Squadcast Summary (2015-02-07) - The 'Not Very Interesting' Edition

[tater]

Having a set amount of time pass between rocket design and actual construction (like KCT) is a nice idea, but it's not something that Squad is terribly interested in because they think that 'any time an obstacle is purely time based, a new player will just timewarp until it's done'

I've never gotten this reasoning. A player can timewarp through it, but the time will still have passed. If a contract needs to be completed in a certain amount of time, and it takes time to construct the rocket, the player may need to make a tradeoff between how big a ship they choose to build and risking not completing the contract in time. This tradeoff will occur whether or not the player chooses to timewarp to the completion or not.

It's like saying that the Mun should be moved to a 100km orbit around Kerbin, because otherwise a player will just timewarp until they reach their intercept point.

This. It's meaningful to have time pass, it's the only possible way for contract deadlines to make any sense since in normal KSP, the only time you get time passing is on flights to Jool, etc---in time warp.

[SkyRender]

I am also in the party that would suggest a simple spoiler/flap toggle for control surfaces. If you're already putting in the code to support it, there's little reason not to implement it this way.

I second that a scheduler system akin to Kerbal Alarm Clock would be very useful in stock. Time genuinely is of the essence in KSP, and certain aspects of space exploration (transfer windows, mission event planning, etc.) demand the ability to keep track of when to pay attention to a given craft. Such a system would also open wide the doors for life support options, too, preventing players from accidentally leading their Kerbals to an untimely death in orbit due to paying attention to something else. A comprehensive scheduler widget would take some time to make, of course, so it does make sense why it would not see immediate release for 1.0. But I do hope it's developed eventually.

[tater]

A simple solution:

If you exit the VAB to KSC, time is still clicking along, real time. If you hit "launch" time jumps forward to the time when construction is completed. The player sees no difference in terms of annoyance, but that time DOES pass. If you were running with a life support mod, weeks might have passed, for example. It's a no-brainer. Right now elapsed time from your first 1km suborbital flight to unlocking everything and having bases on the Mun is a handful of months.

[tntristan12]

Or how about they just do away with the backdrops through the door of the VAB, depict the passage of time as is, and let the clock run while you're in there?

The problem for me isn't that things like that should take time as a measure of difficulty. Rather, I feel like instantly appearing with a fully constructed rocket two minutes after I started a new game and making orbit kind of kills my immersion. I like the sense of time passing, which makes me feel like my space program is really developing with me

[basic.syntax]

Most contracts allow years to pass - once accepted. And, i'd never feel rushed to accept a contract that has just 4 hours left for me to accept, unless everything was "ready already..." b/c the contract system is constantly generating them. Many features would need expanding or revising, to give the passage of time a greater role. I don't think its worth the trouble. When I think of KSP, and read STEAM comments - the core game people think about is rockets, orbits, moon landings, and explosions. Why should I either wait, or have to timewarp through a build process - it seems an artificial roadblock to add now, after not having it thus far.

[KerBlam]

Or how about they just do away with the backdrops through the door of the VAB, depict the passage of time as is, and let the clock run while you're in there?

The problem for me isn't that things like that should take time as a measure of difficulty. Rather, I feel like instantly appearing with a fully constructed rocket two minutes after I started a new game and making orbit kind of kills my immersion. I like the sense of time passing, which makes me feel like my space program is really developing with me

This I think is the best idea I've heard yet when it comes to build-time. Kerbals are obviously very proficient at getting stuff built, but having the clock keep ticking in real-time while you're in the VAB would be an excellent feature. Plus it would add a small sense of time-pressure which only adds to immersion, especially if you have to get a ship built before a certain window.

[Nitrous Oxide]

and having bases on the Mun is a handful of months.

Amateur, by the end of the first week, my Kerbals have a space program that would make NASA jealous...

Time is meaningless in KSP... there's little reason to actually plan something like a Grand Tour because you can just sim to whatever launch window works best... Career mode desperately needs something like KCT, time is still as irrelevant as in sandbox.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Nitrous Oxide

[tater]

Time passing in the VAB is fine, but it should then zoom past as if warped. Better to have time still in the VAB, then jump forward to completion if you hit "launch." Another button could be added for "build" which would start building, but time still 1:1. Note that Squad said that for 1.0, they'd have warp to maneuver node. No reason not to "warp to rocket completion."

Time really needs to be added.

[metl]

Here's my take on some of the issues squad is trying to avoid by having build-times.

