Stop Making Science Grindy

[TexRob]

+1 except what if there's something that changes when removed from its environment or KSC wants Jeb to look at that rock over there and tel them something about it or to pick it to take back.

Or even more challenging stuff like taking a sample via the lab from Duna to Eve or something. I agree that more things rather than repetitive things is the answer. Career should not be quick, it should be challenging and rewarding, but that can be done without being grindy.

[tntristan12]

Here's what I think...

Different subjects should contribute to the science pool differently. For example, an EVA report is worth just as much whether you report it over comms or bring it back home. In fact, it's worth even more the sooner you transmit it because the experiences are still fresh. Imagine if Neil Armstrong had waited until he got back home before he described what it was like standing on the surface of the freakin' moon.

Another example. Consider how the goo behaves in zero gravity. Obviously if you observe the goo and report your observations by comms, your results aren't going to be as thorough as if you had a lab on site and could perform a more thorough analysis. However, once you bring the goo back home it's no longer in zero gravity. You've destroyed the experiment so how can your observations about how it behaves in zero gravity possibly be worth more than the observations you could have reported through the radio? Clearly in that instance the on site lab is the best option.

Now, if on the other hand you have a clutch of soil fresh from Duna and the means to preserve it properly, here your observations clearly would yield the least amount of benefit and your on site lab would give you a better means of analysis, but that's nothing compared to the analysis you could do at home. The best option here is clearly to return the sample to Kerbin for analysis.

So the way I see it, every experiment has an ideal option. Furthermore, once you've conducted an expetinent you are imposed by a set of conditions that decrease the value of the science gained once those conditions are no longer met. Took an EVA report? Good! Report it while you're still on EVA or the experience won't be as fresh and therefore worth less science. Observed the mystery goo in zero gravity? Good! Now keep it in zero gravity while you try to exact the most science possible from it (via mobile lab or reporting).

Within each set of conditions, you should be able to mine a total amount of science from it regardless of what you do as long as the parameters of the experiment are upheld. In the goo example, if you report your observations you get some science, but you have not broken the experiment. If you then take it to the lab and conduct experiments on it, you should then get the total amount of science available, since that was the ideal option, minus of course the science you already got out of it by transmitting. That only makes sense, as the experiments you conducted in the lab would not be able to tell you anything new that you had already observed.

So by treating every experiment as something different, the game opens up the challenge of players discovering what the optimal method of science mining is, what the parameters of the experiment are, and how best to gather the most science from the experiment while still adhering to the constraints it imposes. Science mining becomes less of a grind and more of a puzzle to solve, and becomes less abstract and more representative of conducting science in the field. I think that's the kind of improvement science in KSP needs, and hopefully the kind of improvement that the devs have in mind...

...or, you know, they could just add 50 different kinds of dirt and have you collect them all to bring back to KSC!

[austincurr]

tntristan- totally agree. And if you don't bring them all back in 5 years you have to start over because the dirt went bad.

[KASASpace]

Okay, really, all I SEE in this thread is people just constantly contradicting themselves. JEEZ! Get your opinions straight.

Now, on the note of the conversation:

1. The lab is useful if a station is over the Mun and a small lander comes back, cleans and transmits data through lab, refuels, and comes back

2. As well as mission longevity. I get to reuse my experiments on any vessel with a power system to support the lab and the crew

3. Science is not grindy. I do not go to the same place a million times. I move on after one mission, or fail and have to rescue my crew. The points gotten are used or not, due to the fact that it might not be enough for another node.

4. I don't rush, I go Mercury style at first, than rendevzous, than go do a flyby of Mun and Minmus. Than get in orbit and get a ton of EVA reports. THan landings, and now I'm over 45% of the way through.

5. That said, NOW CAN WE ALL BE MORE OPEN-MINDED! JEEZ!

[sputnikhead72]

I generally agree with tntristan's suggestions.

One thing I would suggest in addition is to make some experiments long-duration. For example, temperature is worthless if you just check it once a year; wouldn't it make sense if the barometer and thermometer were simply "set running", and continually generated science (with diminishing returns over time)? These are more stationary tools, which would act more like a weather station than a space probe. Maybe throw in a wind speed/direction meter.

