Squad's accounced there will be Resources in Beta- how should they go about it?

[Brotoro]

That's great, really, but this relates to the question that you never answered and that was: What is the sense in simulating resource wastage? I just think that's too technical for a game. There's probably a lot of factors that go into exactly how much hydrogen evaporates or whatever it is. I suspect it would be too difficult to implement. Having perfect reaction ratios is enough IMO. I'd love KSP to be a sim, but even I have my limits. We can pretend that rockets don't waste anything, can't we?

With that said, your mass and volume ratios will be different.

Edit

I'd really love for someone to go over my calculations here just to make sure I got it right. Thankyou.

I was never suggesting that such things needed to be simulated in the game (this is where you confused me). My point was that to find out what what ratios of fuel and oxidizer to use in KSP engines, you should look at real-life rockets to find out the ratios they use...because there is more to designing an engine than getting a 100% burn of fuel and oxidizer. You may need to use more or less propellant or fuel to cool the engine. You may want to use more hydrogen in an LH₂/LOX engine because unburned hydrogen in the exhaust makes the average molecular weight of the exhaust gas lighter, and therefore results in higher exhaust velocity and greater I_sp. But you don't need to simulate that in the game. You just get your propellant usage ratios from real-life rocket engineering and build them into the game. Why be less realistic than you need to be?

I also wanted to point out that liquid hydrogen is not a good match for liquid fuel in KSP. The tanks would need to be huge. You simply can't get the mass of fuel we use into the size tanks we use if it's hydrogen. And it makes no sense to me to ignore the basic engineering of rocket engines and fuel tank capacity to include some particular chemistry that isn't realistic.

And, I DON'T want to have to calculate boil-off of propellants, which is another reason I don't want to use liquid hydrogen as the fuel, since it's much more realistic to ignore boil-off of mildly cryogenic propellants and storable propellants.

[CaptainKipard]

Ok that makes sense, thanks. I'm convinced.

I guess all Im saying is whatever the resource system is there needs to be some noticeable advantage to it vs launching fuel from Kerbin or no one will use it.

ISRU is meant to make resources cheaper, isn't it? KSP just has to get to a point where a single game lasts long enough for ISRU to be worth it.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Pthigrivi]

"And it makes no sense to me to ignore the basic engineering of rocket engines and fuel tank capacity to include some particular chemistry that isn't realistic."

I guess the sense for me would be that playability is fundamentally more important than realism. The atmospheres in KSP make no sense for the in-game size of the planets, but they are playable. I think its more than okay to cheat the fuel chemistry if it means a more straight-forward game mechanic that lends some actual advantage to collecting resources in situ over just launching more fuel from kerbin. If the system is either fundamentally less efficient or cumbersome to the point of being unfun than its not worth doing.

[Brotoro]

Brotoro I love the research I guess my question would be would it actually be practical and fun from a gameplay standpoint to require the player to mine 2 different areas, cart those materials in their own tanks to a refinery, and then process them into LFO? Im talking for casual players who might only be putting in 3-6 hours a week. Also how many worlds could you imagine have plausibly rich deposits of ammonia? I mean does is there any practical sense in collecting ammonia on laythe, returning it to orbit, carting it to duna and mixing it with water when you could just launch more fuel at kerbin for cheaper? Isn't it much simpler and challenging enough map a planet, precision land a drill on a single resource, refine and return to orbit?

I guess all Im saying is whatever the resource system is there needs to be some noticeable advantage to it vs launching fuel from Kerbin or no one will use it.

Yes, I personally would like the challenge involved in carrying a feed resource from one place to another to make propellants. A simple "poke your drill into one place and get everything you need" is too easy to be appealing to me. I don't think I'd want to haul ammonia from Laythe to Duna...I was thinking of shorter trips than that. Anyway, I would expect that you could get ammonia and water on Laythe, and just make fuel and oxidizer that you could ship to Duna. Or, better, I would hope there are sources of nitrogen on Duna (in its atmosphere or nitrates in the regolith) that use could use with Duna ice to make what you need.

