An Open critcism of the early model for the Science System.

[Dynamo]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the current science system. Before the community acknowledges it, though, i must point out that i know that the science system is still in development. These are my current criticisms based off the model being used in version 0.22, which i shall voice to hopefully give Squad some feedback or ideas on how the community perceives this system, and where it should be headed. I welcome discussion and debate on this topic, as it can only bring a more accurate model of the community's perception of science. Please do also note, these criticisms are only from about tech 2 or 3, based on my own save file. (For those don't want to read the entirety of my argument, the tl;dr points are in bold)

So, congratulations, Squad. I'm astounded at the pace of development that gave me the 0.22 update at least 2 months before I thought it would be released. I laud this achievement, and cannot say you left anything half baked. The new parts, systems, and subassemblies are wonderful additions to the game. I also do appreciate this early career mode release, and the Research that goes with it. But i most come to terms with a few minor grievances i have against it:

1. Lack of a Kerbal 'Space' Program: The system of mapping biomes to facilitate experiments for each of Kerbin's biomes is a wonderful achievement. It provides a diverse base of science to work with (and segway into the resource system with), and encourages exploration. The issue that comes to mind, though, is how the current balancing encourages rocket based exploration of those areas. In one situation, i noted a community forum discussing the best methods to acquire science points while in the Kerbin system. Many users suggested landing in the different biomes, as each gives a full science project for you to recover, and advance the space program with. It makes sense - early on, at the tier 1 or 2 tech, we have neither rovers nor aircraft, and we don't have good enough rocket parts to get to the Mun, but we can make suborbital hops to each biome with our rockets. However, i do think that this encourages a different kind of gameplay just for points. I feel motivated to go on missions exploring the void, looking to divine the secrets that the Kerbals are just uncovering in the wonders of space. But, there is only 1 set of experiments for Kerbin's orbit/near space, whilst there are many different Biome reports once you land. This encourages a "land program," where space quickly dries up its science in the infant stages of the tech tree, and we're left lobbing Kerbals to different parts of the planet to gain science. But, if a space program (ex. the Mercury Program) is developed to look into the final frontier after we have explored our home planet, why is there more to discover on Kerbin than in the unknown void? The Mercury program brought an infinite number of experiments and questions to light about space, and in KSP we can cover that all in one flight. So, until we go to the Mun and beyond, we're stuck lobbing kerbalnauts into 'new' biomes. I know that it's a balancing mechanic, and flooding the tree with science points would create issues, but we can try to encourage a variety of experiments in exchange for larger science point requirements. I want to spend a series of flights learning all i can about everything in orbit rather than everything that's on the ground when i land.

2. Limited Methods of Research: As noted in the previous point, i think that the range of experiments (at least early on, i've only seen the Goo and Crystal Lab in my save) is too narrow. Perhaps there should be a wider range of 'space-only' experiments to conduct in orbits, as i feel the experiment system is too generalized to encourage an avid exploration of each frontier. Some might complain that flights would get repetitive, but i contrast by saying that a space program ought to be a journey rather than a 3 flight rush to the Mun if you are in Career mode; if you want that kind of gameplay, play in sandbox mode, as you likely aren't interested in science either. I saw another thread discussing whether or not the Career mode was too 'fast,' that player was likely forced to rush to the pace due to the lack of science in orbit. It can leave 'pitfalls' in science where i can't get to the Mun, and i must exhaust science on Kerbin to get parts to get there, or when i can't reach interplanetary missions but have exhausted most of the science on Kerbin, the Mun, and minimus. So, i think we should have a wealth of experiments to choose from, mapping, more encouragement of late-tech satellite play, perhaps a comms relay. Maybe we can build Science stations that generate a slow but steady Research rate via a Science Lab onboard. We can leave behind what experiments we don't want, and move forward with our campaign.

