices.

Be careful what you say here... lest an army of angry fanbois decend from on high armed with torches, pitchforks and the holey writ of Squad to wreak self-righteous vengance upon you. ;p

LOL, seriously though, in Squad's defense on this point they have all but admitted that their first draft of the budget system will likely have to be overhauled and have already slated update 0.25 for it so I don't think they have unrealistic expectations for their initial attempt themselves. I think for the 0.24 update they're far more interested in getting the programming architecture in place for it rather than nailing the game balance on their first go.

You would just need an Kerbal accountant using Kwicken to keep track.

Oh dear god, I'm laughing at that far more than I have a right too.