Pthigrivi

Sorry to derail our silly argument, but how does the F-35 lift fan work? Images make it look like it has a driveshaft... is that possible? E: Wiki says yes... god the torque must be insane.

Sorry that was snarky, but I think its a fair point. An argument could easily be made that eliminating unrealistic/exploity engine mounting does add something to gameplay.

Garbage like the engine part of the engine? /sass

Yeah wow so much consternation over the turbines. I think its a great idea. I mean isn't creativity more satisfying if it's believable? Use dem mini-jets!

Sweet! I've tried some things lately that have... not worked haha

Was I reading somewhere they had plans to deal with the Jool aerobreaking situation?

There was a discussion not too long ago and I think the only consensus never used part was the micronode.

^Yeah... Maybe something through contracts? Took a crack at balancing some of these experiment payouts: Surface Sample: Kerbin Surface: 20, Minmus surface 120 Atmospheric Sample: Kerbin Low Atmosphere 42, Upper Atmosphere 54 Crew Reports: Kerbin Near Space: 10 EVA Reports: Kerbin Near Space: 30 Goo: Kerbin Near Space: 20 Thermometer: Kerbin Near Space: 20 Barometer: 60/ air column test on Kerbin Materials Bay: 12/Kerbin Sample tested Near Kerbin, 60/Minmus Surface Sample tested Near Kerbin Impact Test: 0.25 /km^2 (based on 5% scan of Minmus gaining 625 science) Gravoli Detector: 15/ Biome scanned Near Kerbin These are based on current multipliers adding up to about the amount of science Id want to advance to deeper missions (about 150 for a Mun/Minmus Mission, 1500 for an Asteroid/Duna/Dres mission, and 5000 before a big Eve/Jool mission. Another thing I've been thinking is different Biomes aught to have different science multipliers on the same world. If you receive the same payout no matter where you land there's really no incentive to land anywhere precisely until resources arrive, and it ends up making the worlds feel very flat. E: These felt a little stingy for normal settings, so I beefed them up a bit. I think the idea should be to drastically reduce grind while extending the usefulness of experiments after the tech tree is complete. You really shouldn't have to run more than 3 like missions to progress.

I'd thought about that. There's also Moho with a rotational period of like 120 days. And yeah snark I tend to agree with you about the difficulty in real specialization. There are so many parts its hard for me to imagine how a radical change to the tech tree would effect gameplay. They've made an effort obviously in the way the nodes are linked, but I think you're right the hard caps do put a damper on that. I mean one big thing at present is the buildings have only 3 tiers, which causes big bottlenecks throughout career. I know they have plans to overhaul this at some point. And Torgo I agree about long duration experiments. The materials bay suggestion was targeting that, though perhaps exposures could cap at 60 or 100 days. Without LS or some other cost however any time-based experiment is moot because you can time-warp through it. I'd also like if the Mobile Processing Lab had another purpose to justify hauling it around, but haven't come up with anything satisfying yet. E: Apparently Moho rotates every 56 days (still crazy long for scanning), its solar day is 123 days.

Eeeee new drills! Im pretty excited to see a nice graphics pass. Clouds would be great, but do end up demanding some sort of upgraded surface-scanning so you can see where you're landing. It would really help on night-side landings as well. I have to say though in many ways the gameplay elements are more important to me, seeing skills fleshed out and a de-grind pass.

Yeah you could be right about the goo container. Even if it defaulted to disabled one could easily enable it in the VAB if they didn't want to think about it after. There was a bit of discussion about your latter point when Roverdude instituted resource scanning. His feeling was the wait didn't add anything to the gameplay, which Im sympathetic to, but there's definitely something more real-feeling and satisfying about scansat swathing things out in real-time. I could go either way. It might even make sense if the gavoli detector didnt work under a certain altitude, further specializing its use.