3. Need for a Diversity of Experiments: This is a subpoint of the above, as i note that each experimental module is sort of a one-trick pony kind of deal. I think we should have variety of assignments to give our Kerbals in science, perhaps involve them more in it personally. I'd love to see something akin to the crew system where we can load science bays up with certain experiments just like we can elect crew members for a mission, where the experiments you can take aboard are based on what science modules you've equipped, and the you can unlock new experiments as you progress in overall tech level. For example, if i'm carrying the Science Jr., rather than just studying crystal growth of one arbitrary crystal type, we might be able to test different kinds of crystals, or study how other materials react in space, or even look into how other organisms (like that little octopus in the .22 trailer) react in space. That would brighten up the science aspect and encourage players to build spaceships around new experiments that they want to conduct, rather than making ships solely on reaching the next destination where their 'one trick pony' can repeat itself for a different result due to the change in enviornment.

Cheers everyone, and i'd love any feedback points you can offer. I know that my career hasn't advanced far enough to definitvely determine if any of these points are dissuaded, but i'd like to know if they are at some point later than where i'm at. Thanks to Squad in advance for paying attention to the community, and for being open to players' opinions of your product. Please continue your development, as we can only make Science better.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Dynamo

[Superfluous J]

As you acknowledge, career mode is in its infancy.

You can find more to research around Kerbin than anywhere else because they started with Kerbin. I fully trust that every planet and moon will have multiple biomes (well maybe not Bop and Pol but I wouldn't be surprised) when they get them done. The range of available experiments being narrow is also due to this being the first iteration.

I think encouraging landing over orbiting is fine. We learned a lot more about Mars from Viking than we did Mariner, though they used what they found from Mariner to plan Viking. I want to do that.

I don't feel any pressing need to eke out the full science value of any single biome or planet, though admittedly I'm going slowly and only progressing through career for my YouTube series. In said series, I've just gotten back from a Minmus flyby and am preparing to land for the first time on Mun. I also am limiting myself to one tech tree node per successful mission so I've just unlocked struts and have yet to attain a probe core. However, I have hundreds of science points available and could unlock probably 4 or 5 nodes right now, after only a few missions. From what I've read, that will tighten up eventually but I'm more looking forward to that than dreading it.

I love the idea of mapping. I'd love to show up at Laythe with a satellite and map it out, showing me where the biomes are so later on I can send a few landers to check them out in full. Something like the Mars Global Surveyor, paving the way for our own Sojourner Rover (and Constellation program) would be really, really cool.

The idea of a generic science bay that you load with specific experiments sounds pretty cool. I'd be nice also to have a space station that you don't have to bring up a "goo container" and then be done with, but instead bring up specialists or experiments with mass but no part, that just work when you get to the station.

In short, good ideas but I think this is like suggesting cruise control to Henry Ford. Most of it's going to happen anyway.

[Kasuha]

There is only one thing I don't like on the current science system: the tech tree does not lead you to explore the whole system.

Tech tree makes ship parts your game goal and science the currency you use to pay for it. Regardless where you take that currency. If you're thorough you can finish the whole tech tree (i.e. the whole career part of the game) by visiting Kerbin SOI and maybe one other planet.

In my opinion, science performed in all possible ways on all planets and moons should be the goal of the game and the tree should not be 'all green' until you finish it. Parts should of course be involved in it, but should not play the main role.

[Scoundrel]

If I may be permitted to humbly offer my opinion on the subject, the problem with the "science point" system (SPS) is that neither does science nor does it work as an in depth game mechanic designed to encourage growth of the player's experience, but rather encourage exploitation that takes away from the overall experience as witnessed by the reddit users who have maxed out the science tree in something like 4 rocket flights.

Now, before I go further, I will acknowledge that the SPS is in its infancy and may possibly change down the road; and that the SPS is actually better than nothing - though I really think that Mystery Gooâ„¢ should have been Science Gooâ„¢, but I digress.

Firstly, it's painfully apparent that Squad didn't consult with some scientist-type people first because this is their research to applications workflow:

Results from science project -> completely unrelated technology unlock

And that's it. To me this is as much a facepalm for science as it is a soft sigh of disappointment for missed opportunity for wicked game design. As has been pointed out by previous posters, it reduces science to an economic unit which, quite frankly, leaves a slightly sour taste in my mouth... but that's just me.

