How does everybody feel about the current set of stock experiments?

[mcwaffles2003]

Well?

Are there enough of them? Too few? Too many?

What other types of experiments would you guys like to see included (or taken out) and how would you like to interact with them?

Edited August 12, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Guest]

Since I think we're talking about how do we feel about them in the context of KSP2 I just hope they discard the whole thing and make something completely new.

It's a pain to interact with every single experiment, it doesn't give back the "mobile automated laboratory" feel of real probes and the science point system is terrible if you want to expand it, every new experiment feels like it makes the game easier (just pack this new mostly weightless piece and you'll have x% more science return from the same probe)

[mcwaffles2003]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

Since I think we're talking about how do we feel about them in the context of KSP2 I just hope they discard the whole thing and make something completely new.

It's a pain to interact with every single experiment, it doesn't give back the "mobile automated laboratory" feel of real probes and the science point system is terrible if you want to expand it, every new experiment feels like it makes the game easier (just pack this new mostly weightless piece and you'll have x% more science return from the same probe)

I dislike how science is done in the game as well. I have made 2 or 3 threads on the subject which sadly  garnered little discussion. Really wish the community had more to say on the subject. Be that as it may, the question stands.

 

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

just pack this new mostly weightless piece and you'll have x% more science return from the same probe

Sure, but that neglects the need to get to the condition for the experiment to work, which seems to be the underpinning gameplay objective to science besides the tech points

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Really wish the community had more to say on the subject. 

I don't know how we could start a healthy discussion as a community, as soon as somebody hints at changing how technology, science or money works the rest of the community takes it as "removing features" even if basically everybody agrees that the vanilla progression system is terrible.

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by Guest

[K^2]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

Since I think we're talking about how do we feel about them in the context of KSP2 I just hope they discard the whole thing and make something completely new.

Science as progression never felt quite right in KSP from gameplay perspective, but I don't think it's a bankrupt concept. Just not terribly well implemented. I'm ok with some completely different progression system, though, one that has nothing to do with science.

Regardless, I would like to still see things like thermometers and barometers in the game as functional parts. So I hope we get to keep some of the experiments in game, even if they aren't directly used in gameplay in any way.

[mcwaffles2003]

24 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I don't know how we could start a healthy discussion as a community, as soon as somebody hints at changing how technology, science or money works the rest of the community takes it as "removing features" even if basically everybody agrees that the vanilla progression system is terrible.

 

In this thread I made shortly after announcement only 1/8 of people didn't want the mechanics of science altered but peoples opinion on the matter are very spread out so the community in this thread appeared not to have a consensus around how it should be changed. I hope this would lead to lively discussion but the discourse didn't make it past page 1.

 

As for the community taking offense to making specific changes I disagree, I proposed a very specific idea on the subject and, in my opinion, it was received overwhelmingly well:

only 11% flat out disagreed and nearly 70% liked my idea unaltered.

16 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Science as progression never felt quite right in KSP from gameplay perspective, but I don't think it's a bankrupt concept. Just not terribly well implemented. I'm ok with some completely different progression system, though, one that has nothing to do with science.

Regardless, I would like to still see things like thermometers and barometers in the game as functional parts. So I hope we get to keep some of the experiments in game, even if they aren't directly used in gameplay in any way.

In my opinion it just lacks any tangible gains beyond science points, which is sad as science is a system of discovery which should go hand in hand with a game about discovering space, hence the proposal on an in game wiki that is filled out via returned experiment data

Edited August 12, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Minmus Taster]

There should be a few more but i love the ones that are around and the deployable science is just cute!

[Cyne]

I personally like kerbalism's science system more then the stock system. If we were to get something along the lines of that in ksp2, I'd be happy with it

[shdwlrd]

Are you referring to the stock surface experiments or the stock science system in general?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I dislike how science is done in the game as well. I have made 2 or 3 threads on the subject which sadly  garnered little discussion. Really wish the community had more to say on the subject. Be that as it may, the question stands.

I would also very much like to see science get redesigned from scratch. However I don't have much to say about it. I could think of a whole bunch of approaches but so can the devs. Until we know more about their ideas to riff on, from where I'm standing there's not much point speculating or throwing ideas at the wall.

[linuxgurugamer]

Science should have a purpose and be difficult and time consuming  to get.

[mcwaffles2003]

5 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Are you referring to the stock surface experiments or the stock science system in general?

not just surface, all experiments.

[mattinoz]

I'd say here is where going toward realism would be fun. Model science on what happened in our parallel universe.

Kerbal versions of any experiment the general public would probably be aware of and might take an interest in. Could be great marketing to get people hooked on the game as they'd come with the desire to recreate those missions and get over the initial learning curves to do it.

A cardboard  voyager probe model hangs as a bit of sculpture in a Sydney CBD shopping centre but making a recreation in KSP is next is only possible with mods or DLC.

