Making Science More Fun

[Pthigrivi]

So this is going to be a bit long so I'll do my very best to be concise. We've talked a lot about this and I've posted some thoughts in the past, but I wanted to make as clear a suggestion as possible. The science system is one of the oldest career elements and the one I think people are at present least satisfied with. Its doing a lot of things right and I love the general idea, but in practice its pretty clicky and more than a little grindy, and I for one think the problem lies not in the tech tree or the principle of science points in general but with the experiments themselves. There's also the matter of the current 'emptiness' of the planets. There just doesn't seem to be much out there to find. I intend to suggest fixes to both problems.

1: Biome Mapping and Anomalies:

So first and foremost is Biome mapping. Anyone who's used DMagic's very clever Scansat mod knows just how helpful this can be. Right now in stock biomes are essentially invisible, which means you really have no idea where you're going before you get there. What should happen instead is that players could send an orbital probe ahead to scan the surface and use those scans to plan landing locations for more ambitious missions. Landing locations should also matter, which is why I propose that different biomes should have slightly different science multipliers. Here would be a sample map of Duna:

Ideally this would simply be displayed as an overlay with the bonuses listed on mouse-over. Notice the ??? Those are your anomalies. You wouldn't know what they were from orbit, but upon landing and entering the very small biomes around them they would hold significant science boosts. Here's what you might find if you located them on the surface:

To reduce legwork I imagine across the entire system you might only have several models with effects that could be re-skinned from world to world. Here are some examples:

- Interesting rock formation (crystals poking out of the ground)

- Volcanoes (Dormant, Active, and Cryo)

- Geysers and Hot Springs

- Liquid Water (Pools on the surface)

- Ice Formations (Same model as Rocks, re-skinned)

- Fossil Beds

- Stromatolites

- Primordial Goo

- Existing fun things

All of a sudden now there is stuff out there, not just featureless empty worlds. Because visiting them gains science rewards (and World Firsts) there's a real reason to go find them. Because they appear small, perhaps only 5km in radius from orbit, there's also now a reason to bring rovers and planes and send probes ahead so you can scout the surface. They also make for great screenshots to show your friends where you've been, and could form a solid goal for hardcore completionists. More than that they give the planets dimension. The exploration process doesn't stop when you put a flag in the ground. These are real places to be explored and interacted with. But we can do more than that I think:

 

Make Experiments Fun:

I'll totally admit this is a heavy lift, but I think its really critical to making experiments not just a thing to click but something really fun and rewarding to engage with. There are 2 main problems: 1) clicking on half a dozen experiments and crew reports and eva's and sending a scientist out to collect everything over and over is really, really repetitive and takes away from the core fun of the game: flying rockets; and 2) Experiments don't feel like conducting science because they aren't producing information valuable to the player outside the tech tree. To fix this, first, the process of data collection should be made automatic so players aren't preoccupied by constantly right-clicking through parts. Instead players should have to fly differently or do something special in-engine to make experiments work. Next, each experiment should provide the player with information valuable to playing the game. Not only would this make experiments feel more relevant and real, but it would make them valuable even after the tech tree was complete. Here are some examples:

Goo Canister: This would be your first bit of science equipment and would be one time use unless you had a scientist aboard. It cannot discern between biomes and only gives unique science points for being landed, being in atmosphere, or being in near space. It works like this:

 

Thermometer: This is up next, and automatically logs science whenever it enters a new biome. It cannot discern between Biomes above the low atmosphere. Also having one aboard will make heat bars show up rather than parts just glowing red. It works like this:

 

Barometer: This part comes next in the tech-tree and pays out for the vertical swath of the atmosphere it passes through. This means landed on the surface it gives basically zero science, but if you put it on during launch you get a great deal. You can also exploit this using drop-probes on other planets. As an addition to skills pilots might be able to predict aerobraking and trajectory information factoring drag for planets with a complete barometric scan.

 

Atmospheric Analyzer: Next we're going to turn this into an atmospheric sample collector. For this experiment to work you would need to roughly hold altitude and speed for 10 seconds, which generally would mean resting on the surface or under some form of powered flight. At some point down the road if atmospheric Xenon could be collected and refined these might give precise concentration values.

 

Gravoli: This is now your Biome Mapper and should come much earlier in the tech tree. I won't steal DMagic's wonderful work, but I do think there's a value to understanding surface mapping in a real way so I think its worth actually having a scanning radius which would be displayed graphically and the player would have to inject it into a polar orbit that would produce a complete scan. Science would pay out for the proportion of the planet's surface that had been scanned. 