If I had my way and was designing the science aspect of the game, I'd have gone a different route... please keep in mind that this is just an ad-hoc idea that I've put about 2 minutes of thought into, so don't be surprised that it lacks depth and breadth in its explanation.

Before launch:

1) Player selects "mission goals" - a mission goal would be to achieve an orbit/apoapsis of a certain height or to land on another body or to achieve a certain velocity in an atmosphere; these represent the technical challenges to be overcome. The research accumulated while attempting to achieve those objectives (using accelerometers and other measurement devices) accumulates to unlock technologies (read: new parts). Once it has been achieved, it stops rewarding technical research for reaching that goal. A milestone system could even make this invisible to the player, or at least give the player the option to select a mission goal, for those that prefer the seat-of-your-pants style of KSP.

2) Player selects "science goals" - these are objectives such as measure gravity at lowest point of the Mun or its magnetic field, etc. As data is accumulated from the closest celestial bodies (thus making repeating the experiment pointless), it unlocks more mission goal options. Now, I should also add that data for the other celestial bodies would be "observed" at the start - estimates of temperature, gravity, etc. so the player would have an idea of what to expect - and that the data would change as it became "confirmed" once the experiment was successfully applied.

3) Experiments would be a mixture of data that should only be transmitted (gravity, temperature, etc); and sample/goo/core analysis which requires the experiment to be returned. Now, surface analysis could be transmitted with advanced science parts that are unlocked down the road, but I leave that to the realm of speculation and player preference as a mixture of the two requirements would continue to give good reason to send kerbals to the outer reaches of the Kerbol system.

As you can see, it's a feedback loop: the need to do science further and further out drives the technical research (mission goals) to make new materials and new propulsion/ancillary systems; it even does exactly what the current system does in limiting the player where they can go, but with an educational twist that not only gives a better sense of what science is and what it's about, but also the technical side of space programs and the research into materials and physics required to make better and better rockets that go farther and farther out.

Anyhow, in closing, I just want to say that I agree with the OP and the other posters, and I can't wait to see where Squad takes the game next.

[Seret]

the problem with the "science point" system (SPS) is that neither does science nor does it work as an in depth game mechanic designed to encourage growth of the player's experience

It's not intended as either. The point of the tech tree is to provide progressive disclosure of the parts and their features. It's intended to to guide an unfamiliar player gradually into the type of rockets and missions that are capable, instead of just dumping 168 parts in front of a player and saying "off you go!".

[Sirrobert]

If I may be permitted to humbly offer my opinion on the subject, the problem with the "science point" system (SPS) is that neither does science nor does it work as an in depth game mechanic designed to encourage growth of the player's experience, but rather encourage exploitation that takes away from the overall experience as witnessed by the reddit users who have maxed out the science tree in something like 4 rocket flights.

I VERY much disagree with this point.

While it is technologicly possible for the real pros to get to Minmus in the first flight, and stuf like that, it's not something most players can do. For me personally, the career mode has pushed me to send probes everywhere in the week or so that I have played it, WAY more than the sandbox has in the many months that I played that before the update.

Getting to Minmus on the first flight is a huge challange in itself. And when the economy part of career rolls around, with parts costing money, I'm sure we'll see it no longer being possible.

On the science as a currency part: I like that you just get points, and you can spend those points on whatever you want. Rather than doing the research, you actually bring back data. That data is than used in research, and your program is awarded research budget to do stuf with.

I like the mission goal idea though. I am however a little confused on this part:

Once it has been achieved, it stops rewarding technical research for reaching that goal.

Now if I understand this right, almost making your mission goal would allow you to spam science on multiple missions, while making your mission goal in 1 go would limit you to 1 mission. So failing would grant more science? I'm not sure how that would work out.

And don't forget that you unlock more science parts as you progress. If you were to lock the rewards of a goal, and than unlock new science parts later, could you still use it in that setting?

