Rocket Development Costs

[xcorps]

This will probably have to be modded, I doubt it will be part of the economic model.

I think it would be interesting to have development costs for building rockets. Not just purchasing the parts, but assembling them. Building a totally new rocket class would have a significantly higher cost than modifying an existing design, and there would be no developing costs for using an existing build without changes.

For instance, lets say you you launch a rocket consisting of a single seat lander, fuel tank and an engine. You unlock the next size up fuel tank. You can rebuild a new rocket entirely and it costs for instance twice as much to build it as just adding the new fuel tank to the first rocket you launched. Later you unlock a new engine, you would have a higher cost to build a NEW rocket using that engine than replacing the engine on already designed rocket or adding it as a radial booster.

The idea is to slow the progression of new rocket designs leading to innovation and efficiency.

[Pthigrivi]

I dont know, this seems like a tax on creativity? I mean I get it from a realizm standpoint but is it good for gameplay?

[xcorps]

I dont know, this seems like a tax on creativity? I mean I get it from a realizm standpoint but is it good for gameplay?

I think it would promote creativity, trying to complete contracts with ships that aren't custom tailored for a mission.

[LethalDose]

I think there's been a similar suggestion previously, where there would be a discount for producing a lot of a sub-assembly at one time. I don't think either is a particularly good idea for the exact reason Pthigrivi points out: It's not necessarily good for game-play. Based on what we do know about the economic system (which is almost nothing), it appears we're already going to be getting charged science to unlock the node, then funds to unlock individual parts, and then paying funds for each individual part placed on a vessel. I think paying development costs for subassemblies or vessels is just too much on top of that.

But, if you can make an argument for why this kind of mechanic would improve gameplay, I think you'd draw more attention to the suggestion.

[geb]

I have tried playing career by reusing a common design over and over again. It can be good fun. Paying extra for development costs would be the wrong way to do it though.

Instead, perhaps some kind of mechanism for buying subassemblies in bulk at a discounted rate? Commit in advance to buying ten of a launcher design and get them much cheaper than buying one at a time.

[Laie]

Whether you place a premium on this or an discount on that doesn't matter, gameplay-wise. Same difference.

[xcorps]

But, if you can make an argument for why this kind of mechanic would improve gameplay

If we are going to have a career mode that has a focus on the microeconomics as a method of control (in terms of the mechanism you use to accomplish a given objective), then I think gameplay would be improved by making the model place artificial restrictions on the mechanisms, requiring the player to think ahead and plan for resource allocation.

For instance, let's say that you have a stable of Munar rockets designed for landing Kerbals and sending them back. There's oh 3-4 variations on a theme. Then you get a lucrative contract to place a probe in LEO. The problem is, you have no effient launch vehicle to accomplish this. Using a Munar rocket would eat up the payment because of the fuel and part costs. So without design cost penalty, you slap together a super cheap launch system and bang, contract complete with no regard for the fact that your program has never before launched this type of vehicle. There should be a cost associated with creating that new launch system to compensate that program needs to develop a new branch of launch vehicles.

I think this will promote a wider variety of launch vehicle platforms in the early stages of the game. Going from LV-45's for launch to KR2's should be more involved than unlocking some nodes and paying for the rocket.

[Red Iron Crown]

If we are going to have a career mode that has a focus on the microeconomics as a method of control (in terms of the mechanism you use to accomplish a given objective), then I think gameplay would be improved by making the model place artificial restrictions on the mechanisms, requiring the player to think ahead and plan for resource allocation.

For instance, let's say that you have a stable of Munar rockets designed for landing Kerbals and sending them back. There's oh 3-4 variations on a theme. Then you get a lucrative contract to place a probe in LEO. The problem is, you have no effient launch vehicle to accomplish this. Using a Munar rocket would eat up the payment because of the fuel and part costs. So without design cost penalty, you slap together a super cheap launch system and bang, contract complete with no regard for the fact that your program has never before launched this type of vehicle. There should be a cost associated with creating that new launch system to compensate that program needs to develop a new branch of launch vehicles.

I think this will promote a wider variety of launch vehicle platforms in the early stages of the game. Going from LV-45's for launch to KR2's should be more involved than unlocking some nodes and paying for the rocket.

I honestly don't see how this mechanic would result in a wider variety of launch vehicles at any stage of the game. It essentially penalizes variety and promotes homogeneity. Why pay the penalty and design a new rocket when the previous one can do the job, even if overbuilt?

[Jouni]

Development costs would be nice addition to the game, at least in principle. In practice, the scale of KSP is probably too small for that. We just don't launch that many rockets in the career mode, before we move on to completely different challenges. In our space programs, it's not Apollo 11 that first tries to land on the Mun, but Apollo 4 or 6.

[Guest]

In our space programs, it's not Apollo 11 that first tries to land on the Mun, but Apollo 4 or 6.

More like Apollo 1.

Anyway, I don't really like this idea for the very reason Red Iron Crown outlined, that being homogeneity of the space program. It's nice to have a few reliable subassemblies but, at the end of the day, KSP seems more about creativity and experimentation than NASA's Twelve Step Program.

[nholzric]

I don't understand how this would work - regardless of if it's a good idea or not.

What's to prevent me from loading an existing rocket to make "minor modifications" for the new mission and completely rebuilding everything but the command pod? Ditto for sub-assemblies. Once ships/sub-assemblies are in the VAB/HAB they are just parts and I don't think there's any way of tracking what I do with those parts.

[Jouni]

I don't understand how this would work - regardless of if it's a good idea or not.

What's to prevent me from loading an existing rocket to make "minor modifications" for the new mission and completely rebuilding everything but the command pod? Ditto for sub-assemblies. Once ships/sub-assemblies are in the VAB/HAB they are just parts and I don't think there's any way of tracking what I do with those parts.

Tracking the changes would be trivial. The game could for example have connection costs in addition to part costs. Each connection between two parts would have a flag telling whether you have already paid for it. If you reuse a paid connection, you don't have to pay for it again, but if you change it in any way, the flag resets and you have to pay for it.