Let's talk about how Science can be improved

[regex]

There was that one comet probe with the explosive warhead.

I think that would be a specialized action that isn't just going somewhere.

Oh, like an impactor that goes some place and smacks into something? Sure, that would be an okay addition even if it isn't really all that different than just going somewhere with a seismometer, just with less delta-V. You could also argue for other instruments to work around asteroids than just EVA.

Ideally what I'd like to see is something like RL. Basically so long as an instrument is on and you have a functioning antenna, you get a steady trickle of science points based on the craft situation up until saturation (and that should take a long time). You can still one-shot stuff, like fly-by Pluto or Jupiter, represented by a large initial boost in science, or have different instruments that work better for fly-by, but for the most part its a quiet, in the background, automatic thing, even more automatic than the science lab because the science points should just roll in. Under that scenario you can incentivize rovers by making multiple surface samples/drillings in the same biome desirable for maximum science. The management and planning come from instrument and antenna power draw, making EC more precious. Then repurpose the science lab part to just provide humankerbal life science points or something, maybe make your life support more effective or extend a hard time limit on how long a kerbal can be in space.

[Joonatan1998]

Ideally what I'd like to see is something like RL. Basically so long as an instrument is on and you have a functioning antenna, you get a steady trickle of science points...

Impactors need a bit more than just going somewhere, they require you to have the impactor in one place and the probe collecting data somewhere else.

I have nothing against some science parts giving a steady trickle of science, (gravioli detector, for example) but that isn't the correct way to represent all science instruments.

If your lander stays in one place, it probably won't much learn more by analyzing 10 samples taken from that place than it would learn from 1 sample.

[regex]

I have nothing against some science parts giving a steady trickle of science, (gravioli detector, for example) but that isn't the correct way to represent all science instruments.

Then make some of them work instantly and automatically.

If your lander stays in one place, it probably won't much learn more by analyzing 10 samples taken from that place than it would learn from 1 sample.

Right, that's why you require the lander/rover to move around.

[Joonatan1998]

Then make some of them work instantly and automatically.

.

That would be a problem for instruments that use some resource other than EC and ones that only work once.

I'm pretty sure there are examples of both in real history of spaceflight.

[Pthigrivi]

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

[Superfluous J]

(and if we had plumes in KSP that still wouldn't enhance the science bit, it'd just be adding to the go places and explore bit, only you might miss the experience because you'd be frantically trying to click at the right moment).

100% this. 1000%. 1,523,395%. I've missed so many harrowing, low-altitude, near-planet-grazing flybys because I was busy right clicking stuff.

[Racescort666]

A couple things I'd like to see are science experiments with secondary benefits and a few of the more common real life experiment types.

For example, one big thing that real life probes do is imaging. So you could have camera parts, and for a given planet you'd get so much science per square kilometer imaged at a given resolution (with resolution being a function of the imaging abilities of the camera part and the distance to the imaging target). But in addition to science, youcould also get other benefits from imaging: Pretty pictures are good PR, so imaging could contribute to reputation. Also, as things currently stand, you get full-featured maps of each planet from the get-go. With imaging science the player would start out with a high detail map of Kerbin, a mid-high detail map of the near side of the Mun, a mid detail map of Minmus, and low detail maps of Duna and Eve, with everything else being completely unmapped. You would need to map a planet to locate biomes and potential landing sites, and surface contracts for a body would only be given for mapped regions.

This is why SCANsat is pretty much a given for me when I start a new game. This and RemoteTech were the mods that I found that make probes way more interesting and realistic. SCANsat gives you useful information from science parts (scanners) that can be used for future or current missions. I like the idea of other science parts having the same impact on gameplay beyond unlocking the tech tree.

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.

I totally agree that science should have more uses beyond unlocking the tech tree, funds and rep notwithstanding. Even with the science payout turned down I still felt like I have unlocked most of the tech tree before leaving the Kerbin system. It would be motivation to continually visit other bodies in the system. It was said earlier that a lot of players feel like the game is done once the tech tree is unlocked, well, that's me. I'll probably restart my game after I unlock everything and do the Jool-5 mission that I have been planning.

I really like the idea of certain experiments having value beyond gathering science points a la SCANsat as I stated earlier and you gave some great examples.

I agree that things are complicated in weird ways but I think having the transmission value less than 100% helps discourage 1 way trips. Landing a rover on Duna or Eve is challenging in its own right but landing a probe and bringing it back is even harder. That being said, space low/high, flying low/high might warrant higher transmission percentages since you're not necessarily landing something and leaving it there.