Altimeter: This is the first new part I would add. It works similarly to the Gravoli as a surface scanner and pays out for scanned area, but instead produces an attitude overlay. This could be really critical for night landings and if stock clouds are added. I think it should also have a different operating altitude necessitating either repositioning or a separate probe. Also having one on board would allow the player to see real surface altitude rather than their altitude above sea level.

Survey Scanner: Works similarly and produces a low-res resource scan as it does now as well as science. Each of these could also have different power requirements that could make staying outside the planet's shadow important for efficient scanning.

 

Narrow Band Scanner: I actually really like the way the stock prospecting system works, but I'd make a few tweaks here as well. This should really display as a steady stream rather than requiring manual refreshing. I would also have it add a position marker on the Nav Ball for anomalies once they were within 5km.

Surface Sample Collector: This would replace the surface scanner and should really have a little armature and drill so you had to do some careful design to make it work. It should come late in the tech tree but in principle allow surface sample collection by probes. These could determine ore concentrations themselves or be delivered to a mobile lab for processing.

Seismometer: This is now our impactor experiment. First you place the sensor on the surface, then you smash an object into the surface near it. You are then awarded science points for the overlapping area. The impact radius would be determined by the speed and weight of the impactor, so more precise hits and bigger booms make for more science. You will also be able to see high-res resource values within the scanned area.

 

Materials Bays: Materials Bays would be moved back in the tech tree and be used for loading and exposing samples. When a surface or atmospheric sample is recovered, it goes into a catalogue of available samples. Upon launch, the Materials Bay can be loaded with up to 5 of these samples, and when exposed those samples produce science based on the value of the sample multiplied by the distance of the exposure location. This means that a sample from the launchpad exposed at KSC will be worth very little, but a sample from Gilly exposed on Laythe will be worth a great deal. Samples would generate science for 30 days and then become spent. Materials Bays could be reloaded by a 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. Indeed routing samples from surface to lab to materials bays (and from planet to planet) to maximize their value would be the real challenge.

Edit: Importantly you don't have to collect dozens of samples to make it work. You collect the one sample and once its been recovered or analyzed by a Mobile Lab you can load it into materials bays indefinitely. Think of it like the sample you're collecting from the surface is a nice hunk of rock, but what's going into the Materials bays are just little specks you're filing off. When loading the Bay you'd see something like this:

And the values would pay out like this:

Mobile Labs: With material studies now moved over to the Materials Bays, the lab can be used primarily for processing and reloading samples. In addition new contracts could provide special samples which could either be pre-loaded or delivered to existing labs for processing and/or loading into materials bays. Examples could be things like "Plutonium Sample from C7 Aerospace" or "Beehive Sample from Research and Development Division". Unlike other data sources samples would now be non-transmittable, and would require either recovery or processing at a Mobile lab. Level 1-5 scientists could convert samples 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% respectively. Once processed these samples would reveal precise ore concentrations for that location.

Transmitting data: Really importantly, all of these experiments as well as crew and EVA reports should be automatically collected and stored whenever new science is available, or at least a notification should come up saying "New science detected" with an option to "Collect all science." For simplicity's sake, I feel like clicking any pod or antenna ought 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 to the antenna system in the future, but in my mind the most straightforward solution is that all data except samples should be in principle 100% transmittable, and all losses could be controlled by the quality of your arrays. 

That was crazy long. Kudo's if you made it through haha. Maybe all of this is pie in the sky, but I think this kind of thing would be really important though if we wanted to turn science from a kind of clicky drag into a really fun bit of gameplay. We shouldn't have just a mandatory list of parts to attach and click through, we should be really engaging with these spaces and gleaning valuable information from them. 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Pthigrivi

[Superfluous J]

I like a lot of these ideas, especially the fact that they remove the requirement for clicking.

Not so hot on the Science Jr idea as it's got the same time-based problems I have with the MPL now: i.e. it has one . However that means I'd probably just not use it and really when it comes down to it, that's probably a plus.

I like how the Mobile Lab could have contract-specific science. It'd be cool to have a lab at Minmus and a contract to take a sample there. That sample could be "small" or "medium" or "large" if it's "small", upon right clicking any command pod you get the option to store the experiment in that pod at launch. If "medium", you get the same option but on a Science Jr. If "large," you need to load it in the same way into a new MPL in the VAB. Then, you'd need to take that experiment to the lab specified in the contract and the moment you dock, the contract completes.

