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

[CaptainKipard]

that's a fallacious argument.

If it is, then it's not for the reason you gave. I'm pretty much in line with Capt Snuggler. The number of starting resources needed for each product is well within the limits of human short term memory, and afterall players can easily be exposed to those names well before they actually need to start production. And don't forget, the KSP community is one of the more scientifically literate game communities. They seem to enjoy this stuff. I know I do.

Basically, if I have to consult the wiki to figure out how it works it is too complex, IMO.

Are you implying that you didn't consult any kind of source when you had problems with building rockets?

edit

Also people respond very well to visual information; a lot better than they do to text. A graphical outline of the resource system would be sufficient for most.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[r4pt0r]

I personally just trialed and errored

[CaptainKipard]

I personally just trialed and errored

Did you ever download the Kerbol system dv map? No need to answer. It's a rhetorical question. I'm guessing most people immediately know what I'm talking about.

[Capt Snuggler]

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.

running a regular schedule? I don't know what you mean? I didn't say anything about a regular schedule.

Duna for example, a Mars analogue, could have gaseous CO2 and frozen water. with processing you would have Hydrogen Oxygen and Carbon. a 2nd phase of processing you could have CH4 (liquid fuel) and Oxidizer.

Eve could have a scarcity of oxygen, so you must bring water with you. but methane could be naturally occurring.

Tylo could have a scarcity of carbon, so you need to grab a CO2 rich asteroid on the way.

[Red Iron Crown]

Are you implying that you didn't consult any kind of source when you had problems with building rockets?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that building rockets is part of the core gameplay, it should have a learning curve. ISRU is an optional extra, the game is not about hunting and processing resources, so the learning curve for it should not be nearly as steep.

An analogy: Imagine we had to design parachutes from scratch. Canopy width, cup depth, line elasticity, canopy tensile strength, deployment charges, etc, etc. Such a system would be more complex and realistic, but it wouldn't add much to KSP's core gameplay. The parachute enthusiasts would have a field day dissecting the model and designing the chutes of their dreams, but the rest of the player base (which I'm going to presume is the majority) would just not bother with parachutes. The abstraction and simplification of parachutes we currently have makes them more usable by everyone (and the underlying physics can still be realistic).

[LethalDose]

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.

The announcement for the feature in the final version of the game was listed as "Deep space refueling". There's absolutely no reason to believe SQUAD is going to be taking further steps to implement extrakerbestrial construction.

In fact the title of the thread is pretty misleading in that regard: SQUAD didn't announce resources, just refueling.

[r4pt0r]

I have never used a dv map, nor do I care to know a rocket equation either. If a mission didn't get to a destination, then redesigns were needed. other than chatterer and some cloud mod im all stock.

i keep getting surprised people actually calculate dv. just wing it and you can get it eventually.

[CaptainKipard]

... optional extra.....analogy....

No, I don't accept that analogy for two reasons.

• Discovering, extracting and processing resources is no where near the depth of designing a chute, or micromanaging any one part at this level of detail.
  
• ISRU is to me a major step in space exploration, not a minor one like refining existing parts. It should be appropriately complex.
  

i keep getting surprised people actually calculate dv. just wing it and you can get it eventually.

I think it's because career mode is still not balanced to the point where you need to watch how you spend your money and science, but that time is coming.

The announcement for the feature in the final version of the game was listed as "Deep space refueling". There's absolutely no reason to believe SQUAD is going to be taking further steps to implement extrakerbestrial construction.

In fact the title of the thread is pretty misleading in that regard: SQUAD didn't announce resources, just refueling.

That would mean we're all wasting our time here. I'd appreciate if there were some official word on whether they made a decision or if they're still considering the question, or monitoring this thread.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[CaptRobau]

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.

Once your production chain is up, then a single asteroid or single landing site should be able to get you the amount of parts needed to build quite a large number of parts. Just imagine what one could build if an entire Class E size metallic asteroid was hollowed out. It doesn't have to be a truly endless source like KSC to be fun.

[LethalDose]

That would mean we're all wasting our time here. I'd appreciate if there were some official word on whether they made a decision or if they're still considering the question, or monitoring this thread.

Yeah, there's a good chance anyone posting here is wasting time, which is what happens with the vast majority of these "this is how I think Squad should implement X" threads.

The official word will be that "SQUAD watches any threads and takes the community's opinions seriously", which is true, just not in ways that ever seem to work out well, e.g. the community's recent flip-out about the barns' textures delayed the release of up-gradable buildings.