[Cyne]

5 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Are you referring to the stock surface experiments or the stock science system in general?

Just the stock science system in general. 

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

not just surface, all experiments.

I'm just going to quote myself from your other thread. My opinions haven't changed and I don't feel like retyping it.

On 3/17/2020 at 2:33 PM, shdwlrd said:

I agree that there needs to be a reason to do all the science outside of just unlocking a tech tree. But to what extent should science equate to tech and to general knowledge?

There needs to be science that contributes to general knowledge. But there also needs to be science that opens up different sections of the tech tree. And the tricky part is combining the two.

A temperature readings from Kerbin's surface is useless in creating an ablative material strong enough to enter Eve's atmosphere. But temperature readings in orbit can lead to the need for better radiators.

A surface sample can tell you about the regolith, but you might find traces of a material you need to open the another node of the tech tree.

I can come up with other examples, but you should get the idea.

 

 

On 3/18/2020 at 11:06 AM, shdwlrd said:

I agree, the science mechanic needs to be reworked and expanded upon. But how do you make it so it's not so much of a chore.

Certain things need multiple observations to get a good picture of what's happening. Certain things just need time to complete. Experiments that requires player interaction needs to produce science even when the player doesn't interact with it.

Science that requires multiple observations should slowly fill in the missing information and slowly give you science. The science that just takes time to complete, there's not much you can do but wait. The science that requires player interaction should sporadic produce science when the player isn't around.

The MPL should be nerfed, and just used to run, and pre-process the experiments. (I'm assuming that it would be included in KSP2.) It shouldn't be used as a true lab. That needs to be done on Kerbin or a colony if in a different star system. Yes, it can produce science on its own, but very little.

 

 

On 3/17/2020 at 6:08 PM, shdwlrd said:

The point I failed to get across is that science should be used as either a catalyst for something to be researched, help speed up or complete research, or to fill in info gaps for unexplored planets. (I'm not including the Kerbol system, I'm making the assumption that it has been well explored at the beginning of KSP2.)

Yes, I agree with you. Science needs a purpose outside of just unlocking the tech tree. If the R&D lab needs different materials tested in orbit to move along the current research. Ooo, something to do. You have to leave in orbit for a few months, so be it. You can do other things while waiting, or just speed up time. 

Yes, it could fall into that routine trap, but if you keep the routine experiments local to the SOI of the colonies, they could be setup or completed relatively quickly.

 

[James M]

There isn't enough science equipment (I want all the toys to play with darn it!). The science equipment doesn't provide useful information. (Heck, I find Kerbnet info more useful than the info I collect from most of my science parts) "Progression" shouldn't be dependent on science alone. Science could make stuff more efficient and/or provide alternative better options. 

I kinda derailed my train of thought while typing there, but that's about how I feel on the subject. 

Also the current tech tree is garbage.

[Superfluous J]

The number of experiments has nothing to do with what's wrong with science.

The fact that you can just show up somewhere with all of them and "get science" is.

[Anth]

If looking at KSP only from the point of view of being a computer game...one can get all the science from the Kerbin SOI.

I lost most of my motivation once the tech tree was completed.

 

The players should be motivated to get all the science of the entire solar system and get the 'Platinum Trophy' sort of thing. I feel that still with Horizon Zero Dawn, but not with KSP

[OHara]

10 hours ago, Cyne said:

I personally like kerbalism's science system more then the stock system.

Is it easy to explain what part of the Kerbalism mod's science-system makes you like it?   Maybe the distinction between measurements and samples? Or maybe the choice between analyzing and recovering samples makes it interesting?

The mapping of the ScanSat mod is kind of an 'experiment', and I like it better than any of the stock experiments. I like how scanning depends on orbital mechanics, which is the core of the game.   Every player has the same world to explore in KSP, which is great for sharing between players, but then players choose between looking at the wiki and others' stories, or staying unspoiled to do their own exploration.  The ScanSat maps add more feeling of exploration, because even if I saw on KerbalMaps where I wanted to set up a base, I still want to get my scanners out to have an in-game map ready when the base arrives.

I don't like any of the KSP1 experiments, probably because the in-game motivation of advancing the TechTree makes so little sense to me that it is not motivating.  If the experiments were to make something visible in-game (temperature measurements filling in a temperature-versus-altitude plot visible at the KSC)  that would be motivating to the completionist in me.

I would be happy without any experiments at all used for advancing the Tech Tree (if KSP2 has one).  Technology, as distinct from Science, advances by practice, so it seems natural that using parts at one stage in the Tech Tree would unlock the next stage.  'Using' could be funds contracts, plus science points if there are points, earned using craft containing the parts.

[Cyne]

Quote

Is it easy to explain what part of the Kerbalism mod's science-system makes you like it?   Maybe the distinction between measurements and samples? Or maybe the choice between analyzing and recovering samples makes it interesting?