One final thing: I'd like it if the "easter egg" type science bonus places were randomly placed at game start, like ore is now. And maybe some are available on orbital scan, others when doing the more in-depth scans. So they could be there and you don't even know it until you've landed and done a surface analysis.

Edited June 5, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[Panel]

I don't think that all the experiments need to be overhauled like that. I like the biomes idea, but the rest of it seems too complex for new players to grasp. In fact, it seems like you would have to go out of your way to get more science, ruining the point of "taking away from flying rockets." Also, I actually like the flavor text when you do experiments! I wouldn't want that taken away.

[Codraroll]

One little addition for me: Going places should automatically yield some science, in a "mapping the surface" sort of way. Flying high above the planet would give you mapping points for the face of the planet you see (that is, all of it if you remain in orbit), but at a very low resolution. Flying in atmo means you map a smaller area, but at a higher resolution. Sending a rover to the surface gives really high-resolution data, but of a very small area. Following the same logic, a Kerbal on foot would give the highest resolution and the smallest area, but since it would be such a massive chore to walk around the various biomes of the planets, I think it could be enough to send rovers. For extra "fun", the night side of the planet could yield a lower resolution multiplier, giving you a reason to stay in orbit until you've seen the entire planetary surface in sunlight.

This feature would essentially replace the current crew reports/EVA reports, or rather, perform them automatically. Actually, I'd be content enough if Kerbals were allowed to write their reports after the fact, meaning that you could get EVA reports from orbit above the Mun's Highlands, Lowlands and Midlands if the Kerbal stayed in EVA while passing over those three biomes. No need to get out and write while you're above them.

As for your suggestion about the Materials bay, I think it could use a slight tweaking. Rather than loading up the samples in one location and taking them directly to another, I suggest to tie the Materials bay to the existing surface sample mechanic in a different way:

At the onset of the game, the Science Jr. would work as it did today. It's filled with various samples of materials from Kerbin, which you bring to the different locations and expose to the elements. After you collect samples from the Mun, a new setting would be unlocked for the materials bay in the VAB, allowing you to load it up with Mun materials instead. This somehow implies that the handful of dust you picked up on the Mun is enough to stock the Materials bay for experiments in all of the game's 100-ish biomes, but I'd say it's still within reason. Besides, it means you won't have to stop on Minmus for every trip to other planets to stock up on samples.

Either way, I like to see some discussion on the Science in this game. Hopefully, improvements will be made in the future, and I like most of your suggestions.

[Pthigrivi]

11 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I like how the Mobile Lab could have contract-specific science. It'd be cool to have a lab at Minmus and a contract to take a sample there. That sample could be "small" or "medium" or "large" if it's "small", upon right clicking any command pod you get the option to store the experiment in that pod at launch. If "medium", you get the same option but on a Science Jr. If "large," you need to load it in the same way into a new MPL in the VAB. Then, you'd need to take that experiment to the lab specified in the contract and the moment you dock, the contract completes.

Totally. I'd even be happy if those experiments were themselves parts a-la station science, but smaller and and more simplified. The point is to deliver small but valuable packages to existing stations so they have a purpose besides fuel depots. 

 

11 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

One final thing: I'd like it if the "easter egg" type science bonus places were randomly placed at game start, like ore is now. And maybe some are available on orbital scan, others when doing the more in-depth scans. So they could be there and you don't even know it until you've landed and done a surface analysis.

Yeaaah absolutely on the random placement. I tend to think some of the larger ones like volcano's might have to be fixed because of the way they'd have to be modeled into the terrain, but some of the minor ones like Ices and Interesting Rocks could be randomly scattered on the terrain in some biomes and wouldn't show up till you got there. 

 

11 hours ago, Panel said:

I don't think that all the experiments need to be overhauled like that. I like the biomes idea, but the rest of it seems too complex for new players to grasp. In fact, it seems like you would have to go out of your way to get more science, ruining the point of "taking away from flying rockets." Also, I actually like the flavor text when you do experiments! I wouldn't want that taken away.

I hear you, but I think each one could be staged in the the tech tree to slowly get new players used to the idea. The Goo and Thermometer are basically the same for instance, just made automatic so you don't have to fuss with them all the time. Others like the barometer and atmospheric analyzer are pretty simple as well, and are really just working while you do things you'd be doing already: ascending, descending, and maintaining level flight. The Gravoli and other surface scanners really just need to be put in polar orbit at somewhat specific altitudes, which you'd already be doing with the survey scanner. This only leaves the Impactor which Im sure people would have a ton of fun with and the Materials bay. 