As to where you could find ammonia, it is the forth most abundant chemical in jovian planet atmospheres (after hydrogen, helium, and methane), so I don't think it's unreasonable to find it in the outer solar system (so, the moons of Jool and Gas Planet II). The spectra of comet tails indicates that ammonia ice is part of their makeup, so icy bodies or bodies with subsurface ice could be expected to have some. Some people have suggested that Laythe's oceans are a mix of water and ammonia. Tylo seems strangely lacking in volatiles (since it lacks an atmosphere), so I wouldn't necessarily expect to find it there...but maybe there are nitrates in the rocks.

But in any case...I really don't want to ponder this whole thing TOO much just because if I DO come up with some idea for how to do resources that I really like, I'll just be all the more disappointed with what Squad comes up with if it's different (as it likely would be). But I do want to point out things that I think should be avoided, like hydrogen as a fuel (unless we want to re-do all the tank sizes or masses...which seems unlikely).

EDIT: The Haber–Bosch process can be used to create ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen (so planets with nitrogen in their atmosphere, and water/ice as a source of hydrogen, could get you ammonia).

Edited November 26, 2014 by Brotoro

[Brotoro]

"And it makes no sense to me to ignore the basic engineering of rocket engines and fuel tank capacity to include some particular chemistry that isn't realistic."

I guess the sense for me would be that playability is fundamentally more important than realism. The atmospheres in KSP make no sense for the in-game size of the planets, but they are playable. I think its more than okay to cheat the fuel chemistry if it means a more straight-forward game mechanic that lends some actual advantage to collecting resources in situ over just launching more fuel from kerbin. If the system is either fundamentally less efficient or cumbersome to the point of being unfun than its not worth doing.

I completely agree that it must be playable. But I think a resource system that is not overly simple is what's needed to keep the game INTERESTING once you have progressed beyond a certain point (leading to long-term playability). Setting up resource extraction and processing SHOULD (initially) take more work than simply shipping fuel out to distant locations...but, once set up, it should save time in getting more fuel to explore those distant locations.

[CaptainKipard]

I completely agree that it must be playable. But I think a resource system that is not overly simple is what's needed to keep the game INTERESTING once you have progressed beyond a certain point (leading to long-term playability). Setting up resource extraction and processing SHOULD (initially) take more work than simply shipping fuel out to distant locations...but, once set up, it should save time in getting more fuel to explore those distant locations.

Yes seriously. Some people seem to worry that this would increase the learning curve in KSP, but I don't think it would, it would just make the curve longer. You absolutely need new things to do after a while.

[Pthigrivi]

Seed fuel is an interesting idea... I guess like another thing to think about is just how many new parts are we injecting... in-line and radial tanks in multiple sizes for 2 different new chemicals... plus processing, drilling, water and aerial collection... its easy to see how this becomes bonkers. I had a post earlier in this thread suggesting how we could do both resources and life support with like 12 new parts.

I tend to agree that needing to collect 2 resources to make LFO is more challenging and possibly a better end-game set up, the question for me is the actual in-game feasibility of it. Anyone who's driven rovers long distances knows how tedious it would be to cart resources across the surface. Making fuel in the Jool system is all well and fine but it isnt the most economically sensible place for a gas station. Neither is Eve. The two resources need to be relatively close to eachother and easy to collect to be viable. Like in theory 2 resources would need to be twice as prevailent as single resource to acheive the same level of playability. The bottom line is a single resource leads to unrealistic tank sizes, and multiple resources requires an unrealistic degree of prevalence to be fun. Pick your poison.

For me the real power and charm of this game is getting young people excited about space. Most of the real-world ISRC ideas I've heard discussed have been about collecting water ice on the moon and from asteroids and mars to make fuel. Id love if the game pushed people toward these kinds of strategies, which for me implies a single collected resource. All of a sudden capturing asteroids has a purpose, building a Mun base has a purpose... this to me is more important than realistic tank sizes.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Pthigrivi

[Pthigrivi]

I will say though that the idea of seed fuel is changing my thoughts about all this. Its a clever way around depletable resources. Deposits of ice or water could be inexhaustible, but could only be refined while you still had the seed fuel. The seed fuel could be relatively pricey, compact and light, but a little might go a long way. Deposits of that seed fuel might also be available but much more rare, possible only on Eve, Polar Duna, and some of the Joolian moons. This way you could bring seed fuel from kerbin to mine asteroids and Munar ice deposits, but could only truly live off the land on the outer planets.

[Scoundrel]

ISRU is meant to make resources cheaper, isn't it? KSP just has to get to a point where a single game lasts long enough for ISRU to be worth it.