First, part of the original appeal to this game was being able to build rockets lego-style and toss them around trying to learn how to pilot them. Now imagine you didn't take the time to read any of the forums, watch any videos or really even take a good look around the screen. Suddenly you are told immediately after trying to launch your first rocket that you now have to wait several days. It is a bit of a turn-off, especially for the younger crowd. (And we all know there are plenty of players out there that would feel this is an inconvenience to have to even click on the warp button and just wait.)

Second, transfer windows. Barely missing a transfer window because you realize you forgot a part after launch sucks enough already. Imagine the amount of frustrated players there would be when they try to plan for a certain window only to find out they don't have enough dV, or forgot a part and now have to wait no telling how long for the next opportunity, all because of an artificial time difficulty included for the sake of "realism." granted, the new engineer app would hopefully help with this, but we have all been there where me do something silly and have to re-launch with a modified design. Adding hours/days onto that error just punishes the player for not being perfect every time. This could be compared to maneuver nodes and such, but they really are two separate issues.

Third, life support. IF they add life support (which I am actually against due to just wanting to keep the game accessible to as many as possible) then build times significantly complicate things except for all but easy mode (assuming it disables build-times, LS, etc.) Plus, in case of stations and other permanent fixtures, supply runs get really tiresome.

Most of the people commenting on this clearly fall into the LS and time-restriction "realist" camp. Keep in mind Squad is aiming this game at the masses which includes children as well as complete laypersons that would have zero knowledge of space. The simpler they can keep it (while still covering the basics of space exploration), the better received the game will be en-masse. This game has become rather popular in recent months by many players that really aren't into space exploration, because the game is just fun. I suspect many of you tried the game because it looked fun, stayed because it was fun, then added mods when the initial fun wore off and now have lost sight of the initial charm of why you tried it and kept playing to begin with, long before many of the mods were available. To those of you that will simply say they will stop playing "if Squad doesn't add X" or if "My favorite mod no longer works", that is fine. It is a perfectly natural cycle. If the game is no longer fun for you without added features that aren't in stock, that is fine. There is a season for everything. There are many, many people out there though that have yet to discover this gem. Let's not get so focused on what "we" want that we disregard what brought "us" here to begin with.

[SkyRender]

I don't think adding life support would run counter to keeping the game accessible, actually. It all comes down to implementation and options. But I do have to say that life support probably would be best left to a Moderate/Hard difficulty option. It would act as a good differentiating trait between Normal and Moderate difficulty, in fact, as the two are more or less the same thing right now while Hard is distinctly different with its lack of quicksaves or launch reverts.

[basic.syntax]

Time is in short supply I'd rather Squad spent development time expanding exploration stuff to find and interact with, or new stuff I can spend science on - than creating a greater role for the passage of time on various game events. This brainstorming though, is exactly what drives the vibrant mod and alternate-game-mode community in KSP. Someone will pick up this torch, if Squad does not

[metl]

I don't think adding life support would run counter to keeping the game accessible, actually. It all comes down to implementation and options. But I do have to say that life support probably would be best left to a Moderate/Hard difficulty option. It would act as a good differentiating trait between Normal and Moderate difficulty, in fact, as the two are more or less the same thing right now while Hard is distinctly different with its lack of quicksaves or launch reverts.

And I hope that is what they do if they add LS. It doesn't bother me either way to play with or without (it's not a major hurdle to work around.) I just don't want to see the game get relegated to being "too hardcore" for all of the casual players out there.

[sjohnson0684]

First, part of the original appeal to this game was being able to build rockets lego-style and toss them around trying to learn how to pilot them. Now imagine you didn't take the time to read any of the forums, watch any videos or really even take a good look around the screen. Suddenly you are told immediately after trying to launch your first rocket that you now have to wait several days. It is a bit of a turn-off, especially for the younger crowd. (And we all know there are plenty of players out there that would feel this is an inconvenience to have to even click on the warp button and just wait.)

New players should be designing and launching their first rocket in a properly designed tutorial that would not include the construction time, but notifying the player that rockets designed in career mode will have said construction time. And why would pressing the warp button to warp through the construction be any more of an inconvenience of having to warp and wait for a probe to get to another planet? Press button and wait a few seconds is hardly an inconvenience really. If it's so much a problem, maybe players could learn to do multiple missions at once so they have more things to do between launches.

Edit: The first launch of a new save could exclude the construction time requirements.