Also important to note is that the uses of these experiments is now limited so we've massively reduced the level of outright grind. You're not putting the same 6 experiments on everything, you're tailoring your vessels to the task at hand. So you could make a survey satellite with the three scanning parts and either run all three simultaneously or adjust their altitude after each scan. You also really only have to do the barometric scan once for each planet with an atmosphere, so just put one on a lander probe and you're all set, no need to keep clicking away at it everywhere you go. The idea is to make each experiment a little trickier, but to make them worth more so you don't have to repeat tasks over and over.

 

7 hours ago, Codraroll said:

As for your suggestion about the Materials bay, I think it could use a slight tweaking. Rather than loading up the samples in one location and taking them directly to another, I suggest to tie the Materials bay to the existing surface sample mechanic in a different way:

Right, let me explain this one a little more clearly. I actually think this is one of best ones but I totally get why people would be nervous about it. First, this would be moved way back in the tech tree with things like the barometer, gravoli, and atmospheric analyzer moved up. Surface samples and Atmospheric samples can be collected and returned or sent to a mobile lab to be processed and transmitted without fussing with the Materials Bay at all. The Materials bay is now a way to extract extra value from those surface samples, maybe by 30-50%. Importantly you don't have to collect dozens of samples to make it work. You collect the one sample and once its been recovered or analyzed by a Mobile Lab you can load it into materials bays indefinitely. Think of it like the sample you're collecting from the surface is a nice hunk of rock, but what's going into the Materials bays are just little specks you're filing off. Basically you're going to have a catalog of every sample you've brought back to KSC with their values listed and can load any of them into your Materials bays on launch, or reload them with new samples from a Mobile lab. What's important is its a player driven routing problem. You're being encouraged to send samples from one biome to another and even to different planets for fun an profit. 

 

7 hours ago, Codraroll said:

One little addition for me: Going places should automatically yield some science, in a "mapping the surface" sort of way. Flying high above the planet would give you mapping points for the face of the planet you see (that is, all of it if you remain in orbit), but at a very low resolution. Flying in atmo means you map a smaller area, but at a higher resolution. Sending a rover to the surface gives really high-resolution data, but of a very small area. Following the same logic, a Kerbal on foot would give the highest resolution and the smallest area, but since it would be such a massive chore to walk around the various biomes of the planets, I think it could be enough to send rovers. For extra "fun", the night side of the planet could yield a lower resolution multiplier, giving you a reason to stay in orbit until you've seen the entire planetary surface in sunlight.

I've been thinking about a camera part as well that might do some of this but left it out because this post was already getting so crazy long haha. I know a lot of people are hoping for something like this but Im also sympathetic to Panel's concerns that things could get indecipherably complicated. Whatever it is, like the barometer and atmospheric analyzer it has to be dead simple, so players can stick one on a vessel and understand how it works immediately. 

Edited June 5, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Pthigrivi]

7 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Not so hot on the Science Jr idea as it's got the same time-based problems I have with the MPL now: i.e. it has one .

I think we may have cracked some of the issues with time-based mechanics over in the Rethinking Career thread. Mr. Scruffy, Tater and Veeltch also have some great ideas in there. Im not reliant on it though. It could be 30 days or 1 day, all that really matters is it would have to be on the surface or some kind of stable orbit. 

 

[Wjolcz]

Nope. The idea of science points is completely backwards and needs ro change. The points are the main reason why it feels grindy.

You shouldn't go to other moons and planets to be able to build bigger fuel tanks. It's ridiculous.

"But KSP is a game!"

True. And so is Legend of Zelda. Except the fact that rupees there work as actual currency. You buy things with it, because they are supposed to buy you things (and guess what? They have an IRL counterpart!), not be reforged into a better sword.

What you do in KSP is basically taking a laptop with scientific graphs representing the pressure on Jool and rubbing them against a fuel tank. BOOM! That tank is now bigger and holds more fuel! Thanks "Jool Probe 11" for that!

BUT that doesn't change the fact that experiments themselves are boring and some of them not involving enough. And I agree with you that they should be somehow enhanced.

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

What you do in KSP is basically taking a laptop with scientific graphs representing the pressure on Jool and rubbing them against a fuel tank. BOOM! That tank is now bigger and holds more fuel! Thanks "Jool Probe 11" for that!

Think of it as a metric for the exchange of ideas and goodwill among the scientific community if you like  

I quite agree on the grind though. I've done my best to reduce as much repetition as possible. Basically you're looking at:

 

Crew and EVA reports: 1 per biome on the surface, plus one low atmo, high atmo, near and far space per body. These happen automatically.

