how would you like research to work in ksp2?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

People get mad at the tech tree and contracts system, but to me, this is the thing that hurts it the most.

Well, the science and career systems are supposed to be "make believe" tools to pretend those more complex systems are actually there behind the scene, sadly they do a poor job at that too.

[mcwaffles2003]

2 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Well, the science and career systems are supposed to be "make believe" tools to pretend those more complex systems are actually there behind the scene, sadly they do a poor job at that too.

I understand that but as far as the contracts go I can't think of a much better way to implement it. First off, I personally believe there should be a finance system within the game. It imposes a challenge onto the player to build ships with the limitation of resource in mind. Without it every ship would be the mothership of currently available tech, but with financial constraints ships are whittled down to serve more specific purposes to save costs on unnecessary features and mass.

So what other way could a financial system be introduced to the game? Space tourism is a real avenue for achieving profit to sustain a space oriented project. Fulfilling govt contracts to investigate certain space based curiosities is another way. Putting various satellites into orbit is typically the main drive for receiving funds in the real world as far as I understand (telecomms, military intelligence, etc...).

Maybe if the game made the world around it less obscured we could better understand the useful impact of some of these missions and explain why we are doing them (apart from the fat check) by introducing neutral AI companiesand governments with competing goals in the background and our ability to succeed in our missions could affect those systems in natural ways (but that's adding a LOT of fluff, would be cool, but probably not worth it). 

I think reputation could become a more useful mechanic in what missions we are given/restricted from and I think expenses in KSP 1 are too low in the endgame compared to the funds accrued so perhaps funding could be used elsewhere *cough* tech tree *cough*

Overall, IDK how I would improve the contract system much beyond what it is. I just wish the game had a greater scope to apply these contracts over and allow more inter-contract dependence. I think colonization is going to solve a lot in this realm more than the reworking of the contracts. But I'd love to hear opinions on real possible improvements or changes you or others may have thought up.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I understand that but as far as the contracts go I can't think of a much better way to implement it. First off, I personally believe there should be a finance system within the game. It imposes a challenge onto the player to build ships with the limitation of resource in mind. Without it every ship would be the mothership of currently available tech, but with financial constraints ships are whittled down to serve more specific purposes to save costs on unnecessary features and mass.

So what other way could a financial system be introduced to the game? Space tourism is a real avenue for achieving profit to sustain a space oriented project. Fulfilling govt contracts to investigate certain space based curiosities is another way. Putting various satellites into orbit is typically the main drive for receiving funds in the real world as far as I understand (telecomms, military intelligence, etc...).

Maybe if the game made the world around it less obscured we could better understand the useful impact of some of these missions and explain why we are doing them (apart from the fat check) by introducing neutral AI companiesand governments with competing goals in the background and our ability to succeed in our missions could affect those systems in natural ways (but that's adding a LOT of fluff, would be cool, but probably not worth it). 

I think reputation could become a more useful mechanic in what missions we are given/restricted from and I think expenses in KSP 1 are too low in the endgame compared to the funds accrued so perhaps funding could be used elsewhere *cough* tech tree *cough*

Overall, IDK how I would improve the contract system much beyond what it is. I just wish the game had a greater scope to apply these contracts over and allow more inter-contract dependence. I think colonization is going to solve a lot in this realm more than the reworking of the contracts. But I'd love to hear opinions on real possible improvements or changes you or others may have thought up.

Whether a finance system is useful or not is not my concern, I can see the game work well with or without, but seeing that the discussion around Career always revolves around Funds is a testament of its failure as a gamemode, career is not the "money gamemode" it became such because the terrible design of reputation and strategies.

Money, contracts, science points, tech trees are not game design elements, the same way a Mainsail on the launchpad on its own is not a rocket. They're building blocks and IMOH they're all used terribly in KSP1, just like they had a checklist of features to reach 1.0.

It took years for me to get what was wrong in KSP, and a lot of other management building games played, but the realization arrived when I decided to stop trying fixing things with mods and see how the progression gamemodes stand on their own, the answer? They don't.

I'd love to see how many of those who voted "like ksp 1(doing experiments)but improved." and "like the tech tree in ksp1" never used mods to fix the terrible design.

