Get Rid of Biomes

[Mr Shifty]

Reading through MaxMaps's responses to the recent AMA, I was struck again by how the devs keep saying they scrapped their nascent resource system development because it wasn't turning out to be fun to play; it was a tedious chore. Aside from the fact that Kethane and other resource mods seem to have found a way to make it fun and interesing, I wonder given this why biome science is still in the game. Trolling for biomes in orbit has to be one of the most boring, tedious parts of the game at present. In the AMA MaxMaps talked about fleshing out the current planets (making them as good as Kerbin) before adding new ones; I groaned thinking that this must mean biome addition.

I understand that biomes give you an incentive to visit multiple locations on and around a planet or moon. And prior to 0.24, they provided a necessary science boost at the beginning of career mode. (Now, you barely need to do science at all since you can get it from contracts.) But it seems like these objectives could be met with a more fun and interesting system, like having actual interesting geographical locations to visit and study: interesting looking rock formations, caves, canyons, canals etc. And rather than having general science objectives (orbit over every biome and do an EVA report) you could have specific objectives like: "Visit this extinct volcano and use the seismic accelerator to take readings." Or "Get an EVA report from inside this Munar cave." Sort of like a contract system for science rather than just adding science points for completing every contract.

[Bobnova]

I like having specific locations, I found a biome entirely by accident on Mun (double-crater), I was psyched!

I would like to see more specific locations given science/things to do.

[Alshain]

I don't think biomes need to go away, I just think there needs to be less emphasis on them and more requirement to go somewhere other than the Mun and Minmus. You shouldn't able to finish the tech tree without going to Duna a minimum, but really it should be 3 other planets + Kerbin's moons to finish it. Of course I think that is going to level out as more parts get added, possibly more tech tree as well.

If you want to talk things that are tedious chores, the whole "visit this biome 6 times to get 100% on this science" thing. My thoughts are to simplify this. Transmission vs Return should still be limited, but if you return any science (don't care which) it should be 100%... but 100% should be less science points overall so that it forces you to leave Kerbin's SOI.

[Sky_walker]

I don't think biomes need to go away, I just think there needs to be less emphasis on them and more requirement to go somewhere other than the Mun and Minmus. You shouldn't able to finish the tech tree without going to Duna a minimum, but really it should be 3 other planets + Kerbin's moons to finish it.

Totally agreed.

People often look for a problems where there are none. Biomes are fine - research tree and the way science is handled isn't. Either re-scale the tree (say: multiple required science times 4 or more for each tech, especially the high-end techs) or change the way science is gathered, so that you wouldn't be flooded by it after a simple clickfest and focusing on just one branch of a research tree (move science instruments all over the tech tree, change they way you obtain science for majority of instruments - instead of having a clickfest - make us actually do something (Eg. for thermometer: fly from high down to low atmosphere measuring temperature differences, or measure temperature in whole 24 hours cycle)).

Besides - we had tons of excellent topics with various beautiful ideas on how to make science interesting and how it all affects the biomes, research, and how it encourages people to actually explore.

Fact that you can research whole tree without leaving Kerbin is IMHO a great mistake from the development point of view.

[LethalDose]

I agree that the science values need to be tweaked for a balance consistent with what Alashain has described.

It's really hard not comment on the OP's first point about [REDACTED FEATURE] which really seems to me to be more of the underlying issue. I'll just say I agree with it.

[Red Iron Crown]

Biomes aren't the issue for me with science. I like that you have to go to a bunch of places to gather science. The issue for me is the clickfest science mechanic and resultant data that is largely meaningless in game.

[Laie]

Totally agreed.

People often look for a problems where there are none. Biomes are fine - research tree and the way science is handled isn't.

Fact that you can research whole tree without leaving Kerbin is IMHO a great mistake from the development point of view.

In principle you're right. But I don't like the idea of flying interplanetary missions with 1.25m-parts, either. One could by all means go to Duna with lesser legs and no dedicated lander pods, and it would certainly be possible to send lighweight, unmanned missions to any place. Right now, even docking is comparatively advanced; Duna without docking is possible, but having to do it that way doesn't feel right. Alright, the tech can be re-distributed... yet I wonder which parts should become available "late", and how late.

Unlocking the tech tree is an important motivation in many games, often the only one. It's not uncommon for games to be basically over by the time you unlock the last nodes, so you never really get to use the last few technologies. I hope that KSP finds some other driving force, so that we can have all the toys and use them, too.

I'm more open to the approach of decoupling science from R&D. As has been said many times, there's no reason why a soil sample from somewhere should lead to the discovery of wheels. Still, R&D will be a great resource sink in the early game ("resource" being a shorthand for any combination of science, prestige, funds, and whatever else we may get). After unlocking all tech, you need something else to spend your resources on. I have no good suggestion as to what that might be.

[r4pt0r]

I disagree here, I dont do any space stations or any interplanetary missions until i have the late stage parts, because i want my ships and permanent stations to look nice. so completeing the tree in kerbins system is a big plus in my book.