Goo: Landed, Atmo, and near space. With a scientist you can do this on your first trip to each planet. 

Thermometer: 1 per biome on the ground and in low atmo. This is to throw a bone to the plane folks. High atmo and near space are 1 per body.

Barometer: 1 complete reading per world with an atmosphere

Surface Samples: 1 per biome

Atmospheric Samples: 1 per biome on the ground and in low atmo plus 1 high atmo per body. Also for the plane enthusiasts.

Gravoli, Altimiter, and Survey Scan: 1 per body

Seismometer: Blast away! 

Materials bays: Lets see how clever people can be.

 

The latter two come last on the tech tree and are meant as a means to max things out and make cash for science. Before you leave Kerbin SOI you're looking at 34 scannable biomes, 9 goo readings, 3 surface scans, 1 barometer scan, plus high atmo, near space and high above for a few parts, almost all of which happen automatically. This is compared to hundreds upon hundreds of readings in stock, all which have to be manually run and collected. Thats where the grind is happening. We still want players to be able to go out there and look down at some crater and think "Hey whats there?" and see what they can find. Players should be making their own decisions about where to go and what to do there. We shouldn't just going through dictated motions. If you're clever, smashing asteroids into the Mun or collecting a sample near a volcano on Kerbin and then bringing it to Duna and exposing it near a geyser I think you could max out the tech tree pretty quickly. So long as experiments also give useful information thats no problem at all. 

 

Edited June 5, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Wjolcz]

18 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Think of it as a metric for the exchange of ideas and goodwill among the scientific community if you like

I struggle to understand how an outcome of some completely unrelated experiment can enhance the tech.

If, for example, you do the pressure experiment and that somehow helps you to build a wing that won't corrode in a given environment, or will be lightweight and strong at the same time (won't bend in the harsh gravity of Jool), then ok. I can understand that.

And I get that maybe generic science points were easier to implement, but it's not something I enjoy. Making people go places shouldn't be driven by points. They should be driven by the will to explore, see new things and understand them. That can be easily done with mission objectives.

24 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

The latter two come last on the tech tree and are meant as a means to max things out and make cash for science. Before you leave Kerbin SOI you're looking at 34 scannable biomes, 9 goo readings, 3 surface scans, 1 barometer scan, plus high atmo, near space and high above for a few parts, almost all of which happen automatically. This is compared to hundreds upon hundreds of readings in stock, all which have to be manually run and collected. Thats where the grind is happening. We still want players to be able to go out there and look down at some crater and think "Hey whats there?" and see what they can find. Players should be making their own decisions about where to go and what to do there. We shouldn't just going through dictated motions. If you're clever, smashing asteroids into the Mun or collecting a sample near a volcano on Kerbin and then bringing it to Duna and exposing it near a geyser I think you could max out the tech tree pretty quickly. So long as experiments also give useful information thats no problem at all. 

I agree. The whole "clickiness" of experiments is a problem too. Maybe some of them (the more complicated and involving ones, like the lab) could have like little UI widgets were we could push buttons, drop things and mix them together, expose to different gases, vacuum and radiation to see how the materials react? Maybe something like that could also work well?

And yes, I also agree about useful information. Telescopes (if implemented) would be a great way to educate people about how astronomy works and what can be learnt from observing the universe. Think about all the nebulas, pulsars, galaxies and actual info about them! I have learnt so many things, simply because this game got me thinking! Why not include all those facts and trivias in the game itself?

Just so the whole science aspect of the game doesn't feel as hollow as it does right now. We only have points and witty reports.

[Codraroll]

8 hours ago, Veeltch said:

I struggle to understand how an outcome of some completely unrelated experiment can enhance the tech.

Try to think of it this way:

Kerbals are inherently curious creatures. They will risk anything to gain knowledge, to the point that there probably is a "something-I-know-for-something-you-know" barter economy thriving all over Kerbin. I can imagine most of the work done in the Science center involves interns phoning various suppliers such as Rockomax and having conversations something along the lines of "Hey, we just figured out the mean temperature and pressure on Minmus' Greater Flats. Wanna know what they are? We'll tell you if you give us the designs of your Jumbo tank. We could give that information to Probodobodyne instead, if you're not interested..."

In short, the knowledge earned by the space program is traded with other corporations, in exchange for part designs.