What way I would implement a fund system? I don't know, I'm not a game designer, I just hope legacy and nostalgia won't hamper and limit what the professionals at Intercept can do, I'm open to completely new designs and concepts and the least it has in common with KSP1 the better.

[modus]

Great stuff here. 

I now imagine a meeting where the devs are like 'damn, this is what these guys are expecting? We were just gonna give them a tech tree with blue nodes instead of green ones... and you know, maybe a soundeffect when you do science.'

[mcwaffles2003]

51 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Whether a finance system is useful or not is not my concern, I can see the game work well with or without, but seeing that the discussion around Career always revolves around Funds is a testament of its failure as a gamemode, career is not the "money gamemode" it became such because the terrible design of reputation and strategies.

Well it's also largely the contracts gamemode since they help provide objectives to achieve but I was just stating my position on finance in the game as the issue has become more controversial since "adventure mode" was announced and people became uncertain as to whether finances would still exist in KSP 2. Essentially setting up an axiom to the rest of my opinion. That said, I feel reputation is an under/incorrectly utilized mechanic and strategies are in need of a total rework (Strategia seems to be a step in the right direction IMO).

53 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Money, contracts, science points, tech trees are not game design elements, the same way a Mainsail on the launchpad on its own is not a rocket. They're building blocks and IMOH they're all used terribly in KSP1, just like they had a checklist of features to reach 1.0.

It took years for me to get what was wrong in KSP, and a lot of other management building games played, but the realization arrived when I decided to stop trying fixing things with mods and see how the progression gamemodes stand on their own, the answer? They don't.

I feel you, in order:

• Money becomes cheap in the late game subverting its purpose
• Contracts largely don't lead into one another (I believe this is because building space infrastructure wasn't a design focus of the game)
• Science point, rather science in general, becomes useless the moment the tech tree is filled out
• The tech tree is arranged somewhat haphazardly (I'm a Probes Before Crew  person myself)

58 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I'd love to see how many of those who voted "like ksp 1(doing experiments)but improved." and "like the tech tree in ksp1" never used mods to fix the terrible design.

What way I would implement a fund system? I don't know, I'm not a game designer, I just hope legacy and nostalgia won't hamper and limit what the professionals at Intercept can do, I'm open to completely new designs and concepts and the least it has in common with KSP1 the better.

Well I think you are in luck as I doubt they will be letting "legacy and nostalgia won't hamper and limit what the professionals at Intercept can do" as evidenced by them removing science and career to replace them with "adventure mode". I think they gave it a new name to outright declare that it will be very different.

As for a favorable way to see a career system, maybe I'll make a thread later on the topic as to not derail this thread further in hopes of garnering idea on how people would like to see a non-sandbox game progress.

29 minutes ago, modus said:

Great stuff here. 

I now imagine a meeting where the devs are like 'damn, this is what these guys are expecting? We were just gonna give them a tech tree with blue nodes instead of green ones... and you know, maybe a soundeffect when you do science.'

Luckily, I don't think that was their plan. Nate and the crew seem to be adamant about giving us a great game.

[modus]

7 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Luckily, I don't think that was their plan. Nate and the crew seem to be adamant about giving us a great game.

I was ofcourse just kidding. But whatever they come up with, while being an improvement to ksp1, will not be able to please everyone. 

But don't let this sidenote stop you guys from speculating, I'm really enjoying reading your thoughts! Keep it up!

[Pthigrivi]

@Master39 Yes, I think thats an important bit of clarification. By 2-3 missions I mean 2-3 Apollo landings for the purpose of gathering Science. If you were planning on colonizing there would of course be many more missions: orbital surveys, relay networks, surface prospecting, initial mining posts, equipment deliveries, etc. The thrust of my suggestion is that we deliberately squeeze down Science for the purpose of tech tree development into something that happens concurrent with flags and footprints and initial prospecting and then ceases to incentivize endless biome-hopping. When you look at total sunk hours and reasons why players never go beyond minmus this is the central cause of grind and bogged down progress. Id love to see that alleviated to make room for all those other things you mentioned.
 

