Rival Space Agency!

[Scoundrel]

So I briefly dusted off my (non-programming) game designer hat and thought about how the contracts system create a practical way to have a rival space agency operate out of the other KSC without turning KSP into an RTS.

It would work as follows: A contract comes up. The player and the agency can either choose to accept it or ignore it.

• If the player accepts the contract but the agency does not, then the game plays as it does now.
  
• If the agency accepts the contract but the player does not, then the contract vanishes after a certain point and the agency gets the rep, cash and science.
  
• If they both choose the contract, then a timer starts up. The player must complete the contract before the rival agency does. If the player fails to beat the agency, then the agency gets the reward and the player looses. If the player succeeds, then the agency is penalized.
  

Obviously this allows us to set a win condition for career mode as well: the first to n Reputation/Cash/Science wins, where n can be any number picked at the difficulty screen (don't worry it can be infinite).

Of course the permutations of having a rival agency become obvious:

• A contract comes up (perhaps when the player is falling behind the agency) where the player has to rescue kerbals from the agency or retrieve a spacecraft… or even just refuel it.
  
• Contracts that establish bases and space stations means the agency has a presence in space that the player has to work around, either from debris that needs to be cleared or stations that have to be maneuvered around.
  
• The player and the agency can end up "fighting" over an asteroid in a tug of war (tug of Klaw?) as both sides try to get it to a specific orbit or land it at their respective contract locations.
  

By now you are likely asking yourself "So is this idiot suggesting that the contracts just disappear or would there actually be an AI doing stuff?" and the answer is possibly. See, the contracts vanishing would likely be enough gameplaywise, but it wouldn't really be that satisfying as a player because it's not that immersive. On the other hand, we also don't want the game to chug because the computer is constantly calculating launches for two or more sets of ships and populating our universe with tons of lag-inducing debris.

So we compromise:

• At its basic setting, a contract disappears when the agency completes it and, if necessary, the rival's flag pops up at the location specified in the contract (where possible) or a bit of debris. Either way, unless the contract was a component test or an altitude record, an object to mark the completion is typically loaded into existence.
  
• At the intermediate setting, in addition to the flags, the agency uses simple, low part-count premade crafts (based on the tech level of the agency) - be it a base or a lander or whatever - that pops up into existence at the location for the player to interact with.
  
• At the advanced setting, the agency does all the above, plus it uses a premade rocket (again, based on the tech level) that launches on rails (precalculated trajectories and launch windows) that the player could theoretically interact with. It would leave bases and debris and probes in its wake, though again, it would be low part count.
  

Now I'm not suggesting that the rival agency have some sort of crafty AI... a built in contract bias would work just fine. For flying, it would only need the simple mechjeb-like capability to go to places and land, and strategically, the agency would be limited by the same kind of budgetary and technical restrictions that a player would have: not enough cash to make a ship/component to complete a contract? then the agency doesn't take the contract. Simple, no?

The other neat thing about this idea is that outside of career mode, there could be quickgames in KSP where it is something like Race to the Mun where the objective is to beat the agency to a specific spot and plant a flag or drop a base or whatever. Simple challenges like that for players who want to play the game but don't have the energy, time or patience to invest in career mode, or who want to be challenged in specific ways (ala the Challenges subforum) rather than by random contract. Heck, maybe even add an editor where players can build challenges and set parameters for both the player and the agency, and then post them for other players to try out?

Anyways, I've only spent a small amount of time working out this suggestions as it obviously needs to be fleshed out more and both the possibilities and the practicalities examined (perhaps it would change KSP's fundamentals too much, or would be too time consuming or complex to implement)... but just on the face of it, I see a lot of potential for this idea, so I offer it up to the community to be killed or nurtured as they see fit.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Scoundrel
Fixed the formatting. Stupid preview not working grrr

[tater]

I'm all for this. I'd go so far as to have some stock-a-like parts that are more akin to soviet designs.

[michaelsteele3]

*Uses hyperedit to teleport to Rival's Space Program's ship*

"TAKE THIS" *Crashes into it*

"YEAH! I WIN!"

This is what I would do if you could see the rival's craft.

[Wanderfound]

Sounds fun, but I doubt it'd make it to stock. Might make a good mod, though.

[KerBlam]

Yay... Why don't we just cut the crap and make it into Starcraft? The Koreans will go cray cray.

[Sirrobert]

This game is about building a space program. Rivalry has no business in a space program

[DaserTheGamer]

This game is about building a space program. Rivalry has no business in a space program

Not exacly, if you look at world history is exactly the opposite.

[tater]

This game is about building a space program. Rivalry has no business in a space program

So no Apollo program. Got it.

NASA was entirely about competing with the Soviets. It was geopolitics writ with rockets, period.