[Wjolcz]

8 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Try to think of it this way:

Kerbals are inherently curious creatures. They will risk anything to gain knowledge, to the point that there probably is a "something-I-know-for-something-you-know" barter economy thriving all over Kerbin. I can imagine most of the work done in the Science center involves interns phoning various suppliers such as Rockomax and having conversations something along the lines of "Hey, we just figured out the mean temperature and pressure on Minmus' Greater Flats. Wanna know what they are? We'll tell you if you give us the designs of your Jumbo tank. We could give that information to Probodobodyne instead, if you're not interested..."

In short, the knowledge earned by the space program is traded with other corporations, in exchange for part designs.

It's so ridiculous I don't even know what to say.

[mattinoz]

On 05/06/2016 at 2:41 PM, Pthigrivi said:

Seismometer: This is now our impactor experiment. First you place the sensor on the surface, then you smash an object into the surface near it. You are then awarded science points for the overlapping area. The impact radius would be determined by the speed and weight of the impactor, so more precise hits and bigger booms make for more science. You will also be able to see high-res resource values within the scanned area.

Real Seismometer work a lot with a network of devices so you can triangulate the effects and see features like seams and faults. Maybe if you have two or more overlapping sensor could give higher points in the overlap area of the sensors. Even maybe generate procedural features within a zone that in turn give higher ore concentrations than the base level.

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, mattinoz said:

Real Seismometer work a lot with a network of devices so you can triangulate the effects and see features like seams and faults. Maybe if you have two or more overlapping sensor could give higher points in the overlap area of the sensors. Even maybe generate procedural features within a zone that in turn give higher ore concentrations than the base level.

This makes me a little worried about seismometer spam, but maybe I should be worried about that anyway. Like what would stop someone from landing and decoupling 20 cheap probe cores with seismometers on them to get 20x the science? The easiest way to avoid exploits would be to make it so the areas don't stack but form a single scanned region, that way they'd at least have to be far away from each other. My original idea for this was you'd need a scientist aboard to run this experiment, and the scan radius would be determined by how many stars they had. That would also do it.

Sorry, this is the opposite of what you suggested haha. Im just worried about balance. I tend to think you'd only get points for unique scans. Once you'd mapped an entire moon or planet its science value would be spent. What could be cool though would be spreading out a number of probes to make a large scanned area and then smashing a class E in the middle and scanning half the Mun at once. 

7 hours ago, Veeltch said:

It's so ridiculous I don't even know what to say.

Well, little green men going to space by sticking on and pulling off magically floating parts in the VAB is a little ridiculous. I wouldn't say science points are the line for me.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[ag3nt108]

Some nice ideas.  I agree science at the moment is a little dull and I think most players blow through it as fast as they can.  If anyone goes to that much effort to update the science system were going to need a bigger tech tree!

[Panel]

What about long term experiments for space stations? They're pretty useless right now, with only the science lab really the only useful long-term science thing.

[Wjolcz]

5 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Well, little green men going to space by sticking on and pulling off magically floating parts in the VAB is a little ridiculous. I wouldn't say science points are the line for me.

The problem here is not realism, though and you both seem to be missing my point by justifying the tech progression by some sort of science sharing cultural thing.

The point here is that the science points mechanic works backwards. As I said in the other thread: You build a rocket (with limited resources) to send a probe somewhere which once at the destination gives you the ability to build a better rocket. The problem here is you either have to go to outer planets or biome-hop on Mun and Minmus.

If you desperately need some new tech and the amount of science to unlock it is really high you have to do one of the two:

1. Science grind in Kerbin's SOI

2. Build a probe and then timewarp until it reaches the desired destination.

With tech research based on money this wouldn't happen, because there would be no rush involved. You could research any piece of tech without the need to wait 'til your Joolian probe harvests the science from Jool.

The career mode is not balanced because of those points. Rupees are easy and fun to collect because we know how money works IRL, but those science points are nowhere near anything we know. That's why they are very hard to balance. The tech research should be based on something everyone knows, which is money, not because I want to, but because SP are too abstract. The concept of money is simply easier to understand and implement.

Voaygers' flybys did nothing to the research of the Space Shuttle, so why should they in KSP?

[Superfluous J]

6 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

what would stop someone from landing and decoupling 20 cheap probe cores with seismometers on them to get 20x the science?

Making it biome specific. Once you get impact readings in a biome, further readings from that same biome are worth far less. Or just make it planet-wide.

Though making it biome-specific would encourage (in a good way) what you're worried about happening: People would land seismometers in multiple biomes, and then hit the world with an impact probe to instantly get science from all the biomes. That doesn't sound like an exploit to me, but a fun mission!