Okay here's a stab at some suggestions: Crew Reports: Gathered automatically by crewed capsules and stored for each new biome the craft enters, serving as a running log of the mission. EVA Reports: Gathered automatically on EVA for each new biome a kerbal enters and stored when they return to the vessel. Scientists gather more valuable EVA reports, and their value can be further upgraded as they gain in levels. Kerbals cannot discern between biomes above the surface. Surface Samples: Can be gathered on EVA by any crew member, though higher level scientists gather more valuable samples. Samples cannot be transmitted unless analyzed in a mobile processing lab, but give much more science than other sources. When a sample is analyzed either in a science lab or on Kerbin it will indicate precise ore concentrations and will become available for loading into Materials Bays (more below). Goo Canister: First experiment available in the tech tree and acts as an introduction to gathering science. When it enters a biome with uncollected science it flashes blue for a few moments and then auto-exposes. Its one-time use unless there's a scientist on board in which case it auto-collects, stores, and then auto-resets. It draws no power. By default its set to activated, but it can be deactivated and reactivated via right click if a player wishes to hold out for more a more valuable exposure. It cannot distinguish between biomes above the surface. Thermometer: Next experiment on the tech tree, flashes blue and then takes a reading and stores automatically when entering a new biome. Its activated by default, but draws 1.5 e/m while activated and can be deactivated to save power. It cannot distinguish between biomes above the lower atmosphere or high above a body. Vessels with a Thermometer on board show overheat bars in flight, though even without the parts will still glow red. Barometer: Arrives shortly after in the Tech Tree and flashes blue when new science is available. The barometer is activated by default when in the atmosphere, but can be deactivated to save power via right-click. Unlike the thermometer, the barometer logs science based on the swath of atmosphere it passes through while continuously running. This means it gathers a lot of data on ascent and descent, but sitting on the ground it gathers next to nothing. Later in the game, a body for which the player has completed a barometric scan will show trajectory, landing site, and aerobreak predictions factoring drag. Materials Bay: Materials Bays should be able to be loaded with materials, i.e. samples, and replace the current Mobile Lab magic science generator. When a surface or atmospheric sample is recovered, it goes into a bank of available samples. Upon launch, the materials Bay can be loaded with up to 5 of these samples, and when activated (0.5 e/s) it generates and stores science based on the value of the sample multiplied by the value of the exposure location. This means that a sample from the launchpad exposed at KSC will be worth very little, but a sample from Ike exposed on Duna will be worth a great deal. Samples generate science for 30 days and then become spent. Materials Bays can be reloaded by an adequately staffed Mobile Processing Lab, but only with samples banked at the time of the Lab's launch and with samples processed by that lab. This means bringing a lab to another body will be useful for processing and gathering science from that body over time, but samples cant be magically transported across the Kerbol System. Atmospheric analyzer: Essentially works as an atmospheric sample collector. Its deactivated by default, and once activated (1 e/s) the vessel must maintain roughly the same speed and altitude for 10 seconds to collect a viable sample. Like surface samples they may not be transmitted unless analyzed by a mobile processing lab. If atmospheric xenon collection were enabled perhaps precise concentration levels could be determined from these samples. Surface Sample Collector: This part would replace the surface scanner, and aught really to be a small arm and drill that drops down when activated. It aught to come very late in the tech tree, but in principle enable collection of surface samples by probes. Like other surface samples these would be available for loading into Materials bays and would show ore concentrations when analyzed. Survey Scanner: Works much as it does now, once placed in a polar orbit it generates a rough ore concentration map which can then be transmitted for additional science. Gravoli detector: This part works 2 ways, its activated by default and draws .5 e/s, and like the thermometer automatically collects and stores data for each new biome it passes into. If however it is placed in a polar orbit it gathers all biome information for that body at that altitude, and if it is attached to a vessel that also has a survey scanner it can generate an overlay map of all biomes on that body. If a mission planner were to be added including flight time and delta-v estimates, completing a gravoli scan might unlock that body in the planner, encouraging players to send a probe first if they wanted to optimize their kerbaled mission. Seismometer: This part is redesigned as an impactor experiment. Once on the surface and activated (2 e/s) a blue circle appears on the body in map mode indicating the scanning radius. The higher the level scientist on board the larger the radius. If while activated another object is slammed into the surface a red impact radius is shown, whose radius is determined by the mass and speed upon impact (I can foresee some really fun asteroid antics here ) The Seismometer generates science based on the area of overlap between the scanning and impact radii, meaning more precise collisions and bigger booms make for more science. Additionally, ore concentrations can be seen with detail within this scanned area making for better landing site decisions for mining operations. Transmitting data: As almost all data is automatically logged and stored, all that would be left would be transmission. For simplicity's sake, I feel like the data should be attached to the vessel, not a part, and no limit should be placed on how much can be stored. Clicking any pod or antenna aught to bring up a single data log indicating all stored data in one screen, the value of each piece of data, and giving the option to transmit. I'll be interested to see the changes Roverdude has made, but in my mind the most straight forward solution is that all data except samples should be 100% transmittable. You should just need an adequately large dish to complete it. I understand your concern Racescort, but if surface samples could not be transmitted and were worth a great deal (as they should be) then returning these samples would make 2 way trips worthwhile without the over-complication and grind of multiple transmissions. The gamesmanship and trade-offs between parts aught to lie in the act of experimenting. Making simple data more or less transmittable doesn't really seem to make sense or add anything to the gameplay. I feel like this might make a nice middle-ground between people like Regex and 5thHoreseman who want things to be automatic and others who want more involved experiments. If a player didn't want to take atmospheric samples or run material studies they wouldn't have to as most of the other functions are automated. The only part clicking necessary would be deciding when to transmit, to turn on or off experiments to save power, or to run a couple of specialized tests like the impactor experiment. I feel like this takes the busywork out of science and allows players to focus on the fun part: flying and exploring.