Second, transfer windows. Barely missing a transfer window because you realize you forgot a part after launch sucks enough already. Imagine the amount of frustrated players there would be when they try to plan for a certain window only to find out they don't have enough dV, or forgot a part and now have to wait no telling how long for the next opportunity, all because of an artificial time difficulty included for the sake of "realism." granted, the new engineer app would hopefully help with this, but we have all been there where me do something silly and have to re-launch with a modified design. Adding hours/days onto that error just punishes the player for not being perfect every time. This could be compared to maneuver nodes and such, but they really are two separate issues.

If a player fails to design their rocket to do what they want it to do, then it is a great time for the player to attempt to improvise and try to salvage what they can do. Some of the most rewarding accomplishments is being able to take what may initially look to be a failed mission, improvise a solution and be able to complete at least some of your initial goals (or just completely repurpose the launched spacecraft for some other mission). From there, use it as a learning experience so you can improve mission planning later; failure is the best way to learn. When I first started playing, it took me several times to accomplish a manned mission to Moho with a Kerbin return with enough delta-v, but man did it feel good when I finally did it. Too many people in gaming today feel that there should be little to no consequences for their mistakes and that they shouldn't have to put much effort into accomplishing something difficult.

Third, life support. IF they add life support (which I am actually against due to just wanting to keep the game accessible to as many as possible) then build times significantly complicate things except for all but easy mode (assuming it disables build-times, LS, etc.) Plus, in case of stations and other permanent fixtures, supply runs get really tiresome.

Life support and build times would help to add challenge that the stock game needs for the higher difficulty levels. Currently the difficulties only affect the level of grinding required, which is not fun. Hard mode should be hard because of these more realistic game mechanics, not because I have to grind more funds to do be able to do anything. People that don't want build times and life support, play on easy. Let us have our hard mode without having to install a ton of mods.

Most of the people commenting on this clearly fall into the LS and time-restriction "realist" camp. Keep in mind Squad is aiming this game at the masses which includes children as well as complete laypersons that would have zero knowledge of space. The simpler they can keep it (while still covering the basics of space exploration), the better received the game will be en-masse. This game has become rather popular in recent months by many players that really aren't into space exploration, because the game is just fun. I suspect many of you tried the game because it looked fun, stayed because it was fun, then added mods when the initial fun wore off and now have lost sight of the initial charm of why you tried it and kept playing to begin with, long before many of the mods were available. To those of you that will simply say they will stop playing "if Squad doesn't add X" or if "My favorite mod no longer works", that is fine. It is a perfectly natural cycle. If the game is no longer fun for you without added features that aren't in stock, that is fine. There is a season for everything. There are many, many people out there though that have yet to discover this gem. Let's not get so focused on what "we" want that we disregard what brought "us" here to begin with.

Again, that is the purpose of an in-game guided tutorial, to teach these people how to play without dumbing down the core game; and from there, they can play in sandbox or easy mode career. Once they become seasoned players, play on a harder difficulty. Squad needs to find ways to make the stock game more challenging and increase its longevity for veteran players too without relying too much on the modding community to accomplish such things.

Edited February 7, 2015 by sjohnson0684

[metl]

And once again I find myself having to try to talk sense and reason into someone that is only concerned with their own narrow view of how the game should be played. So anyone not comfortable with build times should just learn to multitask several ships at once? Yeah, okay...

And I do agree LS for higher difficulty levels would be a good way to include it. I would even extend that to include construction time, so everyone is pleased. Reentry heat could also be mixed in there. And yes, the current difficulty levels are not so great. My preference is to actually use normal settings but turn off all of the extra options. I don't have to grind funds or science, but there is still significant risk in failure.

Tutorials are all well and good to an extent. I can't tel you how many games I have abandoned though because after 30 minutes or more of never-ending tutorials there were still mounds of unexplained layers of information needed just to figure out how to get started in the right direction. Information overload does not automatically make it a better game. Do what extremes should they go? Food and water? Hygiene? Mood? Loneliness? Bathroom? Maybe we need an exercise regiment (I've actually seen that suggestion and there is even a mod for it) and instead of just "unlocking" EVA, there should be a training program that takes time for every Kerbal to complete (I actually like that idea, but it is really superfluous for the games intentions.)

As far as for the veteran players, just how many hours do you think the game should be required to entertain you for? 10? 20? 100? Or are you like most of us veterans here and have put hundreds of hours in? We've been playing this game for a LONG TIME. Far longer than even the most epic of RPGs. That speaks volumes to just how solid the core game is on the "fun" scale. Very few games manage to capture large audiences for that long, especially single-player ones, even with mods. (I think my next highest single player game for hours played is Fallout New Vegas, weighing in at 222 hours and that took some serious modding to do. I don't blame Bethesda for that. I thank them for providing such a good base to work with, especially in this day and age when game developers think thathaving 10 hours of gameplay is something to be proud of.)