[klgraham1013]

This game is about building a space program. Rivalry has no business in a space program

Wouldn't it be wonderful if scientific progress actually worked like this?

[tater]

There are a number of problems with the career game, and this is certainly one of the solutions.

Problems:

1. Contracts vs Missions. The "contract" nature needs to change. Internal plans for broad direction drive internal missions. MISSIONS. Explore the Mun is a mission. Launching a satellite for the Kerbal Broadcasting Network is a contract. Taking seismic data on the Mun? That's a mission, at least early game. Later, it might be a contract (so a private entity can then exploit that data, perhaps). Contracts should be what would realistically come from 3d parties. Missions are anything internal, and should pay up front, including "science" if that is to be the only currency for buying tech (failure should be very bad then in terms of future up front payments, and rep).

2. Time is meaningless. There are no time contrasts whatsoever, at any scale size you care to look at. Not even "rescue a kerbal" missions are time critical, and even if they were, you could build a new rocket from scratch, instantly, and rescue them. In addition, the tech tree strings out tech which was concurrent in our only model for such a system, real life. Solar panels? 50s. Nuke rockets? 50s-60s. You can have pods, etc show up mid 60s if you want to lock them later, but there was no technical reason not to have them whenever. The spaceplane stuff is the only thing in KSP that should be later, since current versions in KSP exist with a touch of unicorn dust. Computer tech would be another possibility to model increasing over time, but that become more of a UI issue, really.

3. The entire science buys tech paradigm is, well, wrong. Exactly wrong, in fact. Science was almost a byproduct of the space race in RL, and even now, if new technology is needed, it designed with a goal in mind. Pick the mission, design the tech needed to complete that mission. The current system requires endless "balancing" since any way of developing tech but the real way is wrong.

4. No competition, which is what entirely drove the space race era that this game models (the end of the tech tree in KSP is stuff NASA was working on during Apollo). Competition is also, BTW, implicit in extant KSP, as the stranded kerbals MUST come from a competing program. JUst as reentry effects are explicit in the current game due to part descriptions stating that certain parts cannot survive reentry.

5. No randomness. Yeah, the devs don't like it, apparently, but replay is improved with having novel places to explore (randomized worlds), and failures are FUN, and result in some of the best gameplay (can always be optional, as I keep seeing posts by people who have been playing a while who are still trying to do stuff I did the first night I played, before my 2d beer was finished).

Solutions:

1. I suggested the change to mission vs contract above. If you chose a mission-based program, you will be operating on a sort of budget (money up front to "Explore the Mun," for example, and points to buy tech). Such missions would possibly have competition in a couple ways. One would be to have it as OP suggests. If the Union of Kerbanov Republics (whatever ) lands on the Mun first, there is a chance you have the budget forwarded to you slashed, and rep badly dinged. In the current game, it could be a hard time limit. Broad time limits are only meaningful with problem #2 fixed...

2. Time: Having things take time would be a start. Like the KCT mod. Given the stated addition of "warp to time X" to 1.0, there could simply be a link to that, even from the VAB. Add a "construct" button to the VAB (then you do something else while the rocket is built), but if you simply hit "Launch," then time warps to the date of completion. Zero visible change from the current system to the player, they hit launch, then launch. The difference is that the game clock gets advanced X weeks. It means that current early game play takes the career player exactly the same amount of his/her time, but that in game terms it might be a couple years. The other way to add meaningful time is for some Missions (currently "contracts") might have further milestones. Achieving Orbit is one step, but then the next goals might be orbital flight… docking missions, and other precursors to further flights. Adding these to career means building new crafts, then flying the missions. Each mission takes time. Weeks. Note that most of the dumb testing contracts should be replaced with not-dumb testing contracts. Life support is an obvious time limit creator as well.

3. Tech… a can of worms. Forget that for now, and assume that "Mission" acceptance (vs contracts) pays funds and science in advance. Additional science gained from actually doing the mission is as per current KSP. Basically, you accept the Mun mission as a goal, and you have to complete it in XX months, but here's some science/funds to buy a few tech nodes with… chose wisely. If you don't revert, and your rocket fails… a few months til the next launch, etc.

4. Competition can be abstracted as slightly randomized time limits, or via the game playing out AI missions, etc, as per OP's suggestions. It would add life to the game, frankly, particularly if they have novel parts (cool to run into a Soyuz looking craft in orbit).