ISRU is about logistics rather than economics, though they are admittedly tied together. The ability to make fuel/consumbables on foreign bodies allows practical mission extension rather than relying on either a (complex) supply chain or an impossibly large vessel. ISRU should theoretically allow for unlimited mission duration in KSP since there's no need for spare parts for any systems. The ability to refuel on the Mün or on Leythe means that whatever missions you dream up can be done with a practically sized vessel. The limit on ISRU systems is the cost and weight. They are (for the most part) bulky and require large amounts of electricity as they aren't exactly thermally efficient. While doing research for one of my novels I came across several (older) papers from NASAs various ISRU projects (along with a fascinating paper on closed cycle life support) that discuss the technical difficulties and issues with ISRU systems, and while virtually all of those issues aren't relevant to KSP, simply making the system expensive and having a high power consumption would balance most of the issues it would have on gameplay.

I just hope they don't use one of those kethane style drills... if they use a more realistic drill rig (can we say tripping pipe anyone?) then we don't have to worry about drill placement except as a center of mass issue.

[J.Random]

I think if Squad is going to implement ISRU, they should make it as abstract and moddable as they can. Technically, it's just 3 modules: generation, extraction and conversion. Generation should be overridable by modder: whether he wants to generate it randomly from seed or tie it to specific biomes, whether it's finite amount of resources at specific spot or it's some efficiency percentile - anything should be possible. Resource extraction should work on rails, and again, it should be abstract: modder may want to give a fixed rate extraction for stationary drills/scoops/collectors or he may tie it to atmospheric speed of the vessel with the scoop. Resource conversion is already there, but again, it should work on rails. If they implement ISRU like that, it won't matter what their own implementation of resource system will look like. Stock system should provide general framework and an example, modders will do the rest.

[VincentS]

What I would do : 3 new pieces categories :

- collectors (drill, scoop etc..)

- "universal" raw material tanks

- analyser/processing units

Operation :

- collectors fill uni-tanks using current biome type (ex : duma low-land regolith, eve ocean liquid etc..). Only one type max per uni-tank. Some may requires power (drill) or speed (scoop)

- processing unit uses power (electricity) and uni-tank material, and produces one (or possibly more, to be determined) resource (LF, O, xenon) depending on material type and biome. Every processing unit works using any base material. Maybe requires a Kerbal to do science on new unknown material and unlock processing (and gives science !).

Conversion type/rate is to be determined by biome. I thinks this approach is both simple and flexible. It can be done using only a handful new parts (2 or 3 collectors, one tank, one processing unit), with new more efficient parts available further in the tech tree (faster or lighter or with less power requirement). Making the processing unit heavy enough and slow enough will make a self-refueling ship a nice challenge, and encourages creating refueling station (and mining rover, in order to benefit from neighboring biomes).

[Laie]

I think a resource system that is not overly simple is what's needed to keep the game INTERESTING once you have progressed beyond a certain point (leading to long-term playability).

Complexity doesn't automatically make it more interesting, or enjoyable.

Let's assume that fuel and oxidizer were very different substances, each requiring their own raw materials and converters. The raw materials could be found together, or not, in varying densities. Your plan for an orbital refinery might start with finding two suitable asteroids that complement each other, and bringing them together. Then placing mining equipment and converters in such a way that the compound output will yield fuel/oxi in the proportions you need, or as closely as possible. If the proportions can't be met exactly, you might toggle one converter every once in a while.

Setting up such a facility would be as complicated as planning a Jool-5 mission. Quite challenging when you do it for the first time, and being able to lean back and say "I've done that" is a reward in itself. But will you do it twice? Especially, when you're planning for a big, fuel-hungry mission, and notice that your mine will run dry -- will you postpone your mission until you built another mine, or will you look into other ways of supplying your mission?

When I started the Eve Rocks Challenge, I expected that most people would just launch their Eve vessel into LKO, then refuel it and move it to Eve, maybe using a nuclear tug. Thats not what happened. Pretty much everyone chose to put everything on top of a huge rocket and be done with it in a single launch. You may also want to have a look at how people are playing the Jool-5 Challenge. Just notice how many entries are marked with "no refueling".

I suspect that ISRU has to be simple or few people will ever do it, or not do it more than once.

