Add monthly government funding.

[EvilotionCR2]

Add monthly government funding. It should be something like 10k a month and scale by the achievements you achieve, so when you run out of money you can wait and launch more missions to complete contracts. Should be toggleable.

[rkman]

so when you run out of money

Given that we haven't yet played this version of the game that introduces funds, do we even know that it is possible to run out of money?

[RidingTheFlow]

I don't think its possible to run out of money, since contracts always give you advance payment simply by agreeing to undertake them...

[JohntotheBrogan]

That Would Be Very Interesting To See, But Yea That Would Make The Game A Lot More Realistic

[dronkit]

+1

One can't always do missions exclusively to fulfill contracts. One likes to explore, test new designs, etc.

[snsmac]

I would like to see this too

[Tex_NL]

The amount of monthly funding could be based on your current reputation.

Or perhaps even coupled to mandatory (long term) contracts. Failure results in a drastic drop in funding.

[BudgetHedgehog]

God, I hope not. I don't want free money or a bail-out, I want to fix things myself. Even if my funds get so low that I can't launch anything, there's contracts that give money in advance which is enough to give a headstart again. I don't like this idea as it basically removes any point of doing any contracts - why do anything if I can just timewarp until I have enough money to do what I want? If you want that, why not just play the Science mode or Sandbox... That and I don't see government funding as something that fits into KSP canon.

[Sky_walker]

No, thanks.

Money is already waaaaay too easy to get.

[Pulstar]

Primary problem with this is the same as with science over time, you can just timewarp until you get more money without doing anything requiring effort.

[Kegereneku]

Copypasta from me

I wish shortsighted persons stop saying that. Timewarp is what make time-based gameplay mechanism even more interesting.

Right now you can launch 10 craft per day and gain more money that you'll ever be able to use. Especially since you can RESET nearly every failure. (as of now I have technically never failed any mission or killed any Kerbal (and truly I always have a way to save my Kerbal anyway))

With a daily/monthly budget that increase through reputation, even without the reputation diminishing over time (as you know REAL labs can't get infinite budget doing nothing like that) you would add a strategic aspect to KSP's career.

And this is not asking a redesign, it would work perfectly with Contract.

The big difference would be the balance, Your budget wouldn't allow you to launch more than, say, 1 rocket per week so you would chose carefully the contract you can do before they expire, or contract that will give you enough funds to one more rocket.

The worst it will ask is a button on the Space Center view specially made to accelerate 1 <budget period> ahead.

A mechanism MANY game already use efficiently.

tl;dr

Timewarp do not limit gameplay, it extend it.

Monthly Funding does not necessarily mean "Unlimited found", or less than contract you can't fail (thanks to the revert) and give you 10 time what you'll ever spend.

In the real world, labs actively try to spend ALL their budget so they can get as much next year.

Something similar can be applied to KSP. You would receive founds UP TO a certain amount each <time period>.

I see 3 advantages to this.

- Amateur player would still get money for a new rocket even if penalties for failing a contract were harsh (unlike now)

- Hardcore player would fin a way to launch more rocket per <time period> using the gain from contract.

And the 3rd advantage would be the significant strategy/planning aspect you would add to KSP as you wouldn't alway be able to launch a mission in time to get a launch windows, save a Kerbin, or accomplish a contract.

[guest91111]

Okay, but you have to reach a rocket-launched-quota! Otherwise it's an unbalanced system.

[Roastduck]

I'm also going to copy/paste from a similar thread:

If a monthly salary is implemented, then balancing would require that it be reputation-based, otherwise people would just time-warp for a couple of years and have all the money they want. If you base it on reputation, though, you can have a mechanic that does a stock check before each paycheck is dispensed. It would check stuff like:

• Number of missions attempted this month
  
• Number of missions accomplished/failed
  
• Number of contracts completed
  
• Number of contracts outstanding
  
• number of contracts failed
  

Doing nothing in a month will frustrate backers, because no one wants to pay someone to do nothing. People also don't like paying someone to fail, so successful launches are a must for a positive reputation. Completing contracts is an obvious rep boost, but sitting on contracts will frustrate the customer, resulting in a slight hit to reputation. All this would be calculated into a change in reputation, and the paycheck would be dispensed based off the NEW reputation level.

What also might help balance contracts with the tech tree is before you can unlock a node, all parts in that node must be tested. Then once you test them all, you pay the manufacturer a license fee to use their parts (the research cost that was mentioned earlier), plus make parts a little more expensive, while leaving contract payouts the same. If you decrease contract payout, it needs to be by a factor less than the adjustment to part cost (in my opinion)

EDIT:

ex : You launched easily 3 satellites during your big mission, and now you can't revert it.

This would be a neat mechanic to add. I would implement something like a second window in Mission Control where you plan a mission. Your mission plan should include the number of launches of a payload you have already constructed. Selecting "Revert to launch/VAB" would revert to before any of the launches occurred. Example: missions is to place 3 satellites I've already designed into KSO. The first tw

o launches are successful, but the third launch fails because I hit spacebar by accident. I can revert to before I launched the first satellite and start the whole mission over, OR I can eat the loss and relaunch the last satellite (choosing to take a financial hit and launch one rocket, or start over with 3 launches). Have the whole system set up as kind of a custom user-created contract.