I would also suggest making the gravioli detector a mapping tool, instead of a biome-based tool. When real satellites and space probes measure local gravitation, they generate a map of the gravity of a celestial body over its whole surface. I picture something like the kethane scanner, but instead of finding kethane deposits you get science points for each grid block you scan. There could be several similar science tools of this sort, like radar/laser elevation mappers, infrared remote thermal scanners, and probably lots of others based on real science tools that I'm not even aware of.

[WhiteWeasel]

Agree with tntristan, Also

I think the science lab, should increase recovery value of goo canisters and materials bays if analyzed in the biome you got it from. Obviously it is less equipped than the one at the KSC, but working with data and performing experiments out in the field - not contaminated by bringing it back to kerbin should count for something. Being able to analyze something without taking it out of it's natural environment is a scientists dream.

[Great General Kaboomsky]

Another +1 for Tntristan.

Taking into account the reality that most space-science is really only valuable because of the high-radiation, zero-g environment is a great point in balancing out the current science system. The suggestion that each experiment needs to be given it's own optimal "type" (either observation and direct transmission, zero-g experimentation in the lab, or handing it off to the eggheads on the ground) would do a lot (imho) to remove the grindy, boring feel that science gathering takes on right now, and would at least give us good reasons to do anything other than sample-return missions whenever possible.

I'm also firmly in the camp of "give us more experiments to do, that each return fewer sci points." Orbital telescopes, long-term weather research missions (with gradually accumulating sci points,) and mapping missions (topographic, magnetic, atmospheric, etc.) are all a huge part of modern space science and I would love to see them have a place in the game.

That said, I AM enjoying the current system, and once Reputation and cash (Kash?) are implemented, I suspect there is some balancing to be done between cheap, safe, unmanned missions that transmit findings and the relatively more dangerous and expensive manned and unmanned sample return missions.

[Caelib]

I don't think the new changes are grindy compared to v.22 ... progressing up the tech tree is much more natural now with exploration of the entire system. I had more than half of the tech tree unlocked without even leaving Kerbin's sphere of influence. What's the problem?

[shawnbyday]

Hello everyone!

First off I would like to say that I like the new way science is done. The spamming felt cheap and I like being able to "check things off" so to speak. This brings up one quick point about the new page added to the research facility.

1. Put the list of places visited in a checklist form. I've found myself developing a spreadsheet that I use to check places off that I go...having this IN game would be extremely neat!

1. I would like to have an incentive to haul the lab to other celestial bodies. (Right now it is faster for me to travel to the Mun several times bringing everything to Kerbin than it is to assemble a mini-science ship to send to the moon to do ongoing experiments). That being said since nothing outside of the Kerbin sphere of influence has any biomes it remains somewhat dull right now...it has SO much potential and I think this is the general gist of the community.

2. Something needs to be done to make transmission useful in certain situations. Probes have no point at all and I find them very interesting...this also applies to rovers. Both of these types of missions provide a unique feel to the game and to punish someone using them to collect science is somewhat of a let down. (Flying a Kerbal to the Mun to collect and return science is less time-consuming and easier to pull off than doing all of the work associated with landing a small rover and taking the time to use it to explore and collect science).

3. I feel like EVERY experiment in EVERY biome should be able to be transmitted once and returned once. It would promote using remote technology to do risky "first" missions and then reward you more by having your Kerbals fly there to investigate further. Obviously transmitting being "less risky" would give less points perhaps but still enough points to make it worth doing. If this introduces too much science into the game I feel like the costs of the tech tree could then be readjusted.

4. Once 3 is in place remove the whole "120 points for first return .34 points for the second return"...just be DONE with that biome for that experiment. If you're going to reward points for multiple ongoing returns that is fine too but make it worthwhile. My preference is to just do it and be done.

I feel like once 1-4 are completed "balancing" the science system would be systematic. You have a finite amount of science that can be attained and you can say "at 80% of all science explored player will have access to the entire tree" or something of the likes. Some will definitely disagree with having a finite system but it is a means to an end!

Thanks for reading everyone!

[Mergelsberg]

After 0.22 in which I felt science was too easy. Just in 2 missions you could unlock the bulk of the tech tree.

Right now I feel the tech tree is perhaps a bit on the slow side. Now I am not a bad builder or pilot, but I am no Scott Manley either. So far in the 0.23 tree it's taken me 6 missions and I find myself struggling to unlock basic parts like solar panels. Which I frankly find annoying.

I'm fine with the whole not being able to infinitely reset experiments and just milk a biome for all its science. But I don't like the whole idea of not being able to build a half decent unmanned probe because running a Stayputnik long enough for it to get to Minmus requires prohibitively many batteries. And I like using unmanned probes before sending out Kerbals.

