So.... What's with the resources?

[tater]

I'd be perfectly happy to see this type of thing as a paid add-on (squads of apes gotta eat, too!) after they get their desired 1.0 version. Multiple resource types are fine, but Red Iron Crown is right, the mechanics should be straightforward. I'd suggest coding it with unlimited resources in a given area, but done such that the resource amount is an actual number, unless the tag is set to 1 or something, then it's infinite (default). The rest (mining per unit time, unfocused) is great.

Really the scope of such an add-on would be an early space-faring economy within the Kerbol system. Add the ability to construct fabrication facilities, etc, so that real colonization might be possible. Again, this would be a new, paid product, I'm not suggesting the devs work on that now. I'd certainly pay up.

[cantab]

I think it might be an idea for resources to not be finite per se, but abundances of decline with extraction, thus requiring more "in" in order to get the stuff out. That would be closest to how many natural resources are in reality.

[EdFred]

This is Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Resource Allocation Manager and Collection Program.

The implementation of that would be awful.

I mean, if you want realistic, you might as well add a purchasing department that has to negotiate with part manufacturers. An HR department to deal with labor issues. Unions, strikes, etc...

Edited September 4, 2014 by EdFred

[Endersmens]

This is Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Resource Allocation Manager and Collection Program.

The implementation of that would be awful.

I mean, if you want realistic, you might as well add a purchasing department that has to negotiate with part manufacturers. An HR department to deal with labor issues. Unions, strikes, etc...

Where is your proof that it would be awful? I think it would be awesome.

Also, that's an opinion, so please don't shove it at us like it's a fact.

[EdFred]

Where is your proof that it would be awful? I think it would be awesome.

Also, that's an opinion, so please don't shove it at us like it's a fact.

Having been in business for 17 years with military, aerospace, and numerous other sectors and dealing with their ridiculous and onerous requirements as being part of the supply chain, I can tell you unequivocally that adding everything that goes into that as part of a game to make it "realistic" would make the game suck. And that is a fact. I don't go home and play my job as a game because it's awesome. I go home and play a game as a game.

[Vanamonde]

Moved to development discussion.

And keep in mind, folks, that resources are a What Not to Suggest item, because the idea has been discussed to death and tends to cause arguments.

[tater]

This is Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Resource Allocation Manager and Collection Program.

The implementation of that would be awful.

I mean, if you want realistic, you might as well add a purchasing department that has to negotiate with part manufacturers. An HR department to deal with labor issues. Unions, strikes, etc...

Right. This post is very typical of knee-jerk, anti-"realism" posts. "If you don't model them actually squeezing food tubes into their mouths, it's not "realistic" anyway, so why worry about the physics of spaceflight at all!"

So I assume you think that the entire career game should also be scrapped, right? It involves a budget, research, reputation, and they are apparently adding the ability to follow/manage your astronauts. What is the point of a career game? The point is to create novel situations, and reasons to do things in game that you might not do in the sandbox mode---because such problems to solve are "fun." The current stock career is… lacking. The path is to land on as many planets as possible (you can easily blow through the entire tech tree never going past Kerbin or the Mun, actually), then perhaps to build weird stuff to do the same (which you might as well do in sandbox). It should have limited financial resources, but I've so far never been close to tight on money, always with an order of magnitude more than I need. I'm going to make a munar base, for example. Why? Because it will be fun. Does it have anything to do with playing the career mode? Not at all, there is no reason to build a base in career mode, or indeed period (except for fun---which could be sandbox). A reason might be if you could construct a facility that would allow for XXX kerbals to live (we'd need life support abstracted at least, like "Snacks"), at which point you can build a resupply facility (mine for fuel/oxidizer/etc). It's a reason to expand, and build bigger stuff, farther afield in the solar system without having to ship everything from the ground on Kermin (because a train of mindless resupply vessels is a "supply chain" that we then have to micro-manage (even to the point of docking everything).

People are not suggesting that you need to first mine on Kermin. This is for mining off-planet. A reason to expand into space past doing it "because."

I think it's a great idea once they get all the core features in the game.

Edited September 4, 2014 by tater

[Endersmens]

Having been in business for 17 years with military, aerospace, and numerous other sectors and dealing with their ridiculous and onerous requirements as being part of the supply chain, I can tell you unequivocally that adding everything that goes into that as part of a game to make it "realistic" would make the game suck. And that is a fact. I don't go home and play my job as a game because it's awesome. I go home and play a game as a game.