I go back to my original point of let's remember what made the game fun for us to begin with and why we all still hang around. There is plenty of room within the upcoming changes, future updates, and mod selection to keep almost everyone happy without anyone having to be forced to play a certain way.

Edited February 7, 2015 by metl

[rkman]

I am not sure how I feel about life support, I did not enjoy the mods much.

I do not know how much of the Apollo mission weight was life support. Would the challenge just be tacking on more life support like over building with fuel?

A manned Moon mission requires life support for only a few days - that is trivial.

A manned mission to Mars requires life support for like a year or so - that is hard.

Do what extremes should they go? Food and water? Hygiene? Mood? Loneliness? Bathroom?

We don't need tedium just to have the additional difficulty factor of needing to bring a lot of mass (in the form of life support) on long duration manned missions.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see why construction time would have us either wait or warp.

Could it not just skip an amount of game time ahead when the player exits the VAB, depending on how much time was spent in the VAB, e.g. 1 minute VAB time = 1 hour game time?

Edited February 7, 2015 by rkman

[pandaman]

Time spent in the VAB represents 'design office' time so would not in itself affect normal game (as in mission) time because as IRL it happens whilst missions etc are in progress, so time 'freezing' whilst in VAB does make sense. Actual build time, if implemented, should delay the availability of the designed vessel without affecting the operation of current missions or use of the VAB for more design work. Probably only one vessel should 'in construction' at any one time, or two if the SPH is used simultaneously.

[SorryDave]

I can't imagine that life support would make the game much harder, ships would just be heavier. In KSP this would not quite separate casual from hard players. It just means slap on more parts. Just don't take the rover and add moar boosters. The biggest challenge would be to the physics engine for increased part count.

Build time elapses after you build a ship might help with immersion, but not make the game harder. I am sure my KSC will still rival NASA, unless it also takes over 60 years to leave the SOI of my home planet.

I can't imagine a strong player deciding between a trade off between a faster to build cheaper rocket or a longer to build expensive rocket, if they could do the same thing.

However, reentry heat would make many missions harder if it prevented aerobraking a vehicle big enough to return to Kerbin. Adding life support, three shallow passes through the atmosphere consume a lot of support.

[rcp27]

Apart from the "its more realistic" argument, I have not seen any explanation of why construction time is actually a beneficial feature. What does it actually do to improve the gameplay? If build times are short (like a few days) then there is effectively no change to the current game. You just replace the "launch now" button with a "launch now (but with the game clock advanced a bit)" button, and the game is no different to how it is now. If you want construction time to actually matter, then it has to be in a way that they are long relative to either contract completion deadlines or relative to the arrival of orbital transfer windows. In each of these cases, I can see no clear benefit from the system, just a way of making the already cliff like learning curve even steeper for newcomers. If you take the view, "it should be in there but an option that only experience players will turn on", I would suggest the better option there is "download the mod for it".

I see a similar sort of situation with life support. At present, life support is something that is built in to any capsule that can support Kerbals. Where's the O2, CO2 scrubbers, H2O supply etc? it's in the capsule. Suggesting that it needs to be an extra part to contain it is like the old SAS system. Every craft needs it, so all it ends up being is one more part to forget that increases part count and adds no additional gameplay options.

If you make life support some sort of consumable resource, then you have the problem of resupply. Perhaps the first resupply mission to your cool space station is fun. Will it still be fun the 5th time? How about the 15th time? If it is consumed slowly enough for the resupply problem not to become game breaking, then it'll just be a matter of loading up your space craft with supplies and forget about it. Or just include loads in the capsules to begin with (which is pretty much where we are today).

Of course then there is the worst of all situation where you combine these two questionable ideas. Imagine a situation with long build times and quickly consumed life support. As your space outposts in various places get larger and more numerous, the build time consumed by one cycle of resupplying each of them grows. There will come a point that, having sent a supply mission to each of your LKO station, your Mun orbital station, your Minmus orbital station, your Mun surface base and your Minmus surface base, the time taken to build each of these supply missions is such that you have to immediately start work on the next round of supply missions. Want to send an ion probe to the moons of Jool? Sorry, the VAB is fully booked with supply missions for the next 10 years. That sounds like a game I will stop playing.