I can see how the current tech-tree came to be, and with easy access to science points like in 0.22 I saw that it worked fine. Though like quite a few people in this thread I'd like to see some changes made to the tree.

I would very much appreciate the more basic parts to be available more early on in the tree and some other parts can be pushed back in the tree in exchange. I'd like to see the Thermometer and Barometer as the first 2 science instruments. Followed by the "avionics nosecone" and Accelerometer, with the materials bay, goo canister and gravioli detector being the last to be added.

This way it'd be more easy to get repeatable science points on the first few flights, and once the player has some more parts available, the experiments where it really pays to return them become available.

I'd also like to see the very basic solar panels to be moved forward in the tree, because to me it makes sense that the mystery goo and materials bay and such can't work without being powered and let's face it, the early 100 cap batteries do not offer a lot of energy storage for their mass.

Lastly I'd like to see the Stayputnik become the first available 'capsule' over the Capsule Mk1, so that no Kerbals have to be risked for relatively low return-on-investment missions.

Oh and before I forget, can we please swap the order of the launch-clamps and that box strut part?

[KASASpace]

Well, you can actually get more science on your first mission now. Just go Scott Manley style and land on Minmus. Use the EVA pack to fly around and collect samples and EVA reports from a multitude of biomes. I hear you can get well over 1000 science.

[Holo]

Wait, I have a question. Why are you guys going to the same biome again and again if you don't like doing so? There's more than just the Mun in KSP.

[KASASpace]

Okay, to the author of this thread, I have a question:

You said that science is grindy, which I assume you mean is slow.

So, the solution you've come up with is making the only way to transmit science being through a lab, as well as increasing the prices of science nodes and decreasing actual value of experiments?

You do realize that this will only make it more slow, right?

The science lab is hard to get off the ground, so less experienced players would have to spend more time to get it off the ground, time which they could use to go to the smae biome over and over again to get more science.

increasing the cost and decreasing the value is basically SCIENCE INFLATION! That would ruin the kerbal science economy.

So, congrats. You have ruined the science economy of the kerbals and have also accomplished the exact opposite of what you where trying to achieve.

Edited January 20, 2014 by KASASpace

[daniu]

I realize this thread is a bit old, but I came to it from the "Already suggested list" so I guess it's okay to revive it.

The problem I have concerning "grindiness" is how the basic instruments like the thermometer and barometer are only available somewhat far down the line.

That's not only illogical, but also kind of makes it necessary to revisit all places you've been before, including the Biomes on Kerbin - without adding to the challenge to go there.

It would make the career gameplay much more fluid if you had the instruments with little mass from the beginning.

This way, while failing to go into orbit, you can at least get some science out of it (by taking measurements where you touched down), without having to go there again after you've been to two moons just because you got a new instrument and you'd be missing out on science if you didn't.

Which only wastes time you could spend on getting to new places in space, which is pretty much what is the fun of the game to me.

The material bay and lab are fine, because they have relevant mass, so it is harder to get into orbit with them, which adds to the challenge.

On a somewhat related note, I think the parts to put a plane together are scattered over the tech tree too much; a cockpit here, the aerodynamics there, the engine at a third node.

That's kind of frustrating, and makes it even harder to revisit Biomes on Kerbin.

Edited March 17, 2014 by daniu

[Javster]

Maybe add a difficulty selector: each difficulty has a percentage more/less science to unlock nodes

[Joonatan1998]

I generally agree with tntristan's suggestions.

One thing I would suggest in addition is to make some experiments long-duration. For example, temperature is worthless if you just check it once a year; wouldn't it make sense if the barometer and thermometer were simply "set running", and continually generated science (with diminishing returns over time)? These are more stationary tools, which would act more like a weather station than a space probe. Maybe throw in a wind speed/direction meter.

I would also suggest making the gravioli detector a mapping tool, instead of a biome-based tool. When real satellites and space probes measure local gravitation, they generate a map of the gravity of a celestial body over its whole surface. I picture something like the kethane scanner, but instead of finding kethane deposits you get science points for each grid block you scan. There could be several similar science tools of this sort, like radar/laser elevation mappers, infrared remote thermal scanners, and probably lots of others based on real science tools that I'm not even aware of.

Long duration experiments won't change much unless there is something like limited life support added to limit mission duration.