5. Random system generation (optional) makes exploring fun, even in the Nth replay. Random part failures are also fun (again, optional difficulty setting). They could be done as test parts, after any part spends a certain amount of time in use (for some orbital use would be required), they have failure chances reduced to near, or actually 0 (diff setting). The UKR just sent a munar probe… sure, the engines we need are untested, but we better go to the Mun NOW with Jeb, or they might orbit manned before we do! (internally NASA gave Apollo 8 pretty much a coin flip chance, for example, but they were worried about the Soviets beating them to around the moon flight, so did it anyway)

Wouldn't it be wonderful if scientific progress actually worked like this?

Manned spaceflight had/has nothing to do with science. Science in space would just be probes for the foreseeable future Ike was entirely against the Space Race, for example, and wanted us to do space with probes on our own, scientific terms---instead of wasting money on manned stunts.

Edited February 6, 2015 by tater

[Sirrobert]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if scientific progress actually worked like this?

A man can dream. And play that dream in a game

So no Apollo program. Got it.

NASA was entirely about competing with the Soviets. It was geopolitics writ with rockets, period.

Not exacly, if you look at world history is exactly the opposite.

Manned spaceflight had/has nothing to do with science. Science in space would just be probes for the foreseeable future Ike was entirely against the Space Race, for example, and wanted us to do space with probes on our own, scientific terms---instead of wasting money on manned stunts.

This is not NASA history simulator. This is a GAME about building up a space program.

Go ahead and replay human history in this game about little, big headed, green kerbals if you want. But that's not the goal of the game

The only reason manned spaceflight isn't used for science is because of ethics. We'd be able to make massive leaps ahead in figuring out how lack of gravity effects human development if we just launched some fresh embrios into space. Instead we have to start with rats, and than slightly bigger rats, ect ect ect (note: Not saying that's wrong.). Kerbals don't have those problems, and thus they CAN use manned spaceflight directly for science

Edited February 6, 2015 by Sirrobert

[tater]

A man can dream. And play that dream in a game

This is not NASA history simulator. This is a GAME about building up a space program.

Go ahead and replay human history in this game about little, big headed, green kerbals if you want. But that's not the goal of the game

One, there are rival programs already in KSP. Stranded kerbals I did not personally strand (and we personally fly every rocket, so we can be sure of this). So nay statement that KSP is different has to ignore the fact that external space programs are explicit in the game as it stands. Two, rivalry adds another reward system---beating the other side. Currently (and we are only talking about career here, there are 2 other ways to play, after all) the only reward structure is unlocking tech. Here on the forums, that might not be the case, but I'd wager for most people playing career, there is a sense of "finishing" once unlocking all the tech.

PS---You said "Rivalry has no business in a space program." That was not talking about KSP, but any space program, hence the replies you got. Rivalry has had "business" in most all real space programs.

PPS:

The only reason manned spaceflight isn't used for science is because of ethics. We'd be able to make massive leaps ahead in figuring out how lack of gravity effects human development if we just launched some fresh embrios into space. Instead we have to start with rats, and than slightly bigger rats, ect ect ect (note: Not saying that's wrong.). Kerbals don't have those problems, and thus they CAN use manned spaceflight directly for science

Ethics has nothing to do with it. Human medical aspects of space travel are not really "science" in the sense we are talking about, they're really more applied science/engineering. Their only goal is to make future manned flight better, basically. The jobs done, collecting rocks, looking for life, etc, etc, can always be done cheaper and more efficiently by robots. If KSP had life support, this would also always be true in KSP.

Manned flight is for other reasons (that I'm entirely in favor of).

Edited February 6, 2015 by tater

[Sirrobert]

One, there are rival programs already in KSP. Stranded kerbals I did not personally strand (and we personally fly every rocket, so we can be sure of this). So nay statement that KSP is different has to ignore the fact that external space programs are explicit in the game as it stands. Two, rivalry adds another reward system---beating the other side. Currently (and we are only talking about career here, there are 2 other ways to play, after all) the only reward structure is unlocking tech. Here on the forums, that might not be the case, but I'd wager for most people playing career, there is a sense of "finishing" once unlocking all the tech.

You're not competing with those bumbling corporations that leave Kerbals in orbit. They are the ones that give you contracts. Point out where there's rivalry there

Ethics has nothing to do with it. Human medical aspects of space travel are not really "science" in the sense we are talking about, they're really more applied science/engineering. Their only goal is to make future manned flight better, basically. The jobs done, collecting rocks, etc, etc, can always be done cheaper and more efficiently by robots. If KSP had life support, this would also always be true in KSP.

Manned flight is for other reasons (that I'm entirely in favor of).

You have a funny definition of science if you don't count 'making future things better' under it. Or for that matter 'finding out how it effects humans'

Robots can't test how human biological development is affected by lack of gravity. You need humans for that.