Now on the points of the OP:

I agree with nr 1. Landing is still an important part of space though, so maybe a middle ground?

I'm mixed on nr 2. Adding more ways of research would be awesome, but it would also allow you to get way more science points than you can now.

As it is you can send interplanetary probes pritty quickly in your space program, there is no need to fully deplete the Kerbin system first as it is. So it would need to be ballanced carefully. With ballance in mind though, I'm very much in favor of more varied science

[boomerdog2000]

It's not intended as either. The point of the tech tree is to provide progressive disclosure of the parts and their features. It's intended to to guide an unfamiliar player gradually into the type of rockets and missions that are capable, instead of just dumping 168 parts in front of a player and saying "off you go!".

Completely agree. The tech-tree is for introducing parts. Presumably the mission system will be designed to encourage players to challenge themselves to gain more money to afford larger projects.

Now on the OP.

1. EVA reports, and gravioli detector depend on the biome that the ship is flying over as well. I do think more experiments that are biome specific from orbit would be cool, but this could be a balancing issue.

2. Once you gain the original 4 science devises from pre-.22 you gain significantly more science that can only be done on the ground.

3. This could be a really cool idea.

[Skyrunner27]

I'm starting to feel the devs worked themselves into a corner with the current career system. I mean if they wanted to help new players they should encourage repeat flights until the player feels like they are ready to move on, but allow the expert players to move on. Which it does the second excellently but the first part is a bit weak. That is why adding experiments instead and having diffrent crews renew science ratings (EG Bob crew report will countinue to be a 6 even though Jeb has flown and done crew reports 100 times.) would be good.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Skyrunner27

[mdosogne]

I find it a bit strange that any kind of science instantly leads to "advances" in parts of the player's choice. How does a moon goo experiment lead to advances in atmospheric flight?

I also liked the idea of selecting different materials with which to equip the science bay. To avoid spamming, new materials could become available as new biomes are explored, and technology progresses by subjecting the materials to zero-g or extrakerbestrial experiments.

Idea: divide the science advances into categories (which they are already), and instead of rewarding the player with artificial 'points', grant advances in an area relevant to the type of experiment. Granted, gravioli detection may not really be 'related' to anything, but... it is a game. Instead of listing the science 'value' as a number, how about a qualitative description?

- a [rocket scientist/xenobiologist/etc]'s dream

- extremely valuable

- inspiring

- useful

- of little interest

Just off the top of my head:

a) aerodynamics advances: parachutes, wings, control surfaces awarded for atmospheric flights, especially those that land without crashing.

construction materials: awarded for (you guessed it) materials bay experiments in extreme environments (zero g, in moon/duna dust, in sub-zero temperatures). A lot of material science advances are related to zero-g experiments, and designing materials to survive moon dust is challenging.

c) atmospheric engines, higher isp engines (aerospike?) awarded for atmospheric flights. Higher-altitude, higher-speed, more massive ships lead to new discoveries (including massive failures, if you can recover anything)

d) SAS and RCS controls awarded for in-space experiments

e) larger manned pods awarded for sucessfully returning kerbals from distant locations...

f) utility improvements awarded for surface samples from multiple biomes (for discovering rare kerbin materials); more value for putting these materials in the science bay.

g) wheels should be available early on (they're already in use in the VAB and SPH), with improvements awarded for non-kerbin surface samples

h) science improvements awarded for... doing science on kerbin! Better science leads to more useful results in other areas.

In essence, flight-related parts (propulsion and aerodynamics) awarded for recovered flights; utility and other specialty parts awarded for experiments done with exotic materials in exotic environments.

I'm sure if someone devoted a bit more than the 15 minutes I spent thinking of this, or actually researched how some technology was discovered, they could come up with a more appropriate situations for introducing the technology.

Instead of displaying what parts the player will earn for unlocking a tech node, there could be a description and blueprint, along with a desciprion of the type of data or samples needed to inspire the scientists.