[Laie]

I tend to agree that needing to collect 2 resources to make LFO is more challenging and possibly a better end-game set up, the question for me is the actual in-game feasibility of it. Anyone who's driven rovers long distances knows how tedious it would be to cart resources across the surface. [...] The two resources need to be relatively close to each other and easy to collect to be viable.

Exactly. Notice that in my example above I'd rater join two asteroids than cart around intermediates.

Making fuel in the Jool system is all well and fine but it isnt the most economically sensible place for a gas station. Neither is Eve.

Depends on the mission. Eve missions require a *lot* of fuel: your ship(s) arriving empty and refueling in orbit (or on the ground) makes a lot of sense. Especially once we have biomes and may want to do more than one landing.

Looking at a few Eve and Jool missions, I'd say the mining gear (all of it) should be between 40 and 80 tons. More than that and it ISRU wouldn't be worth considering even for a very comprehensive mission; also keep in mind that even the most simple ISRU implementation, the Magic Part of Infinite Fuel, will be considerable extra effort compared to just bringing your own stuff.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Laie

[Eskandare]

I think a few single resources should be used. Like water, intake air (which already exists), and a karbonite/Kethane like substance. But each one has multiple uses. Water can be used for making liquid fuel, oxidizer and maybe mono-propllant, intake air can be used for oxidizer or maybe xenon too, Karbonite/Kethane like stuff can be used for liquid fuel, mono propellant, and maybe xenon. Something along those lines. It is simple, each different resource makes different things. Having three resources allows a little overlap, a little challenge, fun, but not punishing the player to find a million resources to make one fuel. I also liked the snacks mod from (correct me if I'm wrong) RoverDude that it didn't kill the crew but put penalties on the player's reputation if it ran out. Having a snacks alike resource for crew would be good also give players another reason for stations and colonies to have a hydroponic garden part. The hydroponics idea would help teach the needs for sustainable living in space other then fuel.

Just my two cents.

[Capt Snuggler]

When I started the Eve Rocks Challenge, I expected that most people would just launch their Eve vessel into LKO, then refuel it and move it to Eve, maybe using a nuclear tug. Thats not what happened. Pretty much everyone chose to put everything on top of a huge rocket and be done with it in a single launch. You may also want to have a look at how people are playing the Jool-5 Challenge. Just notice how many entries are marked with "no refueling".

I suspect that ISRU has to be simple or few people will ever do it, or not do it more than once.

Making the fuel production/extraction easier would not solve that "problem", if it is a "problem" at all. I see it more as people simply choosing 1 massive rocket instead of 2 or 3. That's not really a problem, just a play style.

I see ISRU is just another more advanced option for sustaining long duration missions. players can take it or leave it. just like space planes, ion engines, orbital refueling, or even docking. its just another tool in the chest.

but it is a very powerful tool. one that should be sufficiently complex to balance its power.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm not sure complexity is the best way to balance it. Simply making the ISRU parts massive, power hungry, and expensive will make it a tradeoff that needs to be considered for each mission. Making it more complex just means fewer players will use it, not because they don't want to but because they have trouble making it work.

I'm kind of on the fence about having tanks for harvested resources before they're processed. On the one hand, separate tanks make for some interesting problem solving (better to process in orbit or at the harvesting location?). On the other hand, we'd probably need a bunch of new tanks in various sizes, adding to memory requirements, part overload and VAB clutter (though the new editor may make that last point moot).

[Laie]

I'm not sure complexity is the best way to balance it. Simply making the ISRU parts massive, power hungry, and expensive will make it a tradeoff that needs to be considered for each mission.

I agree.

Making it more complex just means fewer players will use it, not because they don't want to but because they have trouble making it work.

Or cannot be bothered. A more involved system is only challenging until you figured it out; after that, you're merely going through the motions. The more motions, the greater the deterrent.

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to look at Jool-5 for advice; there may be all kinds of selection bias at work. But it's the best archive of actual players doing actual missions that I can think of. Also, this is about refueling in LKO -- people might be more willing to do it at Jool, or they may not. I don't know. But from what I can glimpse of other people's gameplay, even the Magic Part of Infinite Fuel would be too much hassle for most players, and a sizeable minority would refuse to use it on grounds of it being too overpowered. I don't think this should be brushed off as a playstyle thing; it is a serious problem.