[Pthigrivi]

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.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Superfluous J]

Okay here's a stab at some suggestions:

Very nice suggestions!

[Joonatan1998]

Okay here's a stab at some suggestions:

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.

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 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.

I think goo container should only default to on state if you have a scientist onboard.

It could be extremely annoying to accidentally use it in wrong place.

I also don't really like the "satellite on polar orbit = whole object instantly scanned" thing, it should at least require a few complete orbits.

I like all the other changes you suggest.

[Pthigrivi]

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.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Torgo]

I like your suggestions. My only change would be putting the thermometer as the first available instrument, with the goo container being something researched.

My 4 year old can read a thermometer and tell you what the measurement means, but his only exposure to 'goo' is playdoh. It's fun to play with, but not too sciency yet!

I'd also add something for long duration missions... you need to learn the effects of spaceflight in a long duration Kerbin orbit mission before setting off on a 2 week jaunt to Minmus. This could all be automated and run while on rails. Likewise, before setting off on a 2 year Duna mission, you'd need to research longer durations on a station in Kerbin orbit.

[Joonatan1998]

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.

I just would like the game to be more consistent, if waiting doesn't add anything, why does using ISRU take time?

Watching a probe mapping a planet would be at least a bit more interesting that wathing a fuel tank slowlygeting filled.

[Snark]

The discussion on the thread has thus far focused mainly on the supply side of science (overhauling how it's gathered)-- I think it's also worth considering the consumer side (how it's spent to get new goodies).

I like the idea of a tech tree, and having a research facility. The current implementation, though, has some issues. There are really two main problems that I see:

• Throwing the baby in with the bathwater: The interconnected nature of the nodes means that if you want to get to a particular node on the tree for the component you need, you have to spend science to get lots of peripheral stuff that you don't want. For example, I don't fly spaceplanes, don't want 'em, don't need 'em. But if I want to get fairings, I have to research lots of plane parts.
  
• The Great Leveler of science facility upgrade: the fact that there's a hard cap for max tech level at a given building level means that you end up having to research pretty much everything below that point, until you finally scrape together the cash for an upgrade.
  

Both of those problems lead to the real issue, which is sameness: Pretty much everybody is going to have pretty much the same experience on every career play-through, because you always have to get the same nodes in the same order. The player doesn't have much freedom to choose the progression, and that right there is the problem: KSP is a free-play game, and is supposed to be all about freedom. And the more freedom you give players, the longer they can play the game by exploring different paths.

(There's also the fact that science points are precious, hard-won rewards that the player has invested a lot of effort in obtaining. It's disheartening to be forced to spend those points on something you don't want.)

There's no real strategy to choosing which science nodes you decide to research-- you have to choose pretty much the same ones in more or less the same order every time. Yes, you can make some small tweaks here and there, but nothing really substantive. I'd love it if I could play a game through and make some dramatic, idiosyncratic choices about tech research, and then play it through again and choose different nodes and thereby have a different experience.

Here's one idea for such an arrangement:

Get rid of the current tech tree, and have a much more "a la carte" arrangement for parts. Basically, you spend science to unlock parts one at a time. The parts are arranged into "chains" that form logical progressions, with each link in the chain being a prerequisite for the next item. (Like having a large set of linear trees instead of one branching one). One such chain might be "Wheelsey, Whiplash, Rapier". Another might be "Goo, materials bay, thermometer, barometer," etc. Another would be rover wheels, starting with the slowest one. Another would be heat shields (increasing size). Fairings (increasing size). Stack decouplers (increasing size). Radial decouplers (increasing size). SRBs (increasing size). Control surfaces. Wings. Lander cans.

The total science cost would be the same as now-- that is, the total science points to unlock every part would be equivalent to the current cost to unlock all tech tree nodes.

Individual nodes (i.e. items in the tree) can have "tech gates"-- you can't research them until you have spent a certain total amount of science points overall. Not everything would. This just gives a handy way to force things into "late game" without having a specific prerequisite. For example, ion propulsion-- I can't think of a logical prerequisite, but it seems reasonable to postpone it until later in the game. (Or maybe that's not really needed, and just having a fairly high science cost for the node would be enough.)

There could still be some branching points-- for example, the fuel tank progression might be [email protected] -> [email protected] -> [email protected], and from there it could be a branch point to go to [email protected] and/or [email protected]. The latter would then go on to the 8t, 16t, and 32t tanks at 2.5m.