Edited October 27, 2013 by mdosogne

[Leatherneck]

It's not intended as either. The point of the tech tree is to provide progressive disclosure of the parts and their features. It's intended to to guide an unfamiliar player gradually into the type of rockets and missions that are capable, instead of just dumping 168 parts in front of a player and saying "off you go!".

I disagree. There is no logical progression in the tree AT ALL, especially for a new player.

1. Parts descriptions are funny, but do nothing to help a player unfamiliar with its function.
   
2. You can skip branches of the tree, and still progress. (There's tech that says it needs 2 preceeding techs, but really don't as you can unlock the one without the previous 2.)
   
3. The branches don't follow a logical progression. Landing struts, and the lander cans aren't even in the same branch!
   
4. Bigger rockets don't mean squat when you can stage 8,000 smaller ones.
   
5. Redundant techs that are no better than the previous techs. For example, there's a parachute that needs 160-300 Science to unlock, that has identical stats to the starter parachute.
   
6. You can land on Mun without ever unlocking landing parts...
   
7. 
   

Add in the grind, and you've shown a new player NOTHING. Look at the forums, the questions being asked from those starting out in career mode are either still how do I build x, or how to get more science. Therefore, the tech tree is not teaching anything. So, what ends up happening? Zerg science, unlock a ton of parts, build stuff to zerg more science, rinse and repeat. I liked careers limitations in the beginning because it made me think outside the box. However, there is not really any reason to finish the tree about halfway through. Why? The parts don't naturally progress, so you really just end up grinding science to unlock everything anyway.

Which, when that happens, a new player will just start over in Sandbox, start using mods, or just quit.

TL;DR Tree is broken (therefore science is also broken) & doesn't do squat for new players.

[Seret]

I disagree. There is no logical progression in the tree AT ALL, especially for a new player.

<snip>

TL;DR Tree is broken (therefore science is also broken) & doesn't do squat for new players.

Well, you can argue that the implementation is poor, but progressive disclosure of the parts certainly is the intention of the tech tree.

[BadManiac]

The current Science implementation seems designed to give people Repetitive strain injuries or Carpal Tunnel... It's basically just repetitive monotonous clicking. It doesn't feel like science. I'm not sure how to fix it, but the current method for getting science points needs changing at a very base level I think.

[JoCRaM]

It's basically just repetitive monotonous clicking. It doesn't feel like science.

You've never been an RA..... Or a test subject. Hmmm, now I wonder if there's a deifference.

Edited October 27, 2013 by JoCRaM
close quote

[JoCRaM]

There are two different type of comment her, the mechanism, and the balancing.

For the mechanism, I'd like to see "unknown unknowns" - it's only onve you've got out of thick atmosphere and found your winglets stop working that you should even be thinking about RCS/reaction wheels (>30km altitude and SAS at 100% deflection for more than 2 seconds?); it's only after you've made a landing crater (perhaps capsule subjected to over 80% of it's impact tolerance?) that you start to think about landing legs.

For the balancing, I think the the first tech pack comes way too soon - I get about 50 research points out of the start pack, with "sensible" missions - no spamming research

[Pulstar]

I'll add that the OP may have missed the purpose of biomes on Kerbin a bit. Well apart from the fact that it makes no sense not to have those there when other places will. It's a measure to both teach the player that there are biomes and how they work in practice (also it helped testing the system obviously), but also it prevents new players from running into a science dead end. There's still incentive to do stuff *in* space, for one it actually gives you far more science even for basic low orbit. If you fail the first couple of times in getting into orbit you still end up somewhere with some science and get to unlock more parts. A new player is likely to miss stuff, especially that there are no tutorials or help messages like "you can click on some parts like the command pod to do an experiment, recover it to kerbin or transmit it back to unlock new parts" regarding science in the game. Even with those he could miss it, but overall by the time he does get into orbit he should probably have it figured out.

[Sirrobert]

I disagree. There is no logical progression in the tree AT ALL, especially for a new player.