[Capt Snuggler]

I'm not sure complexity is the best way to balance it. Simply making the ISRU parts massive, power hungry, and expensive will make it a tradeoff that needs to be considered for each mission. Making it more complex just means fewer players will use it, not because they don't want to but because they have trouble making it work.

but fuel is massive, requires no power to maintain and is cheap.

the only advantage left for ISRU is the efficiency which would be lost by making it expensive and massive.

thinking about it, in reality the advantage to ISRU is self sustainability and efficiency. enabling us to run extended missions further and further for longer and longer.

it really doesn't translate well to KSP because right now kerbals live forever and fuel is cheap and easy to store...

personally I believe the solution is a more filled out resource web with a life support requirement. but i know others will hate that.

but then why are we running missions for so long anyway...?

Edited November 26, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[CaptRobau]

One thing I've noticed in this thread is the focus on resource being used to create fuel. There is however another interesting use for off-planet mining and that's construction. One thing that the stock game doesn't allow is easy exploration beyond Kerbin. I've explored every inch of the vicinity of KSC, because I could build a specialized vehicle to drive or fly where I wanted to go and try again if I failed. Beyond that small bubble that sort of exploration and experimentation is not possible, because you need to a build a time-consuming mission to even get there and if something goes wrong it'll take another mission to get back to where you were. It's a shame that vast swaths of the bodies beyond Kerbin go practically unexplored, because there's a lot of interesting details to be found. Off-Kerbin construction would be a way to fix that.

A construction system wouldn't need be hard to make. Abstract the resources needed to a single 'ore' resource, add an excavator part to get it out of the soil and a smelter convert it to 'metal'. Metal could then be used by the large (at least 3.75m) construction facility part. Using it would bring the player to a small VAB-like environment where they could build rovers, planes and small spacecraft. Once done, they'd be launched from a launchpad part attached or nearby. This would greatly enhance exploration of the various celestial bodies as people, after setting up a small production chain, would be able to launch all sorts of vehicle to explore and experiment in their alien surroundings.

[CaptainKipard]

I'm not sure complexity is the best way to balance it. Simply making the ISRU parts massive, power hungry, and expensive will make it a tradeoff that needs to be considered for each mission. Making it more complex just means fewer players will use it, not because they don't want to but because they have trouble making it work.

People make more complex recipes for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I don't see the problem.

[r4pt0r]

People make more complex recipes for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I don't see the problem.

Im a milk and cereal guy. otherwise i just order dominos. nothing complex for me

But seriously, the train wreck of a plan they previously had made in .18 or whatever was way WAY too complex.

Simpler the better.

[Red Iron Crown]

but fuel is massive, requires no power to maintain and is cheap.

the only advantage left for ISRU is the efficiency which would be lost by making it expensive and massive.

I think you underestimate the efficiency gains, ISRU to some degree frees us from the tyranny of the rocket equation's exponential mass requirements for delta-V increases. A kg of fuel may be cheap in and of itself, but it needs around 5 kg of rocket parts and fuel just to get to LKO, and more still to get to its destination. A ship on a return interplanetary mission can have more than half of its propellant and propulsion mass eliminated if it can refuel at its destination, mass that then doesn't need to be lugged out of Kerbin's deep well. If more than one journey is planned to another planet it becomes even more worthwhile as the ISRU mass penalty only has to be paid on the first trip; all subsequent ones can reuse the ISRU infrastructure delivered the first time.

People make more complex recipes for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I don't see the problem.

I respect you Cpt. Kipard, but that's a fallacious argument. People have to eat and they'll be preparing meals for their entire lives, so some investment in learning more complex recipes has a long amortization period. KSP is a video game that most players are only going to play for a few months at most, one that already has a fairly steep learning curve with regards to vessel design and orbital mechanics. Making non-core gameplay elements exceedingly complex just makes them less likely to be used.

[Capt Snuggler]

I think you underestimate the efficiency gains

I didn't underestimate the efficiency, but I did overestimate what was meant by massive and expensive.

One that already has a fairly steep learning curve with regards to vessel design and orbital mechanics. Making non-core gameplay elements exceedingly complex just makes them less likely to be used.

well your idea of "exceedingly complex" differs from mine and Cpt Kipards.

I believe if people can figure out orbital mechanics and get to Duna/Eve/Laythe, then they can figure out putting H2O or CO2 into a "blackbox part" will give you H O and C respectively, to be re-processed into CH4 Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer.