I like kerbalism's system because it just makes a lot more sense - experiments take time, you can't transmit certain experiments, and when you do transmit experiments it's full reward. Also that it does and transmits experiments automatically (when they're enabled) which was one of the factors that annoyed me most in the stock science system.  It's just something that makes life much more enjoyable

[mcwaffles2003]

17 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

There should be a few more but i love the ones that are around and the deployable science is just cute!

I wish there were more variance to it other than set up all the packages together, turn them on and leave. I like the scanning arm, that could be a nice direction to head in for deployable science.

5 hours ago, James M said:

The science equipment doesn't provide useful information

I feel this.

6 hours ago, James M said:

"Progression" shouldn't be dependent on science alone. Science could make stuff more efficient and/or provide alternative better options. 

Technically, it isn't. No where in the game is it suggested to us that filling out the tech tree is the goal. I think the community just latched onto that as the goal since there is no other form of progression/goal in the game really.

4 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

The number of experiments has nothing to do with what's wrong with science.

The fact that you can just show up somewhere with all of them and "get science" is.

I know, just every other time I tried to make a thread on that subject the convo petered out. None the less, I feel there is also a conversation to be had on the experiments themselves and how we interact with them separate from the role science plays within the game as a mechanic

14 hours ago, Cyne said:

I personally like kerbalism's science system more then the stock system. If we were to get something along the lines of that in ksp2, I'd be happy with it

Wholeheartedly agree. Having a progressive buildup on science per experiment while needing to hold a condition is far better than the instant science we have. Not to mention its somewhat hands off nature as well as requirement for collection with samples. Though instant science experiments could still play a role in some shape or form (individual pictures for an objective, seismic data from impacts, etc...)

11 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

I would also very much like to see science get redesigned from scratch. However I don't have much to say about it. I could think of a whole bunch of approaches but so can the devs. Until we know more about their ideas to riff on, from where I'm standing there's not much point speculating or throwing ideas at the wall.

Who knows, they do read the forums. One could hope they take a suggested idea or perhaps the community could discuss it and expand upon it. Nothing to lose in just throwing ideas at the wall either

 

10 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Science should have a purpose and be difficult and time consuming  to get.

Not sure if you read my other thread, but in your opinion, as an experienced programmer, how difficult do you believe it would be to develop an in game wiki that unveils progressively dependent on what science has been gathered as I described in my other thread?

Asking to know if learning to code would be worth it or would the amount of coding required seem to be a bit much for a novice.

[James M]

48 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Technically, it isn't. No where in the game is it suggested to us that filling out the tech tree is the goal. I think the community just latched onto that as the goal since there is no other form of progression/goal in the game really.

So you've been to orbit on tier 1 tech? 

[mcwaffles2003]

6 minutes ago, James M said:

So you've been to orbit on tier 1 tech? 

Just because it is required doesn't make it a goal. Thats like saying having a stick in hockey is the point when in reality you're supposed to score a goal. Tech is a resource, the game has no goal.

Edited August 13, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Guest]

Okay, some lolrandom science ideas I've had over the years, just thrown at the wall.

• Split science into disciplines with different effects.
  • Engineering would let you buy more advanced spaceship parts.
  • Astronomy would let you discover exoplanets, asteroids, comets, and other space things to land on/interact with, also see "simulator" below.
  • Chemistry would let you buy more advanced resource extraction parts.
  • Construction would let you buy more advanced outpost parts. And so on.
  • Different types of activity would contribute to different disciplines of course.
• Create other types of science activities than just experiments, with their associated costs. This would function primarily as a money/resource sink towards late and mid game and let you focus your efforts in particular areas of interest to you.
• Add a simulator that lets you design, refine, and practice missions. The accuracy of the simulated bodies depends on how much you know about them: to start with you just know the basic physical characteristics (diameter, mass, orbital features), and they appear in the simulation as featureless spheres. As you gather more science about them, you'll be able to simulate the atmosphere, topology, and eventually surface features.
• Bind particular science experiments to resource extraction. Make surveying bodies for resources a real thing, not just running an orbital scan once.

[James M]

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Just because it is required doesn't make it a goal. Thats like saying having a stick in hockey is the point when in reality you're supposed to score a goal. Tech is a resource, the game has no goal.

But you CAN score a goal WITHOUT the stick. It's just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do it that way. Regardless I get what you're saying >.< Also. If KSP had a "real" goal, it wouldn't be KSP anymore. It'd be more like a Bethesda game. You have some main mission that you're deliberately ignoring at the time cause' there's so many other things you're always interested in but the game always comes back to remind you, "Hey, don't forget! You need to do this thing to progress the story. Make sure you do that!" And even when it doesn't remind you, there's always that annoying thought in the back of your mind like "I feel guilty cause' the devs put in the work to make this campaign thing, but I'd rather just not. Ugh." I guess my point is, I don't think KSP would be the same if it had an "Ending" or a "Goal". It would actually turn off players once they achieve it.