1. Parts descriptions are funny, but do nothing to help a player unfamiliar with its function.
   
2. You can skip branches of the tree, and still progress. (There's tech that says it needs 2 preceeding techs, but really don't as you can unlock the one without the previous 2.)
   
3. The branches don't follow a logical progression. Landing struts, and the lander cans aren't even in the same branch!
   
4. Bigger rockets don't mean squat when you can stage 8,000 smaller ones.
   
5. Redundant techs that are no better than the previous techs. For example, there's a parachute that needs 160-300 Science to unlock, that has identical stats to the starter parachute.
   
6. You can land on Mun without ever unlocking landing parts...
   
7. 
   

Add in the grind, and you've shown a new player NOTHING. Look at the forums, the questions being asked from those starting out in career mode are either still how do I build x, or how to get more science. Therefore, the tech tree is not teaching anything. So, what ends up happening? Zerg science, unlock a ton of parts, build stuff to zerg more science, rinse and repeat. I liked careers limitations in the beginning because it made me think outside the box. However, there is not really any reason to finish the tree about halfway through. Why? The parts don't naturally progress, so you really just end up grinding science to unlock everything anyway.

Which, when that happens, a new player will just start over in Sandbox, start using mods, or just quit.

TL;DR Tree is broken (therefore science is also broken) & doesn't do squat for new players.

The tree progresses logicly if you look at it purely from an advanced rocket perspective. You start with 1 pod, 1 engine and 1 parachute. Than comes the decoupler. Than comes more science, ect. The game introduces a part, lets you use it and figure out what it does, and than introduces more advanced parts.

And the Mun argument is once again bullcrap. New players CAN NOT land on the Mun with tier1. The tree is designed for new players to introduce them to everything slowly. And it does that just fine. Just because Usain Bolt can run 100 meters in 10 seconds doesn't mean it's to easy. It just means he's good at it.

And just because some people ask questions, the entire system is worthless? What kinda bullcrap is that? So because a couple of students need extra lessons, the entire school system might aswel be skipped?

Or would you rather have a new player get dumped in the almost 200 parts and say 'figure it out yourself'.

Cause than you get

. And that kid is still guided by an expert

[Kegereneku]

I would explain the current inadequacy of the Tech-Tree by the way it unlock technology rather than make it evolve.

At the start of the Mercury program you already had micro-rocket engines and weren't forced to use a big "rockomax LVT-30". In fact, they lacked such powerful engine.

I have nothing serious to suggest, but I think this point should change.

Rather than unlocking Tech, most -not all- tech would be already unlocked but would only have (for example) only 50% of their efficiency/thrust/else. Putting some "science/engineering" in it would raise it to 75% then 100% at which point you need new technology.

And you would be able to send unmanned test vehicle BEFORE you can make manned mission. Unlocking manned capsule only if the probes made it back.

As for the Science-based Career-mode...

I think it should go objective based, a screen would tell you what science you haven't done yet, the Science Value LEFT (as in, you can't spam EQUAL experiments on the same flight).

But remember how each piece have a price ? Maybe there will be something like a "budget restriction" limiting the size of the rocket and the number of science-parts aboard a vessel (+ something to keep you from launching several times the same mission).

Career mode is REALLY in its infancy, don't forget that.

Maybe there isn't half of the balancing mechanics.

[sal_vager]

Research is very far from finished, we don't have money implemented yet for instance.

So yeah, it's not going to be right for everyone yet, and there's a huge amount of work to be done, please remember KSP as a whole is still in heavy development and that means features will be incomplete to begin with.

[boomerdog2000]

Well, you can argue that the implementation is poor, but progressive disclosure of the parts certainly is the intention of the tech tree.

Exactly. The entire point of the tech-tree is to introduce parts slowly. With the current system new players see 1 fuel tank, 1 engine, 1 capsule, 1 parachute, which cuts down on the initial confusion considerably. Any confusion left over now is because they expected to see decouplers and other parts since that is what they've seen before. Then when they get the next node they get decouplers. This makes them wonder what decouplers are and how they work. Granted, without tutorials it may be difficult for them to figure out what those parts do but the principal still stands. It is only designed at the moment to limit the initial number of parts available to introduce them to new players.