IMO, SQUAD has a really sketchy history when it comes to clarity in what they say and double-speak. There's no way to tell exactly what the devs mean by "deep-space refueling" until they officially present it. Who knows, they might even use ideas presented here, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Red Iron Crown]

Honestly, I doubt much has been decided yet about how resources will work in their final form, I haven't seen mention of them being actively developed yet. All that has been mentioned is that refueling and asteroids will be involved, and even that isn't written in stone. I don't think there's any harm in discussing how we'd like to see it work, and if Squad gleans some ideas from the discussion so much the better.

[CaptainKipard]

I hope they don't make the Klaw siphon fuel straight out of them. I haven't played in a while. Does the Klaw still have magic powers?

[Superfluous J]

SQUAD didn't announce resources, just refueling.

That would mean we're all wasting our time here.

I said both of these things on the first page of this thread, and I see no reason to think either are untrue now, 16 pages later.

And this is not Squad's fault. It's our fault, as a group. Squad says they're going to add an inch in the game, we get mad at them for not implementing a mile.

[CaptainKipard]

And this is not Squad's fault. It's our fault, as a group. Squad says they're going to add an inch in the game, we get mad at them for not implementing a mile.

That's generous. Isn't KSP being advertised as early access with an encouragement to get involved in the direction the game takes? If they're just screwing with us this way then it's definitely their fault. I'm getting a little mad now.

[Laie]

running a regular schedule? I don't know what you mean? I didn't say anything about a regular schedule.

I never claimed you did. I was just illustrating a point: devising a scheme of how you can bring 2 (or more) resources together is problem-solving. Implementing that scheme is some effort. Keeping it running is a chore.

Yeah, there's a good chance anyone posting here is wasting time, which is what happens with the vast majority of these "this is how I think Squad should implement X" threads.

Who knows, they might even use ideas presented here, but I wouldn't count on it.

Three squadsmen standing around the coffee machine could come up with pretty much everything we thought up so far, in like fifteen minutes. They'd also have more context than we do, like whether any remote scanning system is even on the table, or how credible/reality-like the system is supposed to become. This discussion has certainly explored a number of dead ends, some of them more than once. For all I know, they might find the in-space construction idea more interesting than anything else that has been brought up so far, even though it is beyond the scope of this discussion.

[Jouni]

i keep getting surprised people actually calculate dv. just wing it and you can get it eventually.

Some of use prefer more ambitious missions. My 7-kerbal Eve mission took around 50 hours in May, and my current 6.4x Tylo mission is going to be an even bigger project. Just launching the final ship and all the tankers needed to fill its fuel tanks took 30 hours. When you do missions like that, you have to proceed systematically, if you want to have any chance of success.

Besides, as my favorite Heinlein quote goes:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

[Kegereneku]

What we know is that it will be more simple than their abandoned previous try on resources.

It was abandoned for being "too complicated", which in retrospect look obvious although it had to be tried.

Amongst it, features in term we should all understand :

- 3 parts to gather from the 3 medium (Soil, Atmosphere, Ocean)

- All fuel type supported

- resources subtype (for most complicated fuel such as monopropellant)

- intermediate processing modules

- compatibility for potential life-support

- absolutely 100% fictional Kerbalish chemistry

Note that at the time, asteroid and the claw did not exist.

I would like to remember people here that if making a certain type of fuel, require more fuel than you'll produce or to extract another type of fuel first, then the refueling system fail its goal, the worse case being discovering too late a deadlock were no excess fuel can be produced, requiring an omnipotent knowledge of where to create it and the quantity to carry around.

("Obviously !" you say ? Yet, remember that's the problem REAL game-designer struggle with)

Some people might be wasting their time defending idea that are fundamentally flawed, myself I'm just blazed by how many person here "just assume" their idea is the only one that make sense, rather than discuss the broad subject to learn something out of conflicting ideas.

To take an extreme example I think we are more likely to agree on : ExtraKerbin construction or the concept of exploiting/selling space resources.

I do not myself find an appeal or credibility in any of those, in particular because of the common feature it could force upon us (like tedious scavenging or grinding) however I am not against finding something that reproduce the appeal of both in a way that is transparent to me.

The same logic apply to anything else, as long as all participant in the discussion aren't stuck-in baseless obsession, such as chemistry realism, or seek to discuss the real scale of what they are suggesting so as to fully understand it themselves.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Kegereneku
correction

[CaptRobau]

What we know is that it will be more simple than their abandoned previous try on resources.