There could also be a few "pure tech" nodes in the tree if desired (which have a name & icon, but no part), simply to serve as convenient branching points. For example, "Explosive Bolts" could be a very early pure-tech node, which has one branch leading to the stack-decoupler sequence and another leading to the radial-decoupler sequence.

The current mechanism for upgrading the science facility (which puts an upper limit on the tech level you can get), instead would put a limit on the total science points you can spend, e.g. you can only spend N science points, then you have to upgrade to the next building level, which raises the ceiling. The overall limits would be comparable to what you have now, but since you can pick and choose where to spend your points, it means you can get to a higher level in one area if you're willing to forgo progress in a different area. For example, someone who loves spaceplanes could get farther with aero technology before they have to upgrade, if they skimp on rocket-specific tech.

The R&D facility's UI would look something like this:

• Status display across the top has a labeled horizontal progress bar, stretching from left to right across the screen. The bar shows how much science you have spent (progress 100% happens when all parts are unlocked). A dimmer bar extending beyond the end shows how much remaining unspent science you have. There would be a divider that marks your current spending limit (based on what tier the R&D facility has been upgraded to); the portion of the progress bar to the right of that divider would be grayed out.
  
• The big panel that currently shows the tech tree would instead show a vertically-scrollable list view. The items in the list would be the tech chains described above. Each tech chain would have a text label at left, and then a horizontal list of nodes in the chain. Each node would just be the mini thumbnail of the part, with mouse-over info display that provides details.
  
• Nodes that have specific minimum-total-science prerequisites can indicate that by "indenting" them, moving their horizontal position in the row over to the right (so that they line up with the progress bar across the top of the screen).
  
• Note that the chains are not super long-- most won't have more than 3 or 4 nodes, some may be shorter.
  

The idea here is that at any given point in the game, when you have some science to spend, you have a wide variety of choice as to what to spend it on, and you can focus your research efforts fairly narrowly on what you want to obtain.

Thoughts?

Edited October 31, 2015 by Snark

[RoverDude]

I just would like the game to be more consistent, if waiting doesn't add anything, why does using ISRU take time?

Watching a probe mapping a planet would be at least a bit more interesting that wathing a fuel tank slowlygeting filled.

Two reasons. First, because stock scanning is a prospecting mechanic, the M700 just being the first step. Almost all of your time in stock prospecting should be done either on the surface or with the NBS. It's also binary.. either a planet is scanned or it is not. It also generates no mass, and the only bit that consumes resources (transmission) takes time, just like ISRU.

It would be a bit silly to have a small radial monoprop tank fill up as large as a giant NASA tank. The analogue on scanning is that it takes a LOT longer to scan Jool than it does to scan Gilly.

[DMagic]

Okay here's a stab at some suggestions:

One of the nice things about space science is that it affords a huge amount of data collection methods that arise naturally, rather than as some kind of contrived, game-based design.

Some instruments can just work whenever they are in the right conditions, slowly generating science. Others can require some specific interaction, like taking surface samples. It seems reasonable to have some science collection methods require some type of input, while others can be just a turn it on and let it run type of thing.

Other instruments could work well with some very specific requirements. The seismometer like you described is one good example. I think my asteroid scanner is another good example. Require two instruments that have to be placed on opposite sides of the asteroid. This experiment is actually one that might work well as some type of mini-game. Instead of just placing the instruments on each side and getting science like it works now there could be some type of maximizing the signal-type thing, where you scan individual parts of the asteroid.

Thinking about it more, this might actually be a good way to handle asteroid resource scanning. Rather than just knowing how much resources an asteroid has, and being able to instantly acquire those resources at the maximum rate, it could be interesting to require some type of manual scanning to find the best regions of the asteroid for drilling. Maybe there could also be an option to automate the process, it could either take longer or be less effective.

SCANsat also has a great way of generating science; it provides useful information, uses intuitive and realistic methods that make sense within the game, and it encourages interesting mission designs (multiple sensors, different orbits, polar orbits vs the more common equatorial orbits). I don't really see that as being useful for other types of science though. The data provided by SCANsat is real and useful for the game. Something like magnetic field readings, temperature scans, or gravity scans don't reveal anything that provides any real value, or that shouldn't already be known (at least known well enough to matter, gravity scans might be interesting, but they probably wouldn't provide information that would actually affect anything on the scale of a spacecraft). So I'm not sure how useful SCANsat is as an example of how to generate science in an interesting way.