I really don't want to get into an argument. It's not really my thing. You're entitled to your opinion. I'll leave it at that.

[tater]

I think that edfred thinks that resources would somehow be required to do anything. Perhaps he thinks he'd have to mine like mine craft to build the VAB? The smelt iron ore and make raw materials for rockets? Within the scope of KSP, it would be slightly more specific than the fact that the air breathers currently in game "mine" oxidizer, and reaction mass from the atmosphere. You land a mining pod, attach it to a separator pod, and attach that to a fuel tank, and throw a solar panel or RTG on it. Tank is now kept full for your spaceflight needs (if there was the ability to construct a "launchpad" then any craft on it can be assumed to be refueled from that tank).

The gameplay plus is it creates a good reason to build a base on another planet/moon. If the base resource is water, for example, then polar regions will be preferred (some more complicated maneuvers required to keep the players challenged). If you don't think that's required… then you don't bother.

Edited September 5, 2014 by tater

[Kegereneku]

Some opinion :

If SQUAD said it wouldn't be fun to play, I trust them entirely, especially since the chart alway gave me that impression.

Since KSP is quite realist nothing in space should be worth bringing back to sell, a little like going to Sahara to extract water and sell in Antarctica. Even Nuklear ore isn't worth it either since you don't use it that much. You would need a new resources like costlier-Platinum put into asteroid already going toward Kerbin, using parachute to land them on Kerbin, so they might barely be worth it.

If you still want resources for fuel, you have many way of implementation :

- What are the criteria ?

> How many resources you can have on one planet ?

> How many resources can be extracted with one or two designs ?

> How much can be carried at once before refinement ? (either you refine on the ground of in space even if illogical)

> Does it require Kerbal to man ?

> Can you extract resources without being focused on one ship ?

Once you have that you can work on ferrying resources.

- How much ferrying ?

Supposing you can get Liquid Fuel but not Oxidizer from Minmus you would need to send half-full tank of oxidizer here, have a lander and a mining facility, two as one if you can't do another way, an it better carry enough LF to refuel whatever you sent.

So in order :

> One flight to minmus

> One ascent from minmus then descent if you need more fuel

Multiply for each resources.

- The case of outer planet

The jool system is the only place where I expect all needed resources to be available on low-gravity moon.

> It will require specific ship, all reusable, followed by mining-facility or acting as one for each resources

> Forgot a ship or some equipment ? 5 years of travels + 1year for the launch window and a new costly ship (since Career now have funds)

- You can still fail even with everything on place

If you mismanaged your installation you can still get into a deadlock.

> The ship carrying the Liquid Fuel don't have enough Oxidizer

> The ship carrying the Oxidizer don't have enough Liquid Fuel

> Both don't have enough monopropellant to make rendez-vous safe

- Are resources finite ?

> If they are, you'll have to be able to move around all mining-plant regularly.

> Remember how long it take, how heavy are heavy rover and how hard they are to design.

In short, you'll want to wait to have all parts available before going into mining and spend your entire time Setting-up the installation before they can even be used.

Of course that's with the last known chart posted by SQUAD.

Myself I wouldn't mind ISRU for fuel as long as it's easy to implement late game. A nuclear spaceship for example could be refueled only with one type of resources (hydrogen/Liquid Fuel here) meaning that such an installation (on a easy moon like Minmus) become an affair of two ship + a mining plant.

And lastly anything will require a new part to transfer resources on the ground without docking.

[cantab]

Since KSP is quite realist nothing in space should be worth bringing back to sell

Well, there are quite a few people somewhat seriously considering that IRL.

An idea, though I really think it would be better saved for a mod, is for the pricing of things to be variable. For example when you start out rockets are expensive, there are plenty of people willing to fund you, and even if you could mine something it wouldn't be worth it. Once your space program's more established rockets are cheaper, but maybe funding's drying up a bit, however the price of minerals has gone up so you might actually turn a profit by mining. Flood Kerbin with loads of the same mineral though and your revenues from it will drop, encouraging you to explore more and diversify, or cut costs.

PS: We have a part to transfer resources on the ground without docking - the claw.

[Red Iron Crown]

We have a part to transfer resources on the ground without docking - the claw.