Now, it could be that later in the game colonies themselves generate large amounts of science passively, but the ‘fuel’ for that Science should be exhaustible so you aren’t time-warping to infinite Science, and players shouldn’t be spending 70% of missions hopping from one non-descript, equally weighted biome to another to find it. Middle to late in the game with everything else going on Im imagining you’d still be doing exploration missions, but they would be focused on exploring new worlds and hunting down local anomalies to gather samples that could be analyzed by colonial labs.  Im definitely not against deep exploration of all the cool planets they’re making, indeed I hope they’re very rich and worth exploring. But each exploration mission should be more or less unique. Things like using a rover and a map marker to track down a unique crystal outcropping or geyser to collect a sample and bring it back to the colony for analysis, or sending a probe to an asteroid to collect and return a sample to kerbin to see if its worth harvesting resources should be rewarded, but just landing any old place over and over should not. 
 

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[MR L A]

I think I might be late to the party, and I suspect someone might have already said this...

But why not make it somewhat realistic?

Funding unlocks new parts > New parts means you can gather more science > Science gives funding.

The science itself doesn't unlock anything, but is more of a result - for example, gathering scientific data from Jupiter doesn't generate money. But it does pave the way for future expeditions by generating interest/making more funding available. Conversely, if every single rocket launch/mission in human history had failed, I doubt there would be *any* interest in funding government bodies like NASA or interest from private ventures.

I hope that makes sense, I also appreciate reality is much more nuanced and complex, but I think its a good way to boil it down to a game mechanic. Successful mission (gathering science) = more funding for developing new tech/parts. Sounds about right to me.

 

[OHara]

35 minutes ago, MR L A said:

But why not make it somewhat realistic?
Funding unlocks new parts > New parts means you can gather more science > Science gives funding.

I configure my KSP1 game to  have funds unlock parts, and now realize I should also set up the option (in the administration building that I never use) to have progress in science generate funding.

I do like this, and am thinking about just why I like it.  Realism helps, but obviously is not very important in a game centered around immortal green aliens. For me, I think realistic mechanisms are easier to remember and understand, with the small slice of my memory that I am willing to devote to the rules of a game.

5 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

the game is built for that "apollo style touch and go" as soon as you try doing something even a little more complex the game's limitations (both technological and game design related) start to show up.

KSP 1's real downfall, in my opinion. People get mad at the tech tree and contracts system, but to me, this is the thing that hurts it the most.

I am curious to understand what exactly you two are agreeing on (or just get a brief clue, it if is beside the point of this thread).

Some aspects of KSP1, immortal Kerbals who do not need to eat, for example, make it easier to build up complex research outposts over many missions.

[Wubslin]

6 hours ago, Master39 said:

Well, the science and career systems are supposed to be "make believe" tools to pretend those more complex systems are actually there behind the scene, sadly they do a poor job at that too.

Speaking of, why can't Squad make an update for KSP that nerfs science collection more and more the closer you get to Kerbin? It would be great for novice and intermediate players if it turned out the only way to unlock some of the final tier parts without a massive grind was by launching manned expeditions somewhere other than just the Mun, Minmus, Ike, and Duna. Or maybe instead of doing diminishing returns, there can be a finite amount of science that can be gathered from any one location in the game. That would be extra cool. Imagine KSP 1 except you need to progressively hollow out the entire system for science. As the player runs out of low hanging fruit to collect science from, they'd need to step further and further out into the system. The player would be forced to do ever more technically challenging things for science points, but in return they could have the ability to unlock ever more OP parts. Imagine if Nertea's near future and far future propulsion mods were an extra two levels on the tech tree, and to get to them you would finally have to do that last mission you'd been dreading. Perfect opportunity to make a mini-project out of solving that problem.

[Pthigrivi]

Just some quick estimates: I think in principle it should be possible for a semi-experienced player to go interstellar within 100-150 hours of gameplay, or 4h/ week for 6-9 months (for reference it takes around 200h to get to level 100 in Skyrim.) Others may vary but I find I average about 2h/ mission all-in between planning, design, testing, and flight-time. That’s just 50-75 missions. How might that budget out?