[nine_iron]

I must say I am very impressed with the tech tree and the science. I have only started playing it today due to not having internet.

It was disappointing that I could land on the moon on my 3rd flight. I was hoping for a little more restriction and longevity with a natural progression type of flow. Important parts seemed cheap and easy to get. One flight to get the basics, one flight to orbit the moon, one flight to land and suddenly it felt like I was in easy reach of everything I needed to make it feel like sandbox mode again.

I really like the science elements and the restrictions placed on the user by the lack of electricity, it made me really think about my mission plan and how to get science points as economically as possible. I just felt I didn't have the parts that would have made exploring Kerbin and using satellites the most logical way like I expected.

The quickest way to get points is to just head for the moon, grab some soil, broadcast a couple of transmissions on the way home regarding goo, splashdown and suddenly I have 200 science points.

Please PLEASE PLEASE keep the electricity management a key component of early missions, make orbital tasks the focus of the first few flights and lead the user to the moon in a logical pattern. I think its important to keep the option of blasting for the moon early but make it sap science like nobodies business! Its good to reward it but it should be multiple moon missions or a wide variety of Kerbin based activities.

Not sure yet as I have only run 3 missions but do repeating the same tasks over and over provide the same science reward?

[Sathurn]

My issue with the science system:

1. Spamming Science:

a) Science "pods" (for example goo pod), should be usable once per mission. You should be able to transmit some data (in case of disaster), and keep the rest of the data for return. But the experiment pod should only good for one run.

Science "instruments" (for example temp gauge), should only be usable once per biome, per time period. And should transmit 100%. Weather you make the time period a Kerbin day or per mission is up to your own opinion. Duplicate instruments should share the time period limitation.

2. Repeating mission.

Repeating missions is a big problem in my mind. Once I landed all over Kerbin to observe the goo, I don't want to repeat the process with the materials bay.

Suggestion: All "kerbin usable" science experiments available from the start. With any new experiments being only usable only in space. Or maybe KSC biome for "calibration".

3. No info on what experiments have been performed

Edited October 27, 2013 by Sathurn

[Dynamo]

Thanks for the interesting discussion everyone, and special thanks to Sal for making an appearance. As a clarification, i'm noticing quite a few of our opinions are coming into some common conclusions, so for newcomers (and to recap), here's the short list of what we think so far (at least 2-3 users both suggested or endorsed these):

1. Choosing science experiment loadouts is an interesting mechanic.

2. Career mode is in its infancy. Please don't harp on our criticisms like we don't know that, as we're all aware of the fact.

3. Tech unlocks should be related to the experiments conducted rather than through and arbitrary points system. (Personally, i didn't mention this concern in my original post as i saw too many balancing issues with it.)

4. Mission goals should be set to give science output for a flight rather than experiments conducted while you happen to be flying somewhere.

[Seret]

Not sure yet as I have only run 3 missions but do repeating the same tasks over and over provide the same science reward?

No, each time you run an experiment at a particular location it depletes the available pool of science available to that experiment at that location. So you will get diminishing returns, which forces you to go elsewhere to get science. It's a nice simple mechanic that rewards exploration and trying new things. I've found that whereas in sandbox I tend to spend 95% of my time in LKO or on the Mun, in career I'm sending out a lot more interplanetary missions.

[Andrew Hansen]

I think the biggest problem with science in 0.22 is like Sathurn said, how you're encouraged to "spam science." You transmit data over and over again to achieve the maximum points. I think it would be better if you could only do an experiment once, and then you could save or transmit that experiment on your bay/goo container.

For a manned return mission, you would save all your data to gain more science, but then you couldn't transmit it first. Or for a probe mission, you would transmit it and not save it. And only transmit it once. I also think that multiple experiments should be able to be kept on the science containers.