Edited June 7, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[Pthigrivi]

5 hours ago, Veeltch said:

2. Build a probe and then timewarp until it reaches the desired destination.

Whats wrong with that? If we're creating a system that's preventing players from time warping when they've got an active mission going we've done far more harm than generic science points are doing. i just find it odd you're able to confabulate reasons why reputation makes sense when it seems no other living thing exists on Kerbin outside the 10 or buildings at KSC but somehow science points push you over the line? The answer to both is: its a game and that's how games work. Science points may be fantastical, though by no means the most fantastical element of the game, but that doesn't make them unimaginable. They are an abstraction. Better than that they're an open incentive that allows players to solve problems in multiple ways. They can fly around in planes taking readings or send probes to other planets or land on the Mun. If you remove that currency then to incentivize those activities you have to specifically tell people where to go and what to do there to get what they want. Players need to be able to change their minds in flight. They need to be able to look down at some interesting feature and go check it out because they're curious. If they can't do that then the entire time they're flying they're just going through the motions. There's no spontaneity and no real exploration. You've robbed them of the individual choice to engage with science on their own terms and so doing have destroyed the open-world nature of the game. That seems bad, and I don't see any benefit from it.

 

4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Making it biome specific. Once you get impact readings in a biome, further readings from that same biome are worth far less. Or just make it planet-wide.

Though making it biome-specific would encourage (in a good way) what you're worried about happening: People would land seismometers in multiple biomes, and then hit the world with an impact probe to instantly get science from all the biomes. That doesn't sound like an exploit to me, but a fun mission!

Oh yeah that Im totally cool with. If you can land 6 probes in 6 nearby biomes and blast them all you've totally earned it. I think thats the kind of thing Mattinoz was hoping for too. Im just worried about being able to put multiple seismometers on the ground with a single landing, and the rules would have to be set up somehow to prevent that. 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Codraroll]

11 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

This makes me a little worried about seismometer spam, but maybe I should be worried about that anyway. Like what would stop someone from landing and decoupling 20 cheap probe cores with seismometers on them to get 20x the science?

Well, if those people want to ruin their own fun, that's their choice. In a single player game, exploits like that harm nobody but the single person playing. I wouldn't worry too much about seismometer spam. It would require a bit of a convuluted setup, specifically made to harvest loads of Science, and then... play with all parts unlocked, I guess? There's not much more you can do with lots of Science, is there? That's already in the game, in fact it's an entire game mode in itself. Ultimately, any "overpowered" exploit to get Science is just a complicated way to set up a Sandbox game.

[Wjolcz]

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Whats wrong with that? If we're creating a system that's preventing players from time warping when they've got an active mission going we've done far more harm than generic science points are doing. i just find it odd you're able to confabulate reasons why reputation makes sense when it seems no other living thing exists on Kerbin outside the 10 or buildings at KSC but somehow science points push you over the line? The answer to both is: its a game and that's how games work. Science points are an abstraction. Better than that they're an open incentive that allows players to solve problems in multiple ways. They can fly around in planes taking readings or send probes to other planets or land on the Mun. If you remove that currency then to incentivize those activities you have to specifically tell people where to go and what to do there to get what they want. Players need to be able to change their minds in flight. They need to be able to look down at some interesting feature and go check it out because they're curious. If they can't do that then the entire time they're flying they're just going through the motions. There's no spontaneity and no real exploration. You've robbed them of the individual choice to engage with science on their own terms and so doing have destroyed the open-world nature of the game. That seems bad, and I don't see any benefit from it.

You still don't get what I'm trying to say, do you?

Right now the science points are useless once you finish completing the tree and people either exchange them for rep or money anyway, so why not do that in the first place? It would simply feel as if you activated one of those strategies that give you rep for science and another one that gives you money for rep.

If there were no science points the players would still be able to explore and do whatever the heck they want. The difference is they simply wouldn't be rewarded with science points and get reputation instead (which would have an influence on the annual income). And reputation is something we have in real life and people know how to deal with it. It's not my fault there are no cities on Kerbin.

What made you think I think that warping is bad? It's a good thing. The problem is that during the time compression not much is happening. If tech was time and money dependent, time warping would actually be rewarding.