It could also tie in with the "number of missions accomplished" mechanic I mentioned earlier.

A mod could probably merge the two threads

[Asmayus]

You could base it on the number of contracts completed or partially completed.

Suppose you take a rescue mission, for example.

Get the kerbal aboard a vessel: next payment increased by 130%.

Get the kerbal home safe: next payment increased further, by 260%.

So this means the best way to increase profits is to do contracts. If you stack payment calculations each time (e.g., $100 x 130 % = $130, and then $130 * 260% = $338), you reinforce the interest the player has in completing missions, since it is always more profitable to do a mission now than to time accelerate, which will drop income back down.

One of the pitfalls I can see is that each month you must do a large number of contracts to maintain your income, which will become a chore. I suggest the following plan:

Kerbal aboard vessel: Next payment increased by 130%, and half that* the following month.

kerbal home safe: next payment increased further, by 260%, and half* that the following month.

Minimum modifier should always be 100% (i.e = 0)

So now month 1 income is $338, and month 2 income is: $100 x 65% = 100 (minimum modifier), $100 x 130% = $130, before the player does anything.

* or some other percentage; this will come down to game balance.

The only other real problems I can see with this system is you can run out of funds before the next payment - but it also means we can use time acceleration to our advantage without it being "cheaty". Long term missions might be a little tricky, since your income will drop back down to whatever basic is, but Squad have actually said that they imagined the player doing one long mission and doing a few smaller ones concurrently, so maybe it'll work.

[Kegereneku]

I guess the thread are quite redundant.

Roastduck I think I wasn't clear enough.

I wasn't suggesting of forcing the player to launch his rockets/satellite per batch like you seem to describe.

I was more remarking that if you launch several short missions while you had another long mission running, you will not want (or even be able) to revert to the very start of the long mission to change your design and avoid thing like mission failure.

To play on this you would be incited to launch ship in parallel. (many reasons to do that exist, I can list a few)

Okay, but you have to reach a rocket-launched-quota! Otherwise it's an unbalanced system.

Not necessarily.

You can keep a player from gaining infinite money trough timewarp without making him lose it by not using it.

My idea is that the player reputation (a sort of "progression") would stay the same (and so the budget) if a player don't do anything.

It can be seen as a bit of a stretch compared to reality, but so are most game-economy.

If there's a downside to my proposition I think It is would be that reputation would have to be hard to gain. (and preferably harder to lose so your budget never revert too much)

[dronkit]

I support this, for it's more realistic, and because even if money is "easy to get" by getting contract advances, the money is sobject to fulfilling contracts. And the game isn't all about fulfillnig the contracts. We have exploration of easter eggs, mapping, sightseeing, designing and testing new crazy ships... Also, not even fulfilling the contracts is fulfilling for the soul if you fulfill the contract to the letter and nothing more. Say... the contract says "explore duna". Ok, build a probe, orbit, collect data, land, collect data, collect reward and that's it. No more exploring or sightseeing the enormous beautiful Duna.

The "money would be too easy to get by warping" concern is a real thing, but i read some great solutions here from you guys.

[Roastduck]

I guess the thread are quite redundant.

Roastduck I think I wasn't clear enough.

I wasn't suggesting of forcing the player to launch his rockets/satellite per batch like you seem to describe.

I was more remarking that if you launch several short missions while you had another long mission running, you will not want (or even be able) to revert to the very start of the long mission to change your design and avoid thing like mission failure.

To play on this you would be incited to launch ship in parallel. (many reasons to do that exist, I can list a few)

I like that idea. I'll need to think of a way it could be implemented while I'm at work

[dronkit]

Building space stations and bases! No one pays you to do that!

[Roastduck]

Building space stations and bases! No one pays you to do that!

There will still be contracts for science transmitted from orbit/landed on different bodies, so stations and bases just become manned satellites and probes.

[Kegereneku]

Supposing a contract can place a base/station or keep track of the one you built yourself, you could also be paid to transfer Kerbonaut.

But we have to be sure it can indeed keep trace of that.

I like that idea. I'll need to think of a way it could be implemented while I'm at work

I guess I can give you a few reason for parallel launch of rocket :

Reasons I use right now :

- While waiting for the KSC to come back on the day side so I can land.

- Launching a rocket while I have another one going for the Mun or interplanetary

- Launching several probes on one rocket, and separate them at destination. (in this case it's easy, the game count them as separate craft so you cannot revert anymore without a quicksave)

- Orbital assembly or refueling

Reasons I expect with government funding

- Even if you don't lose money over time, you won't gain any either if you do nothing.

- planning, you want to get a launch windows but the rocket require an entire month of budget so you launch it early

- wanting to accomplish a short contract while a long mission is ongoing.

- long mission that require orbital assembly and several month worth of budget turned into rocket

(I guess one could abuse the system by launching and recovering costly rocket the next month but that would be hard work with a lot of loss)

- Building resupply or tug-ship meant to stay in space.

- Contract completing an earlier one where you didn't had to recover the rocket.

- Science-run (cheap probes to get science)

Arguably this sort of parallel missions wouldn't matter much early game as you wouldn't have docking or ship further away than the Mun.