Yeah there's a fine line but I actually agree with Regex they should require as little fussing as possible.

And I actually don't blame you for being turned off from it, given the way experiments now work. I guess my instinct is to make experiments require slightly more from the player, thats all. There needs to be some risk/reward structure there. They needn't be minigames so much as in-engine specialized maneuvers, the way docking, precision landing, and polar injections are.

Oh don't get me wrong, Im in total agreement that clicking through each experiment part is not the best set up. I also agree that minigames aren't probably the best solution either. However there is a difference between hitting R to reload and a game auto-firing for you. At some point there needs to be player involvement beyond 'put-all-the-science-parts-on-every-vessel.' You should have to think about what experiments are on board and what you need to do to make them work. The question Im posing is what is that balance that keeps things fun and challenging without becoming a thoughtless checklist?

Yeah Sumghai I read it and its cool. Its a bit dense though, Im worried it doesn't really alleviate the grind many players are experiencing. One of the big drawbacks at the moment is that science demands many repetitious, unrisky, urewarding activities. I do agree though that in some way surface samples should be linked to prospecting. What I would rather see is Roverdude's surface scanner redesigned as a surface sample collector for probes, and all samples indicate ore levels once analyzed. Which is another general ask Ive seen from many people: science data aught to be useful in the game beyond just unlocking parts in the tech tree. I think this is important not just as means of basic information discovery, but also in extending the need for science after the the tech tree is complete. For instance completing a barometric scan of a planets air column could unlock trajectory and aerobreak predictions, and gravoli detectors could unlock topographic overlays and accurate distance to surface information. In most instances its not that things are overcomplicated, its that they're complicated in the wrong ways. Keeping track of what sensor will work at what altitude above what biome and clicking it seems pretty fussy. To be honest the whole transmission value mechanic feels unintuitive and overwrought as well. To simplify things I feel like most experiments aught really just to have a 100% transmission value. The only thing that really needs to be physically returned are samples. To compensate for how much more difficult it is to return a sample the science value should just be much higher. - - - Updated - - - I hear you, but in what way is a game in which all science is automatic distinguishable from a game that has no science at all? You're essentially describing a game in which you take off, fly to arbitrary location on planet x, don't bother with eva, lift off, and go home. Thats pretty much KSP .18.

*angels sing* I feel dumb now.

Yeah this is pretty close to where Ive come down: the fundamental lag isn't with science points or the tech tree, but with the act of conducting science. Ironically, I think its that the conditions for successfully conducting an experiment are too easy to meet, meaning they must be repeated many, many times to keep pace with funds and rep. We have a number of parts that work in varying numbers of biomes but are essentially indistinguishable as devices, so you end up strapping on as many as you can and then endlessly checking them as you fly. This is what causes the "clicky" feeling. Adding more devices without addressing this central problem in many ways makes matters worse. There's a fine balance though between 5thHorsemans instinct to make science automatic Joonatan's instinct to further restrict a part's use. If parts are too selective opportunities for dovetailing science collection with fulfilling existing contracts are lost. If science is everywhere and automatic there's no real need to think about it and no real challenge. My thinking has been that each experiment really aught to require something different from the mission. Minigames could become very tedious; the challenge of executing the experiment should really be in-game. For instance, instead of a point reading the barometer could be a part that can be started and stays active, requiring a small amount of charge while running. The more of the air column it passes through while active the more it pays out. This means it could be run on a launch or during a landing, but could also be attached to drop probes and parachuted into different biomes. The seismometer could be run as part of an impactor experiment: once on the surface it detects impacts within a certain radius that would be visible from orbit in the UI. If another object is slammed into or near the circle the seismometer pays science depending upon how much the sensing radius overlaps with the impact radius. Experiments like these, while more difficult to execute, should pay out much higher than they currently do, requiring less repetition. Very often I hear people comment that the worlds themselves feel empty, that you can go to any old location on a body and once you get there its kind of "now what?" If the "what" was to execute something more challenging perhaps time spent on-surface would feel more rewarding.