I consider the claw a universal docking port. I think he meant that the two vessels wouldn't have to brought into physical contact, e.g. you land your VTOL rocket next to your VTOL or stationary refinery, you could refuel without having to bump them together. Something like KAS pipes or similar.

[EnderSpace]

There is already this feature in life support mod , but it would be challenging if they add it

[Francois424]

Looking at that proposed-but-now-scrapped resource tree, I would not be interested in the game at all if that were implemented.

I also don't do the Kethane mod.

that is why we need the "create new game menu" so ppl can opt in or out of different aspect of the game.

Ppl don't want resources ? uncheck it. That way the official resource releases wont mess your playstyle.

I am part of those that also want resource as an optional checkbox. (heck everything should have it's checkbox).

[cantab]

Proliferating options makes balancing career more difficult for Squad. With one stock experience they have one thing to playtest and think about. If you start asking the player, do you want resources? Do you want classic scale, new scale, or real scale solar system? Do you want re-entry damage? And so, suddenly Squad have to playtest and balance all the multiplying combinations.

[NERVAfan]

Some opinion :

If SQUAD said it wouldn't be fun to play, I trust them entirely, especially since the chart alway gave me that impression.

It's not a matter of "trust", IMO, since fun is different for different people.

I think it would be awesome, but maybe most people wouldn't.

Since KSP is quite realist nothing in space should be worth bringing back to sell

The point isn't to bring it back to Kerbin/Earth to sell, but to use it in space.

(And Planetary Resources seems to think they can mine platinum group metals from asteroids profitably.)

[stupid_chris]

As Squad isn't going to add this I really want to see someone make a mod that follows this tree.

Well, there are mods like Kethane that already deal with resources and prove that SQUAD was mistaken with their assessment and resources not only can be incredibly fun but also add whole new dimension to the gameplay that perfectly fits the main scope of a game - one of a major reasons being that bases on another planets start to make sense with these mods.

However there is no mod that would follow the tree as pictured above.

If I was you...

... I would not speak so fast

[Joshwoo70]

If I was you...

http://i.imgur.com/ecYXMLE.png

http://i.imgur.com/dY8QPP7.png

... I would not speak so fast

Huh? What is this?

[Seret]

Huh? What is this?

Looks like a mod he's contributed to. Presumably to implement the old WIP resources model Squad released ages ago.

[stupid_chris]

Looks like a mod he's contributed to. Presumably to implement the old WIP resources model Squad released ages ago.

"Contributed" is not really the right word I'm simply working on it conjointly with Cybutek.

[Frozen_Heart]

So looking forward to this mod already!

[NERVAfan]

Yeah, that sounds super interesting! What is its status?

[Darnok]

I see resources as mid and late carrier mode feature.

After we gather lots of science and unlock most of parts contracts may seem little boring.

We could get new contracts types like "Get rare metal/mineral from asteroid", "Get HEL-3 from Mun" etc etc.

It could even be something better, we should be able to change our Kerbal Space Agency into private company that can transport recourses for contractors and get money from it.

Or invest science, money and reputation into new tech tree and build mine, refinery, permament base and make money from it.

I know that it would be like "space sim", but how long we can play and discover new things all the time? We got finite number of parts, planets and moons.

Not to mention that resources in multiplayer game would be nice reason for some hybrid multiplayer-carrier mode, so with finite resources players would have to expand and create bigger and better rockets and crafts to earn money faster

[Nobody]

Could the people saying that squad has completely abandoned resources site the source for that? All I have seen from what the developers have posted is that they found the system they were working on to not be fun and put it on the back burner to work on other important features while they figure out how to better handle resources.

There is a big difference between them saying that it will never happen and them shifting their focus to other things(so there is visible progress for customers to see) while trying to figure out what went wrong with the design. Look at how much people complain about the speed the updates come out for this game(some want weekly updates to the game). Putting a problem feature on the back burner while it is worked out would be preferable to most of the community to the alternative of waiting a year or more for an update because of the problems with a feature that was set in stone for the next version.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Nobody

[Seret]

Could the people saying that squad has completely abandoned resources site the source for that?

AFAIK there is no source, people are just reading between the lines. Squad knew announcing that they were stopping development of a resource system would be unpopular, so they softened the blow a bit by refusing to entirely rule it out.

What you definitely won't get is a resource system similar to the one they released teaser material from. Personally I don't think we'll get one at all, but you never know.