1 survey probe per body: 16 missions
2 initial landings on 8 bodies (probe and/or crewed): 16 missions
2 prospecting missions on 4 bodies: 8 missions
3 asteroid/comet missions
3 colony set up missions on 2 bodies: 6 missions
4 logistics missions on 2 bodies (satellites, milk-run establishment): 8 missions
3 additional exploration/science missions on 2 bodies: 6 missions
2 interstellar probes

Total: 65 missions
 

That, plus down-time spent managing tech development, crews, colony building, and managing economies and resources probably brings you close to that 140-150h mark. Keep in mind these are just guesstimated averages, some missions will be much faster or longer than 2h and different players might spend more time on a few bodies rather than trying to visit all 16. You'll notice this isn't really that many missions to play with, but I think its about right considering this is just to get to the point where you've completed enough of the tech tree to build your first interplanetary colony ship. If you make it drastically more time consuming than that or bog players down with tedious tasks you aren't going to get most players to even start colonies, let alone explore other star systems. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[OHara]

1 hour ago, Wubslin said:

why can't Squad make an update for KSP that nerfs science collection more and more the closer you get to Kerbin?

If by nerfs you mean 'weakens' then KSP1 already does this (link).  There is also a finite limit to how much Science you can get from one planet. (The KSPedia only says "This combination of situation, planet and biome is the subject of an experiment - eg. landed at Minmus flats" but in fact repeated experiments at the same situation/planet/biome give little Science, if any.)

That balance worked for me when I was new to KSP1.  I needed to send probes to the Jool system before I could finish the tech tree. 

At one point I was stuck trying to get wheels for aircraft, so searched this forum for "how to get more science" and regretted doing so.  There are some easy caches of Science-points, but you will not stumble upon much of it if you play naturally, and I recommend you remain ignorant of the easy path.

Edited May 13, 2021 by OHara

[Pthigrivi]

Next, just a thought on natural rhythms and incentives given launch windows and transit times.

Spoiler

Period between windows:
Mun: 0 days 
Minmus (to minimize inclination burns): 24.5 days
Moho: 93 days
Eve: 670 days
Duna: 925 days
Dres: 631 days
Jool: 488 days
Eeloo: 427 days

Transit times:
Mun - One way: 1.25d, Round Trip: 2.5 days
Minmus - One way: 9.25d, Round Trip: 18.5 days
Moho - One way: 110d, Round trip: 310 days
Eve - One way: 165d, Round trip: 890 days
Duna - One way: 300d, Round trip: 1170 days
Dres - One way: 555d, Round trip: 1290 days
Jool - One way: 1050d, Round trip: 2530 days
Eeloo - One way: 1560d, Round trip: 3320d days

Estimated in-game time to start a colony (3x launch windows + transit time:)
Mun: 6 days
Minmus: 58 days
Moho: 341 days
Eve: 2091 days
Duna: 2386 days
Dres: 2158 days
Jool: 2220 days
Eeloo: 2664 days

So there's going to be a natural need to time warp and send initial exploration and establishment missions from Kerbin about every 50 days on average until colonies are established. I think we can also see that there's a nice balance between different planets as colony candidates time-wise, with Duna being easier but longer and Moho being faster but much harder to reach in terms of dV. Jool would seem very tempting, but its worth considering that it takes almost 3 years for your first probe to reach it so you're flying blind before the 4th launch window, and if you wait for that it'll be 6.5 years before you can really start building there. There's also some things we can discern about progression from this. For instance you don't really want players to be able to start building colonies on the Mun 6 days in.  I personally don't think we should get our first colony-tech at least until we've sent probes to Moho, Duna, and/or an asteroid or two. These reach their targets between 155 and 536 days in. Its also convincing me that we do want transmissible science so we don't have to wait for samples to be returned all the way to Kerbin in the initial stage. There should also probably be secondary layers of science that can't be mined until you've gotten higher in the the tech-tree--for instance at first Kerbals can just pick rocks off the surface, but later they can take core samples or perform fancy surface analysis.  Or perhaps your first orbital scanner can detect biome-scale science values but not anomalies and later versions can pinpoint them more and more precisely. This way you'd reach a science gathering limit in and around Kerbin at first, but after your first interplanetary probes arrive you could unlock the next layer and study more locally again. 