[Pthigrivi]

I like the idea of having a toggleable option to include build time in the difficulty settings, but I really dont want to feel timed while designing. Just a build button and let us warp through it. Id also really want concurrent builds. I still may not use it as personally it doesn't sound fun, especially when Im just testing things, but I'm happy if it's there for those who want it.

Life support could be really great though, especially if it were implemented well. I do think you could keep it really simple. Would 02, Water, Snacks and Happiness be too much to worry about?

A funny way to handle it would be if Kerbals didn't die when they ran out, they just went into "hibernation". They are very frog-like after all. Hibernating kerbals would be unresponsive and be unavailable for steering or EVA's, and would lose all experience gained so far on that mission. It would be as if you hadn't brought them and the mission would be a waste.

[tater]

First, rkman is right about LS. Kerbin SoI missions would largely be unaffected, the diff level would be for Duna, Jool, etc. The place where build time (many weeks) would matter is if you have an accident without another rocket already built, then life support might not last.

[yardpup01]

Apart from the "its more realistic" argument, I have not seen any explanation of why construction time is actually a beneficial feature. What does it actually do to improve the gameplay? If build times are short (like a few days) then there is effectively no change to the current game. You just replace the "launch now" button with a "launch now (but with the game clock advanced a bit)" button, and the game is no different to how it is now.

It's not about realism, it's about immersion. As it stands, I can fly 50 missions in Kerbin's SOI and have only a month pass. I can exhaust all there is to do on Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus and still be months away from the first Duna window. So what does any player do? They timewarp to the transfer window. This breaks immersion because my active space program (50 missions in one month remember) suddenly stops all activity for months or years until I get the window right. That doesn't feel right, and it doesn't feel like the actions of a successful space program.

Right now we desperately need something to manage. Right now KSP is a rocket building and flying game. It is not about running a space program and bares little resemblance to any "Tycoon" game. Build times and science taking time promote, but don't require, multitasking multiple missions and contracts at once. Running multiple missions helps make it feel like a real space program.

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is how are they implementing resources. I can't imagine they'd make resource mining happen instantaneously (even fuel transfer takes time in the game) but that would directly conflict with SQUAD's stance on time based mechanics. SQUAD has some cognitive dissonance on this topic and I think they need to reexamine it.

[Pthigrivi]

I mean I hear what you're saying, but is adding a finicky little warp-through-building-time step before each launch really the thing you want to manage? Wouldnt you rather think about ISRU or life support? If you're worried about immersion, you can just warp between launches like I often do. Also would there be a separate schedule for refurbishing recovered vehicles? Does vehicle complexity effect build time? Size? Is there a separate window to manage concurrent construction? Are the number of concurrent builds dependant on VAB upgrades?

I dont mind the idea as an option but its not an entirely trivial feature and I personally just don't see how it makes the game more fun.

This excuse has been brought out in response to science experiments that take time. However, let's say there was a science experiment that gave you 100 science after 30 days in orbit. A player could launch the experiment, timewarp for a month, and collect 100 science. That's fine. The player could also launch the experiment, and spend the 30 days landing on Mun and Minmus. At the end of the month, the player gets 100 science from the experiment, plus whatever science they get in the meantime.

Yeah the trouble is if this experiment is repeatable. If it is you can just warp-repeat grind through your entire tech tree.

[tater]

^^^^^excellent post.

resources yet another reason for time to matter.

[Jouni]

I don't really care about construction time, as delays don't matter in my playstyle. On the other hand, if construction time is ever implemented, we need an option for simulated flights without any delays, or the game is going to be much worse than it currently is.

I build my rockets like I write my software. As soon as I have something ready, I put it on the launchpad and test it. I won't launch the real mission, until I know that the action groups work correctly, the return ship has enough delta-v, the lander works as intended, the launcher can put the payload into orbit reliably, the transfer stage works, and so on. For complex missions, there may be 10-20 "launches" before the first real launch. If I need to wait for the launch longer than it takes to load the scene, the only possible explanation is that the developers are sadists.

[Jovus]

Everyone interested in the topic of time in rocket building, whether pro or con, should really just go give KCT a try. Every single difficulty in this thread has been addressed by that mod with a more elegant solution than most of those I've seen proposed here.

I'm not saying KCT should be stock, or that you should like it. I'm just saying that everyone who has a stake in whether or not construction time is part of KSP should get some experience of what a well-designed system with that in mind looks like.