It was abandoned for being "too complicated", which in retrospect look obvious although it had to be tried.

The basic idea behind that system is not bad. It just has too many superfluous steps/additions. By scrapping a few of the things on there you could get a pretty lean resource mining system:

-Combine the rock and pump drill. They're used in the same spot, in the same way. No use in needing two different parts for that.

-Scrap the dirt refinery. At the most make dirt something you can use as fuel for a space-based mass driver (basically a simple engine that pumps out dirt at high velocity to propel itself)

-Fewer intermediate resources, especially the fake ones. Just keep water and allow it to be used to make liquid fuel/oxidizer/monopropellant. Intake air can directly (but very inefficiently) turned into xenon.

-Scrap life support parts/resources

A few ideas I'd keep though:

-Nuclear reactors/nuclear fuel, when coupled with a more realistic solar power 'decay' would make manned missions to Jool and beyond more challenging (lots of large solar panels for a little bit of juice or a single heavy reactor that provides you with all the power you need?)

-Fuel cells, as a cheaper alternative to solar panels in early career when you're still going to the Mun/Minmus

[Superfluous J]

That's generous. Isn't KSP being advertised as early access with an encouragement to get involved in the direction the game takes? If they're just screwing with us this way then it's definitely their fault. I'm getting a little mad now.

I actually don't remember that pitch. I remember being able to play a not-yet-complete game years ahead of time for cheaper if I'm willing to suffer bugs. The fact that they listen to the community and sometimes decide they agree is a really weird thing to be mad at them about.

They are not obligated in any way to actually implement anything that anybody suggests, even if a lot of people suggest it. If in their minds it won't fit in the game, they do in fact have the final say.

And don't get me wrong. I'd love ISRU in the game. I'm hoping they put it in and it works great and is fun without being too complicated, too easy, too boring, too much of a clickfest, or anything else like that. Deep down I even think they actually are. I'm just saying, they never ever said they would. Ever*. This thread's title is not just misleading, it's a LIE. It states a faleshood. And THAT is getting me a little mad.

*Except really long ago and I don't even know if they said they WOULD, just that they were planning it.

[Kegereneku]

To : CaptRobau

I'm being a little pedantic here, but since the diagram is in itself a basic schematic, you(we) are scrapping most of it.

I would go one step further by asking :

- Do we even need intermediate resources ?

Again I speak as a detractor to chemistry, but if we drill/pump/scoop, use electricity, and fuel goes out on the other side. Then any intermediate process is redundant or only have meaning for design restriction and game-balance, which can be addressed by biome and availability.

- Do we really need to cover all type of fuel ?

Xenon is quite "OP" as we say, monopropellant isn't used much and can be stored in quantity large enough that (myself) I do not see the need for more than one resupply run (from Kerbin) at most. Nuclear fuel is... let's just say infinite

About it, a nuclear thruster do not require electricity, on the opposite it can produce some easily. But what is require is another resources to be used as "reactive mass".

- The question is which one ?

Myself I would go with Liquid Fuel, plain and simple. Late-game it would be even easier to refuel, yet possible to limit to space-only.

As for fuel-cell, I don't think fuel-cell belong here as something we can refuel (we will have battery/RTG way before we can refuel them). Maybe as a low-level non-rechargeable source of energy, but that's another subject.

Btw: I agree that this thread is a little misleading, but technically refueling still count as space resources. If someone made a new topic called "Deep space refueling" we would have to close this one.

[CaptainKipard]

I actually don't remember that pitch

Here you go

Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops.

Just to anticipate some rationalisations; no one says "Get involved with this game" when they mean "Play it". I've been a gamer for over two decades probably, and I've never heard language like that.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Superfluous J]

Here you go

[CaptainKipard]

Ok now I'm mad. Is there a point to this subforum at all? You know an official word or two in a particularly long thread would be nice. I feel really stupid putting so much effort into these threads now.

edit

I made a thread to discuss this.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Laie]

- Do we even need intermediate resources ?

[Pthigrivi]

If it were efficient a fuel cell would be nice as a reactor for night-side ion burns on hybrid drive ships.

Id also just chime in that off-world construction seems a long, long way off compared to fuel collection. You either need a whole new UI and a big stupid part bigger than any other part or a bunch of pre-programed off-world VABs.. also like presumably all these parts are made with massive refineries and foundries and factories somewhere else... like to put even a condensed version of that infrastructure in orbit seems implausible at best. I dont know. I just dont see it.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Pthigrivi