Im also starting to agree that Science should be broken into two parts: Raw Data and Research Points (or if you prefer, Science and Money). Raw Data comes in through transmissions and samples to KSC and colonial labs, but it takes time to process it and produce Research Points that could be spent on upgrades. It could be that KSC has a base processing rate, but that it could be increased by expanding off-world labs. In the past I'd have been the first to say "But why make people time-warp through it?", but given that you'll need to time-warp forward for transfer windows anyway I think this is okay. You're really just discouraging players from moving too fast. The important thing is that the pace of research is carefully spaced out so you're engaged but not bogged down between each stage of development. There's always just enough going on to keep you busy but not overwhelmed with active flights. 
 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[Wubslin]

3 hours ago, OHara said:

If by nerfs you mean 'weakens' then KSP1 already does this (link).  There is also a finite limit to how much Science you can get from one planet. (The KSPedia only says "This combination of situation, planet and biome is the subject of an experiment - eg. landed at Minmus flats" but in fact repeated experiments at the same situation/planet/biome give little Science, if any.)

That balance worked for me when I was new to KSP1.  I needed to send probes to the Jool system before I could finish the tech tree. 

At one point I was stuck trying to get wheels for aircraft, so searched this forum for "how to get more science" and regretted doing so.  There are some easy caches of Science-points, but you will not stumble upon much of it if you play naturally, and I recommend you remain ignorant of the easy path.

Wow, really? They need to tighten those numbers WAY down then. Unlocking branches in parallel, you should exhaust the Kerbin-Mun-Minmus system before you even get done unlocking the fifth tier.

[shdwlrd]

Since I play KSP in sandbox, the only real science stuff I do is ScanSat related. The reason being is to find good landing areas and to find the highest resource concentrations. Outside of that, I only care about atmosphere density (if one is present) and the bodies gravity. I would love to have a reason to do the other science available, but there really isn't any outside of curiosity to see the text related to the experiments.

To answer your poll directly; there should be research points you can collect. How are they used? To help unlock new items and star systems. Unlocking new parts require research in a specific field, the funds to pay for the research, and time to complete the research.

The points themselves are split into different groups depending on the experiment ran. (Eg. Astronomy, geology, material science, etc.) That way you have to do science related to what you want to unlock. Science points are not lost when they are applied. You have to accumulate more to procede to the next level.

Science should also have more practical side effects. (Like how ScanSat reveals the detailed geography of a planet.) 

Labs would be the places where the research takes place. The more you have, the faster you can research. (This can become a balancing issue, but there are ways to fix it.) 

Edited May 13, 2021 by shdwlrd
Spelling

[Pthigrivi]

30 minutes ago, Wubslin said:

Wow, really? They need to tighten those numbers WAY down then. Unlocking branches in parallel, you should exhaust the Kerbin-Mun-Minmus system before you even get done unlocking the fifth tier.

It's not just the values, it's the total number of data sources. On Kerbin alone you have Goo, Thermometer, Barometer, Materials bay, Seismometer, Gravioli, Crew reports, EVA reports, and surface samples from 11 biomes not including KSC or other special biomes, plus readings low above each, and they're all basically worth the same. When you turn down the overall volume you only encourage hugely grindy smurfing of science. What should happen instead is different regions should be worth more than others, and as you collect from one area the value of every similar measurement on the planet except Anomalies should drop and after 2 steps it should hit zero.  

Edited May 13, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[Wubslin]

6 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

It's not just the values, it's the total number of data sources. On Kerbin alone you have Goo, Thermometer, Barometer, Materials bay, Seismometer, Gravioli, Crew reports, EVA reports, and surface samples from 11 biomes not including KSC or other special biomes, plus readings low above each, and they're all basically worth the same. When you turn down the overall volume you only encourage hugely grindy smurfing of science. What should happen instead is different regions should be worth more than others, and as you collect from one area the value of every similar measurement on the planet except Anomalies should drop and after 2 steps it should hit zero.  

The idea should be to minimize or eliminate grinding and to increase the number of destinations the player visits. I know it's too late for the game to take this approach, but I would have greatly simplified the science collecting mechanic. Or maybe just make it so that each instrument is only really effective for a specific place. Like the magnetometer boom could get 100% science collection around Moho but take a 90% penalty elsewhere, for instance. Depending on how instrumentation is scattered through the tech tree that could serve as encouragement to go new places. Finally unlocked the seismometer? Time to land on Vall!