I often read people saying "this feature or that feature will be too hard for newbies". its frankly starting to come across as condescending.

I think the majority of players are drawn to KSP because of the problem solving design elements. whether they consciously know it or not.

KSP is a video game that most players are only going to play for a few months at most

ok so your saying advanced late game features should be built around that philosophy? at the detriment of long term players? what? really? that's not a recipe for a great game.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Capt Snuggler
spelling/tone (sorry)

[Laie]

but fuel is massive, requires no power to maintain and is cheap.

the only advantage left for ISRU is the efficiency which would be lost by making it expensive and massive.

The efficiency of ISRU is tending towards the infinite in any case: You carry a fixed weight of ISRU stuff that can be used to make unlimited fuel.

There's a few knobs to tune this, though: for one, the weight of the gear determines the point of breakeven, how much fuel you need to create before it becomes worthwhile; that is simple to figure out. Another, how much hassle it will be to use the gear; whether it will ever be worth the effort is very very subjective, depending on player and playstyle.

I previously stated that the equipment should weigh in the 40-80 ton range. The lower value is pure opinion: I just believe that it a full ISRU kit shouldn't weigh less than one orange tank. The upper was inspired by "typical" Jool or Eve missions: there's surprisingly many that need no more than three or four orange tanks worth of fuel.

An interesting side effect may be that Jool-5-like missions become positively easy even for stock players who don't know about delta-V.

One thing I've noticed in this thread is the focus on resource being used to create fuel. There is however another interesting use for off-planet mining and that's construction. One thing that the stock game doesn't allow is easy exploration beyond Kerbin. [...]

bring the player to a small VAB-like environment where they could build rovers, planes and small spacecraft. Once done, they'd be launched from a launchpad part attached or nearby. This would greatly enhance exploration of the various celestial bodies

Me likes. A lot. Nevermind if this requires me to bring a lot of gear and two dozen kerbals to get started. Being able to construct stuff near Jool or Eve is worth a lot of effort, if you need to put in the effort only once. If it needs a constant shipment of supplies ("tools", "engine parts" or whatever), it won't really solve the problem you describe.

I think the majority of players are drawn to KSP because of the problem solving design elements. whether they consciously know it or not.

But please understand the difference between problem solving and tedium. Having two different resources you need to bring together is a problem; setting up a solution, with shuttles and everything, can be fun. But running a regular schedule will quickly become a chore.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Laie

[Red Iron Crown]

I didn't underestimate the efficiency, but I did overestimate what you meant by massive and expensive.

It's a tough balance to strike, to be honest. Make it too light/cheap and it will just get installed on every vessel as a no-thought-required efficiency gain. Make it too heavy/expensive and it only becomes viable for long term inhabitation or Grand Tour-style missions. Neither result is particularly desirable to me, IMO it should be just barely viable for nearby planets with grater gains for more distant one.

well your idea of "exceedingly complex" differs from mine and Cpt Kipards.

I believe if people can figure out orbital mechanics and get to Duna/Eve/Laythe, then they can figure out putting H2O or CO2 into a "blackbox part" will give you H O and C respectively, to be re-processed into CH4 Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer.

That doesn't sound too complex at all, such an implementation would be fine by me. It's requiring half a dozen different parts or a tedious scavenger hunt to make it work that I'd like to avoid.

I often read people saying "this feature or that feature will be too hard for newbies". its frankly starting to come across as condescending.

I think the majority of players are drawn to KSP because of the problem solving design elements. whether they consciously know it or not.

It's not condescension on my part, it's personal experience. I came into KSP as a space enthusiast with very little physics education and despite being a somewhat bright person I struggled mightily with figuring out how to build ships and get around in orbit and with developing my piloting skills. I don't mind that there's a steep curve for those things though, they're the core gameplay of KSP and it's rewarding to get better at them.

ISRU, though, is not a core mechanic, it's an optional tool. Turning it into a chemistry quiz or a scavenger hunt is pretty undesirable for me. Basically, if I have to consult the wiki to figure out how it works it is too complex, IMO.

ok so your saying advanced late game features should be built around that philosophy? at the detriment of long term players? what? really? that's not a recipe for a great game.

I am a long term player, obviously that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that making ISRU complex enough that only "hardcore" players would bother to mess with it is not good for the game either.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Red Iron Crown