If we ever want to try living in space, we need to do SCIENCE to figure out what it does to our bodys

[tater]

You're not competing with those bumbling corporations that leave Kerbals in orbit. They are the ones that give you contracts. Point out where there's rivalry there

If they can launch manned craft, why are they hiring us to "get science from orbit?" They are none the less there, and capable of spaceflight.

You have a funny definition of science if you don't count 'making future things better' under it. Or for that matter 'finding out how it effects humans'

Robots can't test how human biological development is affected by lack of gravity. You need humans for that.

If we ever want to try living in space, we need to do SCIENCE to figure out what it does to our bodys

Science has exactly nothing to do with "making things better." It is a process, and a way of looking at the universe, nothing more. Your argument is circular WRT to manned flight, however. I was clearly referring to the basic science associated with exploring the planets/moons, and the space they occupy. Medical science associated with spaceflight is certainly a thing, but the only point is to further manned flight. If your goal is to study Mars, that effort would be better spent on sending probes to Mars, not wasting vast resources on manned efforts in orbit so that you can then send even more expensive missions to Mars. If you can land and return an astronaut, you could land and return samples far more easily with a robot (vastly smaller payloads to lift in both directions).

I'm not against manned flight, but the "science" of it only exists to further itself. In game terms, I'd prefer science to be split into spaceflight science (engineering), basic science (mostly planetary in KSP), and medical. Pods/habs/etc would require some of each science to develop, for example. probe cores would need mostly spaceflight, maybe some basic. Rocket engines only require spaceflight science, and so forth.

[Sirrobert]

If they can launch manned craft, why are they hiring us to "get science from orbit?" They are none the less there, and capable of spaceflight

Probably because we don't keep losing Kerbals in orbit. We lose them further away from Kerbin.

Or, probably because we play the game, and they exist soley for our benifit.

Science is science. Weither you think it has a valid goal is not a factor in this discussion

[tater]

I said manned space flight has nothing to do with science. I should have been clear that I meant planetary science. Men or kerbals are entirely unnecessary to do planetary science (collecting a rock is 120 points, science from orbit crew reports are 1-2, do the math), and are in fact counterproductive if the goal is doing that science in a cost effective way.

On topic, this means that the primary motivation for manned flight is rivalry.

[Sirrobert]

It is in our world.

For Kerbals, it's science

[moronwrocket]

If we are rescuing rival's stranded Kerbals, can we request they rescue ours? Say there's a slider of time-to-return, the faster you want that kerbal back, the more Kerbucks it's going to cost, with a small rep hit.

[tater]

Actually, that would be interesting… say life support was optional, or just a mod as it is now, but there is a rival agency. Jeb is trapped on the Mun, and you cannot build, launch, and reach him before his LS runs out… but the UKR has a ship nearby on the Mun, or in orbit. You hit "SOS" for Jeb, and he gets rescued, which lowers your rep, and raises the rep of the rival program.

[Big Kerbie]

I think its a grand idea to have a rival space

agency. I agree with alot of what's been said already. The rival agency would only be part of the career mode. They could throw up their own space port on the opposite side of Kerbin. I think that they would advance (as discoveries of science nodes and building levels go) as fast as they can. Exceeding your science gains if they can. It would add a whole new dimension to the game.

[RainDreamer]

I think this idea could be pretty fun for multiplayer.

[plainawesome]

I actually requested this quite a while ago now.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82710-Rival-Space-Program%28s%29

[CptRichardson]

One of the big limitations that I feel burdens the game is the lack of, for any other term, competition. A rival space program, obviously optional, to measure yourself against or take inspiration from or to be challenged by in a race to accomplish various tasks around the system. The idea would be to set them up on the other continent, maybe just knowing they're there at first without anything like orbital tracking satalites, only spotting their ships when they pass overhead. Then, as you get more and more developed, you could unlock a tracking radar to pick up semi-detailed locations of their vessels, followed by more advanced systems to get a good look at the exact configurations.

There could be several approaches to the general idea. One could be a freindemy approach, where you can pick up joint contracts to build stations (complete with them docking a module to an expedition or station, providing some crucial component), or work on joint scientific discoveries on the tech tree, or taking along Kosmokerbinauts (or something equally funny) on some missions. Or for harder AI behaviors, they could eschew all contact, racing you heavily to reach any given body, forcing the player to ride the ragged edge even harder to try and beat them lest 'Bad Things' occur, like say game over.

Anyone else have any ideas for adding depth to this idea?

[Master Tao]

Duplicate thread merged.

[Apature rocket science]

This is a ai that launches missions roughly at the same time period as you, if you laugh something they will launch something and when you are doing contracts you have to compete with them, you can't comtroll their rockets but you can see them on the map and you can fly up to them and destroy them to halt their progress.

What do you think having a rival AI space program that would challange you for contracts and funding, is it a good idea ?