One of the great things about KSP is that it provides so many options for different ways of playing the game. If you don't want to do anything tedious or time-consuming to gather science, then there should be options to allow that; there should also be plenty of options for people who want a more involved system for data collection. This is one of the main reasons why I don't really care all that much about balancing science points for Orbital Science, if you don't want to get science points too easily, just don't use every available instrument all of the time. And if you want to use all of the instruments you can always just turn the science returns down to absurdly low levels.

There is no reason to require that all possible science must be gained to progress within the game, or to put it another way, I don't think that collecting science points should be seen as the primary method of adding difficulty to the game, just as a means of progression.

[Pthigrivi]

It would be a bit silly to have a small radial monoprop tank fill up as large as a giant NASA tank. The analogue on scanning is that it takes a LOT longer to scan Jool than it does to scan Gilly.

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.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[regex]

Without LS or some other cost however any time-based experiment is moot because you can time-warp through it.

I used to be opposed to build times but they're actually a pretty cool mechanic. KCT has really enhanced my RO game, although rollout and reconditioning times still hack me off (timewarping ONCE per craft is fine, thank you very much). Add life support and upkeep costs, and you have the semblance of a space program management sim.

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.

Make it a long-term life sciences experiment. Edited October 31, 2015 by regex

[Pthigrivi]

^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.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Racescort666]

Pthigrivi, I like your suggestions. After reading your explanation of how the different experiments work, I understand why full transmission is the preferred. Basically, you're looking to eliminate the tedium of babysitting an experiment and I'm on board with that.

I still really like the idea of science having uses outside of tech tree purchase like the maps that the resource scans and SCANsat parts give you. RoverDude had the concern that scans taking time doesn't add anything (or maybe I'm misunderstanding what he said) but being able to scan over time is potentially a difficulty option.

One last thing, atmospheric temperature scans could give you speed of sound profiles for ascent/descent as a use outside of science points.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I like it Racescort The more I thought about it the more it seemed like the real goal aught to be de-grinding the process. Its driving players away from career, which is a real shame because so may other things are working well. I'll be really interested to see how things go as they get kerbal skills and experience together, some of these functions could be given to pilots or engineers at a certain level but I like that they might need the part to enable it.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[riocrokite]

What about another idea for science points sink;

For example you could spend them on various parts increasing their reliability (having a law of diminishing returns), in other words implementation similar to M.A.X. game.

So for example you could increase reliability of engines from 80% to 99.9% (first 1% costs 10 points, next 1% costs 20 points etc, more advanced parts would have higher sci cost). Besides reliability there could be other stats that could be boosted, i.e. max temperature resistance (max being i.e. 120%), radiation resistance, repair ability (simpler designs that allow repair by lower star kerbals - that would be good for example for tires), g-force durability etc.

This could be a nice sci-points sink especially for nowadays system where there's too much science to be had

[nikokespprfan]

I think we need another game mode that has funds without science. My game doesn't begin until the tech tree is finished. Sometimes I just 'cheat' to get the science.

I just want sandbox with funds and contracts.

This is already been discussed briefly in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/132958-Economic-Mode/page1

But I see this coming back again and again, so it seems like this really is something that a lot of KSP players want.

A couple things I'd like to see are science experiments with secondary benefits and a few of the more common real life experiment types.

For example, one big thing that real life probes do is imaging. So you could have camera parts, and for a given planet you'd get so much science per square kilometer imaged at a given resolution (with resolution being a function of the imaging abilities of the camera part and the distance to the imaging target). But in addition to science, youcould also get other benefits from imaging: Pretty pictures are good PR, so imaging could contribute to reputation. Also, as things currently stand, you get full-featured maps of each planet from the get-go. With imaging science the player would start out with a high detail map of Kerbin, a mid-high detail map of the near side of the Mun, a mid detail map of Minmus, and low detail maps of Duna and Eve, with everything else being completely unmapped. You would need to map a planet to locate biomes and potential landing sites, and surface contracts for a body would only be given for mapped regions.

I'm all for this.

[Gojira1000]

Implementation would be interesting, but remote probes returning science over time via transmission could be balanced by the immediate full rewards of returning a crew to Kerbin with the samples in hand. I'd love to be dropping probes all over the system that were slowly returning science until they eventually reached the cap - par with a live mission but taking years to do so.

Also, a robotic lab that could slowly crunch data for transmission as science would be fun.

I'd keep it slow, though. Science is plenty easy to get.