[Pthigrivi]

@WubslinYeah its a tough retrofit for KSP1 at this point. Its the reason I'd recommend like 2 types of science in KSP 2 (say orbital scans and surface samples) and the rest of the experiments provide useful information to the player like altimetry and resource values rather than science points. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[Wubslin]

40 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

@WubslinYeah its a tough retrofit for KSP1 at this point. Its the reason I'd recommend like 2 types of science in KSP 2 (say orbital scans and surface samples) and the rest of the experiments provide useful information to the player like altimetry and resource values rather than science points. 

I just want more unique blurbs to show up when I hit the surface sample button, man. 

[mcwaffles2003]

3 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

To answer your poll directly; there should be research points you can collect. How are they used? To help unlock new items and star systems. Unlocking new parts require research in a specific field, the funds to pay for the research, and time to complete the research.

The points themselves are split into different groups depending on the experiment ran. (Eg. Astronomy, geology, material science, etc.) That way you have to do science related to what you want to unlock. Science points are not lost when they are applied. You have to accumulate more to procede to the next level.

I like the idea of not spending science points but gathering them to pass thresholds. Then different nodes could have multiple science requirements for more nuance to demonstrate relevance. Also, I am very much in agreement that research should take time and be costly. Hopefully there is a cost or tradeoff for long duration time warps.

 

10 hours ago, OHara said:

I am curious to understand what exactly you two are agreeing on (or just get a brief clue, it if is beside the point of this thread).

Some aspects of KSP1, immortal Kerbals who do not need to eat, for example, make it easier to build up complex research outposts over many missions.

The game stock isn't built for making long term habitation and even with mods long term habitation/colonization/resource transferring can be a chore. The infrastructure, game mechanics wise, just isn't present to make the process fluid. Not to mention, loading hops which have destroyed many a ship for me.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, OHara said:

I am curious to understand what exactly you two are agreeing on (or just get a brief clue, it if is beside the point of this thread).

Some aspects of KSP1, immortal Kerbals who do not need to eat, for example, make it easier to build up complex research outposts over many missions.

Less than 5 parts dedicated to stations and basically no one for bases, the game is not stable when trying to load something on the ground while you're coming from orbit, there's no use for bases and stations except for multiplying science but if you do it you finish the tech tree before even leaving Kerbin.

Every time you see a big or giant ship, station or base is always made out of MK3 plane parts.

KSP1 is designed around small crafts and its progression mode was developed for the Kerbin-Mun-Minmus system in mind, you can go further if you want without unlocking everything and doing very early tech Duna missions but you have to choose to do it limiting yourself to not doing biome hopping and not using the lab.

 

21 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Well I think you are in luck as I doubt they will be letting "legacy and nostalgia won't hamper and limit what the professionals at Intercept can do" as evidenced by them removing science and career to replace them with "adventure mode". I think they gave it a new name to outright declare that it will be very different.

That's why I like the fact that they carefully avoided using the words "career" or "science". We can discuss if we want money or not as a concept, the important part is that they're not implemented like in KSP1 design-wise.

 

11 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Labs would be the places where the research takes place. The more you have, the faster you can research. (This can become a balancing issue, but there are ways to fix it.) 

You can balance this with life support lite and resources/supplies consumed by research, your Kerbals won't die without snacks but they won't work either. That way you can't warp away our research but nothing stops you from doing that Eloo mission you really wanted to do. And also that incentivizes the player to start building supply routes or self-sufficient bases.

 

11 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yeah its a tough retrofit for KSP1 at this point.

I think that everything we're considering or proposing here in KSP2's sub forum would cause a forum-wide insurrection if even hinted at by squad for a KSP1 update., that's why I really don't blame anyone for the shortcomings of KSP, it's a miracle the game still exist and is developed after 8 years at this point whatever we get is a bonus.

