R&D Costs

[peadar1987]

Or a way to simulate them.

Basically, I think we could simply model R&D costs using the subassembly system, if things saved as subassemblies cost less than the sum of their parts. This saving would represent not having to do all of the design and development again for every booster, and might encourage players to get a little bit creative with the tools they already have at their disposal.

Of course, there would have to be some sort of system in place to stop players designing an entire new rocket every time, dropping it into the subassembly folder, then dragging it back out again to get the cost saving, but I'm sure that wouldn't be too hard to code for.

[Sky_walker]

We don't know how budgets will work. R&D costs might already be simulated in the game... or not. IMHO you should wait with this suggestion till after 0.24 is released.

[Red Iron Crown]

there would have to be some sort of system in place to stop players designing an entire new rocket every time

Why is it desirable to prevent this? Designing rockets is half the fun!

I mean, I can see where you're coming from about standardized designs having economic benefits in the real world, but this sort of mechanic actually penalizes the player for building new things instead of using the same old ones. To my mind, it penalizes creativity rather than promotes it. A player is likely to use the same lifter, the same lander, the same transfer tug over and over to reach all destinations.

[Vindelle_Sunveam]

Red Iron Crown, you may have misread

stop players designing an entire new rocket every time, dropping it into the subassembly folder, then dragging it back out again to get the cost saving

He just wants to prevent the subassembly discount from being broken. Like adding a line of code which stipulates how many times the subassembly has been used on a launched rocket, and if less than one, no discount.

[Red Iron Crown]

No, I didn't misread. The suggestion is to give a discount for reusing the same subassemblies over and over; essentially assigning an economic penalty to new designs. The line I quoted sums up the reason I dislike such a proposal, that we would somehow want to prevent players from building new things without cost penalty.

It might be realistic, but it penalizes a fun part of the game.

[peadar1987]

We don't know how budgets will work. R&D costs might already be simulated in the game... or not. IMHO you should wait with this suggestion till after 0.24 is released.

Fair point.

Why is it desirable to prevent this? Designing rockets is half the fun!

I mean, I can see where you're coming from about standardized designs having economic benefits in the real world, but this sort of mechanic actually penalizes the player for building new things instead of using the same old ones. To my mind, it penalizes creativity rather than promotes it. A player is likely to use the same lifter, the same lander, the same transfer tug over and over to reach all destinations.

This is just a personal opinion, but I think it would add to the challenge and interest of career mode. If you want to build rockets with no restrictions, that's what sandbox is for. I'd prefer my career mode to be about getting the contracts done in the most effective and efficient way, given certain limitations. Others might disagree.

[Vindelle_Sunveam]

Well, as long as the game is balanced towards players who always make custom built rockets, it should be good. Players who put a lot of effort in Standardized Launcher Classes get a bonus that makes them happy, and everybody else plays without any penalty.

OTOH, Standardizing is bound to make some sacrifices when it comes to efficiency. Some payloads may sit right in between 2 launcher designs, and none will make for a good launch vehicle.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Vindelle_Sunveam

[Red Iron Crown]

This is just a personal opinion, but I think it would add to the challenge and interest of career mode. If you want to build rockets with no restrictions, that's what sandbox is for. I'd prefer my career mode to be about getting the contracts done in the most effective and efficient way, given certain limitations. Others might disagree.

Sandbox is not really relevant here, we're talking about career mode and a budgetary mechanic. I think we just disagree on whether that mechanic is a desirable one or not. I can see how it would add a bit of challenge, as you would want general purpose designs rather than mission specific ones as much as possible. IMO it would make it less interesting, though, as once you have your designs ironed out there's an actual penalty for new designs in comparison to the old ones; the mechanic actively discourages new designs and encourages using the same thing over and over; this is less interesting (to me at least) than creating new designs.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that our opinions differ.

Well, as long as the game is balanced towards players who always make custom built rockets, it should be good. Players who put a lot of effort in Standardized Launcher Classes get a bonus that makes them happy, and everybody else plays without any penalty.

A bonus that you must forgo is a penalty.

[peadar1987]

Sandbox is not really relevant here, we're talking about career mode and a budgetary mechanic. I think we just disagree on whether that mechanic is a desirable one or not. I can see how it would add a bit of challenge, as you would want general purpose designs rather than mission specific ones as much as possible. IMO it would make it less interesting, though, as once you have your designs ironed out there's an actual penalty for new designs in comparison to the old ones; the mechanic actively discourages new designs and encourages using the same thing over and over; this is less interesting (to me at least) than creating new designs.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that our opinions differ.

Hey, it's a discussion forum, differences of opinions are kind of what it's here for!

I quite like the idea of having a fairly hard limit of say 1000kg into LKO with a certain booster, and having to design my payload around that, to get it to do what I want. It's generally how I play the game anyway. I still get the fun design challenge, it's just shifted from the booster to what goes inside the fairing at the top of it. I was amazed at how much mass I could shave off my geostationary satellites for Remote Tech 2 when I needed to. Very satisfying (for me as an engineer at least)!