Another option is to implement hard drives that allow you to save a certain amount of information. Command pods can save an infinite amount of crew reports and surface samples, even though they may require a lot of data storage. Perhaps command pods can save 50 units of information (or more for bigger command pods), and then additional hard drives can store more information.

Anyway, I am looking forward to what amazing things will happen in future releases.

[Leatherneck]

The tree progresses logicly if you look at it purely from an advanced rocket perspective. You start with 1 pod, 1 engine and 1 parachute. Than comes the decoupler. Than comes more science, ect. The game introduces a part, lets you use it and figure out what it does, and than introduces more advanced parts.

You are missing my point. There is no guidance. It does no better than sandbox, because are you put it, "it lets you figure what it does, and then introduces more advanced parts." The game does not tell you squat. All you get is a pile of parts, with a carrot of more parts, but no direction of how to get there. The game does not even TELL you how to GET science in the first place. It is all assumed.

Tell me, how did you launch a plane if you didn't even have a landing gear for it to start on? You don't even get the rocket holders! Even model rockets have them! Look at the tree, do you see what you are saying?

And the Mun argument is once again bullcrap. New players CAN NOT land on the Mun with tier1. The tree is designed for new players to introduce them to everything slowly. And it does that just fine. Just because Usain Bolt can run 100 meters in 10 seconds doesn't mean it's to easy. It just means he's good at it.

Again, you are missing the point. There is nothing in career pushing someone forward, which the tree does little to help. You have to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you run. The techs aren't milestones, the science is not related, so the progression is not teaching anything! Your example is a poor analogy. You don't have to finish the tree to do everything, and that kinda defeats the purpose don't you think? People are landing on Mun before they have landers, so why research them? I did it without landers or rcs, or any fancy crap. I'm no Scott Manley, but I can accomplish that, but the game didn't help me do that by giving a few pieces at a time.

You act as if they give you a pinewood derby car, and magically you can build a Bugatti at the end because they gave you pieces a little at a time. Just because I give you a few bits of a car at a time, does not mean you are going to build a Bugatti Veyron any better than if I gave you all the parts at once. Especially, if I give you parts for the brakes when the only thing you figured out "on your own" was how the damn windows rolled up.

And just because some people ask questions, the entire system is worthless? What kinda bullcrap is that? So because a couple of students need extra lessons, the entire school system might aswel be skipped?

Or would you rather have a new player get dumped in the almost 200 parts and say 'figure it out yourself'.

Cause than you get

. And that kid is still guided by an expert

Again, poor analogy on your part. If a concept is not being taught efficiently, then you need to look at the curriculum. 3 Math Teachers can teach the same subject 3 different ways, if one's students are always asking about basic concepts, that doesn't mean the system as a whole is flawed, it is the presentation that isn't covering all the bases. You are assuming that people know what the parts are, what they do, how they interact, when the game tells you very little, and does not do anything to give you direction.

Look at actual space programs, there's a logical flow. For an oversimplified look it went Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle, Rovers, future. Went from getting a man into orbit, to getting a man on the moon, to doing studies in orbit, to reusable space craft, to sending unmanned missions, and the future of sending man to Mars, etc. KSP could easily go from getting a Kerbal into orbit, then to Mun, figuring out space stations, and then getting to the far flung reaches. Throw in probes and such along the path and voila.

You can look at the career mode with rose tinted glasses all you want, but it needs work, and there is no getting around it. Considering it is the first iteration of it that we have seen, we all know it needs to be tweaked and refined, so I do not know why you are rushing to the defense of something that isn't even finished yet. If you want more new players to enjoy the game, you gotta make it so that they can understand the concepts better. There are some great science moments in KSP, namely the crew reports when doing a flyby of Mun and Minmus, they comment where a good place to land is. THAT is what needs to happen more often. Imagine if that revelation led to the parts for landing, instead of something generic, or wholly unrelated? Doing x reveals to the player how to achieve y, without even really taking the player out of the game. Even the first Apollo Mission didn't straight land on the Moon, they observed, etc. Then they actually did it.