Right, but even the ask contains a veiled sort of indictment of the system as it stands. The question is what specifically would you change to make science fun and challenging for you?

I think it might be. I lost so many crews to roll-over I stopped splashing down all together. You can belly-land but you dont get that tail-sitter engine double-duty.

So we were on a bit of a tangent in the LS thread last week and began talking about the broader sections of the game that don't feel fully ironed out yet. There were some, Regex and Klgraham included who felt career mode was disjointed and grindy enough to prevent them from using it. While I disagreed with their broader assessment, I do have to agree that at the moment the fun process of building rockets and gaining rewards and earning new parts is missing something. I've played a good deal in stock career and found that at least for the amount of time I can reasonably set aside for KSP (probably 6-8h/wk) I generally have to set reward settings rather generously to progress without feeling like Im bogging down. While there are many aspects of the game that are obviously incomplete, experience and building tiers for instance, I've grown to feel the most established but lagging component to the game is the Science system. Squad made a nice pass on the Tech tree, which was great and helped, but I think didn't address the fundamental issue. I don't personally have a problem with the general concept of experiments producing points which then can be spent on a tech tree. It's simple enough to understand and broad enough to accommodate most play-styles. One problem, I think, is that the actual act of planning and conducting experiments isn't actually very exciting. Another deeper problem is that for many players the Tech Tree is the objective of the game, so once its complete the reward structure ends and they feel like the game is over. There are a few reasons for this, which I thought we could consider as we offer ideas on how to improve the system. 1) KSP is a rather unique game, wherein not only craft but play-styles are near infinite. This means that any science system has to be flexible enough to let people play the way they want to play and still set clear rules and incentives for progression. Additionally players start careers with varying levels of experience, so any successful science system needs to not only serve as a tool for introducing new parts and concepts to first time players, but remain fun and challenging for veterans. 2) KSP isn't a game with a "win" condition. Its a creative building game with costs and incentives, much like Simcity. This means that the scaling of the tech-tree and the meaning of science points once its complete is more difficult to gauge than in most games. When stretched thin the game becomes a grind, and when condensed things become too easy and players max out quickly and no longer know what to do. Strategies were implemented in part to deal with this, allowing players to exchange mountains of excess science for funds for instance, but once a player has a maxed out tech tree and a million bazzillion funds they are essentially playing sandbox. That seems an odd end-game reward. 3) And this is important, KSP is at its heart an indie game that bats way above its weight. Its incredible what they've achieved, but Squad is a small company and development time is desperately precious. What I think would is most helpful is sussing out the precise issues causing problems and finding succinct corrections that would address them. I laud people's ambitious ideas, but let's try to think realistically about what changes really could be made to improve the system and the game. I have my own ideas, but I'm interested to hear what others think.

Wait do we know yet if buoyancy will prevent the rockets we gently set down in the water at 1 m/s from self-immolating when they roll over?

Finally got around to reading this whole thread and eff yes. Killer idea Alshain (et al.) This would be a huge help.

Eventually I'd love some submersible tech, at which point large submerged caves accessible through small pools on Vall would be amazing. I generally feel like unless there are many small, special places with things like unique mineral formations and geysers and fossil beds that offer big science bonuses there will never be a real incentive for surface exploration or rovers.

I could go either way on this. I get wanting to balance xenon by making it ungatherable, but being pretty dependent on solar is a big balance by itself. If anything they could add a coop that would only work on Eve, Duna, Jool, and Laythe. You should also need the large processor as a bit of balance against the small one.