The game would be way easier to balance and tweak if we had only two resources instead of three and this thread would probably not even exist. I'm also starting to think you don't even want to understand what I'm trying to say.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Veeltch

[mattinoz]

45 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Oh yeah that Im totally cool with. If you can land 6 probes in 6 nearby biomes and blast them all you've totally earned it. I think thats the kind of thing Mattinoz was hoping for too. Im just worried about being able to put multiple seismometers on the ground with a single landing, and the rules would have to be set up somehow to prevent that

Mostly I'd like experiments to evolve and require more complexity over time. So they take more time and skill to set up but return greater rewards in the process. Networking sensors or combining different sensors would be a great way to build greater variety and complexity. It's all going to take balancing to avoid spam and I think there could be lots of ways to do that.

• Limiting to per biome would be cool.
• Merging or Ignoring  Sensors that are to close together so there is skill in place them close enough to get overlap without being to close.
• Make impact area small but sensor rate larger, teamed with above make aiming the impactor a skill.
• Limit the number of sensors that can work together to say the star-rating of the first scientist(s) in antenna range. So a Lab in orbit with two 5stars could preform experiments with the max 10 sensors to feed data but most of the time you'd be limited to 2 or 3.

 

[Pthigrivi]

8 hours ago, Veeltch said:

You still don't get what I'm trying to say, do you?

I do understand, I just don't agree. Funds and reputation as currencies are nonspecific to unlocking parts. That means without another mechanism you can get them and unlock parts without doing experiments at all. You've also removed the metric by which scientific value is measured, which means there's no way to weight the value of science taken from orbit or on the surface or by a thermometer or by surface sample. The mechanism you've chosen to replace science points is to make experiments mission requirements. Either players are choosing which experiments they want to do, in which case they may choose no experiments at all, or the game is telling them "go to the moon and do xyz". Either way this determination is made before launch and so the predetermined experiments must be completed and no other experiments matter. After you've agreed to get a surface sample from crater X you have no leeway or reason to go to crater Y. We want players to have to do science, we just don't want to have specific experiments predetermined for us. That's what science points do, they provide that flexibility and the opportunity to find something unexpected.

9 hours ago, Codraroll said:

 Ultimately, any "overpowered" exploit to get Science is just a complicated way to set up a Sandbox game.

Still, if we can avoid a situation in which players can unlock half the tech tree with one landing we probably should. It's not a difficult loophole to close. For instance:

 

8 hours ago, mattinoz said:

 

• Merging or Ignoring  Sensors that are to close together so there is skill in place them close enough to get overlap without being to close.
• Make impact area small but sensor rate larger, teamed with above make aiming the impactor a skill.
• Limit the number of sensors that can work together to say the star-rating of the first scientist(s) in antenna range. So a Lab in orbit with two 5stars could preform experiments with the max 10 sensors to feed data but most of the time you'd be limited to 2 or 3.

 

Are all fine solutions. I also like melding each sensor into a single zone and making it so you only get points for scanning an area once.  I tend to think it best to keep things as simple as possible. 

[Panel]

27 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

-snip-

The goal of a program could be to collect a total of xyz science points from a body. This would encourage exploration in full, while still leaving players a choice of what experiments to run. 

[Wjolcz]

55 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

That means without another mechanism you can get them and unlock parts without doing experiments at all.

Yes.

 

57 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

You've also removed the metric by which scientific value is measured, which means there's no way to weight the value of science taken from orbit or on the surface or by a thermometer or by surface sample. The mechanism you've chosen to replace science points is to make experiments mission requirements.

Not exactly. The science performed influences the rep, which influences the money you get. If you want to keep your space program running then prove yourself useful by exploring the solar system (by doing the science experiments).

 

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Either players are choosing which experiments they want to do, in which case they may choose no experiments at all, or the game is telling them "go to the moon and do xyz". Either way this determination is made before launch and so the predetermined experiments must be completed and no other experiments matter. After you've agreed to get a surface sample from crater X you have no leeway or reason to go to crater Y. We want players to have to do science, we just don't want to have specific experiments predetermined for us. That's what science points do, they provide that flexibility and the opportunity to find something unexpected.

I was actually thinking about this one and came to conclusion that choosing the missions shouldn't be chosen before the flight. The program should. So:

Pick Jool exploration program -> Build a Jool probe and launch it -> get to the Jool SOI -> accept missions from the program (picking the ones that suit you best) -> perform science -> get rep (#getrep)

[Panel]

18 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I was actually thinking about this one and came to conclusion that choosing the missions shouldn't be chosen before the flight. The program should. So:

Pick Jool exploration program -> Build a Jool probe and launch it -> get to the Jool SOI -> accept missions from the program (picking the ones that suit you best) -> perform science -> get rep (#getrep)

That seems very backwards. Apollo 11 knew that it would land on the moon and preform certain experiment months in advance.