 

[shdwlrd]

7 hours ago, Master39 said:

You can balance this with life support lite and resources/supplies consumed by research, your Kerbals won't die without snacks but they won't work either. That way you can't warp away our research but nothing stops you from doing that Eloo mission you really wanted to do. And also that incentivizes the player to start building supply routes or self-sufficient bases.

I didn't offer a solution to the balance of the labs because there are many ways to balance the amount of research you can do.

As you said, one method is the amount of available resources and time.

Or you could do so is by time only with each step taking longer than the previous step with labs decreasing the time taken with limits to the number of labs you can have or by using diminishing returns for a each lab.

Or research will stop and not continue until the player does a mission to perform an experiment related to the research being conducted. 

Or what research you can do is tied to where the player is in the progression with certain game world goals and milestones reached before they even unlock.

I'm sure there are more solutions than I gave examples for, but these are the types I've ran into most often in different games.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

I didn't offer a solution to the balance of the labs because there are many ways to balance the amount of research you can do.

As you said, one method is the amount of available resources and time.

Or you could do so is by time only with each step taking longer than the previous step with labs decreasing the time taken with limits to the number of labs you can have or by using diminishing returns for a each lab.

Or research will stop and not continue until the player does a mission to perform an experiment related to the research being conducted. 

Or what research you can do is tied to where the player is in the progression with certain game world goals and milestones reached before they even unlock.

I'm sure there are more solutions than I gave examples for, but these are the types I've ran into most often in different games.

Also crew rotations, the diminishing returns are relative to the single scientist working at the lab, at some point you have to bring Bob all the way out to Jool to have him generate some new science, you can then counterbalance that by making a scientist presence useful also for other thing and maybe the more "depleted" they are in doing basic science the more useful and experienced they are on the other tasks.

But yes, the point was that's easy to bypass that "you can warp away your research" in a lot of ways.

[shdwlrd]

33 minutes ago, Master39 said:

But yes, the point was that's easy to bypass that "you can warp away your research" in a lot of ways.

Yep, that's the ultimate goal of the last two. I would personally like to see a blend of the research mechanics of Surviving Mars and the goal based research availability you'll see in RTS and 3-4x based games.

[mcwaffles2003]

16 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

I didn't offer a solution to the balance of the labs because there are many ways to balance the amount of research you can do.

As you said, one method is the amount of available resources and time.

Or you could do so is by time only with each step taking longer than the previous step with labs decreasing the time taken with limits to the number of labs you can have or by using diminishing returns for a each lab.

Or research will stop and not continue until the player does a mission to perform an experiment related to the research being conducted. 

Or what research you can do is tied to where the player is in the progression with certain game world goals and milestones reached before they even unlock.

I'm sure there are more solutions than I gave examples for, but these are the types I've ran into most often in different games.

16 hours ago, Master39 said:

Also crew rotations, the diminishing returns are relative to the single scientist working at the lab, at some point you have to bring Bob all the way out to Jool to have him generate some new science, you can then counterbalance that by making a scientist presence useful also for other thing and maybe the more "depleted" they are in doing basic science the more useful and experienced they are on the other tasks.

But yes, the point was that's easy to bypass that "you can warp away your research" in a lot of ways.

15 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Yep, that's the ultimate goal of the last two. I would personally like to see a blend of the research mechanics of Surviving Mars and the goal based research availability you'll see in RTS and 3-4x based games.

I like how KCT has a cost per month for administration, as the program grows admin costs/time could grow as well disincentivizing large time warps for non mission purposes. Personally I think labs should be a requirement for completing the research more so than acting as a speed boost for research but I don't see why both methods can't be used. Also, to counter a player temporarily trimming down their whole admin to timewarp through a stockpile of science perhaps reputation could also fade over time. Overall I think there just has to be a system in place where timewarping has a trade off to once again make time valuable possibly even so much as in the late game players are incentivized to sending labs out to remove the time required to retrieve the sample all the way back at kerbin.

I imagine things like this as well as other factors could be given sliders so that some people have more time to work with for a more care free experience and others who want a challenge may be fighting the ever approaching bankruptcy from admin costs by running very mission dense schedules, running many missions simultaneously. To allow such a thing though would require some kind of mission tracker/agenda like KAC where players might also be able to write notes to themselves to keep track of individual mission goals and steps.