[tychochallenge]

Right now, KSP career is in dire need of an extreme science revamp. With the addition of science from contracts, its now possible to complete the tech tree without even leaving KERBIN. There are a few ways to (partially) solve this:

1. Add more high tech parts on separate nodes in tech tree (like KSPI)

2. Lessen the science values when taking data (albeit more tedious)

3. Get rid of biomes completely and gain majority of science when investigating something of interest or something previously unknown to kerbals: (finding life on laythe/kerbal face on duna/Jool's composition/an exoplanet around another star via telescopes/etc...)

4. (the most complicated): wait for squad to implement a functional kerbal economy/government system, the government responds to various events around Kerbin (sorta like the Kold war) and provides more funding to a certain area of research for their benefit, (For ex: send satellite into Mun orbit and scan for Helium 3. If successful, x funding and x science is provided/produced. Later in the game, scientists have just invented reliable nuclear fusion, send/build an operational base to Mun for mining Helium 3. Transmit energy back to Kerbin and we will provide x funds. Also, a player can invest excess funds earned in one or more kerbal companies and if successful, will provide you with a new technology and a small amount of science along with funds you invested. Your space agency can also be affected by periods of economic growth/depression. For ex: during a depression, the kerbal government may not provide as much funding and companies may go bankrupt and will not be able to pay you back with the funds you invested.

So any of these ways will largely fix the current system; i know option 4 is far fetched but with contracts in .24, may become a reality sooner or later.

[GigaG]

I like biomes. They may be a little bit overpowered, but they give you a reason to go back. Duna is Duna, Ike is Ike, etc. But in the Kerbin system, you have a variety of places that are not always easily explorable in one trip. Even if biomes are nerfed, I'd like to see more biomes on other planets.

[RocketPilot573]

I don't think that need to be removed, but they do need some major nerfing....

[Red Iron Crown]

Multiple biomes on a body also lend some purpose to the science lab. The more biomes, the more reasonable it becomes to bring a lab for storing results rather than just more science equipment.

[peter1981]

I don't agree

However: I think the Mun and Minmus have to many biomes themselves. It has always annoyed me that there are so many identical looking planes and flats but only one type of slope? I believe that biomes should be more like "always in shade"; "always in kerbol-light"; "Crater rim"; "Impact site" etc. not "left hand crater"; "upper slope" et al.

I don't think contracts should reward reputation or science just funds: reputation should only be awarded for accomplishing new things like first getting into orbit or to eeloo etc. Science shold only be awarded for actuatl return of data because your space program doesn't benefit from a engine test with science.

[Mr Shifty]

I appreciate all the discussion. It's helpful to see the pros and cons of a feature that I dislike so strongly. Makes me see it in a new light (though I still they need drastic changes.)

[Pulstar]

The tech tree will need serious re-balancing eventually, that much is obvious. Between contracts, more biomes, hopefully more planets/moons and new types of science experiments it will gradually become easier to max out the tech tree sooner.

Biomes can serve more than one purpose. There's really no reason why you can't have contracts to explore/study specific biomes or explore multiple ones. Also biomes can be used by modders for resource generation or modding in things like ice-only kethane drills.

[Mr Shifty]

Biomes can serve more than one purpose. There's really no reason why you can't have contracts to explore/study specific biomes or explore multiple ones. Also biomes can be used by modders for resource generation or modding in things like ice-only kethane drills.

This is certainly true. I guess my main objection is to biome science the way it's done now: it feels random and tedious to hunt down biomes for more science. To circle in orbit at 1x speed hoping for a new biome to show up in my science reports etc

[covi2955]

Right now, KSP career is in dire need of an extreme science revamp. With the addition of science from contracts, its now possible to complete the tech tree without even leaving KERBIN.

Oh goodness no! How is it possible to research to our modern tech levels without landing a person on Mars... er Duna!?!

My only problem with the biomes system right now is that I have yet to find a good way (either in vanilla or via mods) to visually distinguish where the biomes start and end, so I find too much time wasted on online maps in the wiki to figure out where to send a mission to. As such I've ended up mostly ignoring them. If I need more research to get to where I'm going I'll drop a Mun lander in some unexplored crater on the Mun, hoping its a new biome.

And as it's mostly a sandbox game I see no reason why if someone wanted to spend all their time on Kerbin to start with, collecting research, they shouldn't be able to. Heck, because of the placing of the flight wings and control surfaces I find it easier to shoot for the Mun than try to land in Antarctica.

I would only be truly upset about biomes if they started to include them heavily in the missions.

[Vilheim]

Personally I think that being able to max out the tech tree using just Kerbin, the Mun, and Minmus is just fine. Of course, right now the problem is that you can max the science tree without leaving Kerbin itself, which is a problem. I think everyone knows that the tech system needs rebalancing, there's no debate there.

Keep in mind that going interplanetary is a step up in difficulty and time investment that many players may not have, and you want your average player to be able to reach endgame content (such as maxing the tech tree).

As for biomes, I think they are all right (with some tweaking) but, as someone earlier in the thread already suggested, perhaps having missions to specific landmarks such as a cave on the Mun would be cool. Of course, this would be a lot of development time for honestly not that significant of a gameplay gain, so it might not be worth it.

[Pulstar]

I wonder if that shader or whatever map code that was being done for resource mining can be adapted to show biomes from map view instead.

One more thing biomes could be used for, at least by the devs, would be to spawn specific procedural terrain features in them. Scatter is already based on biomes (cacti in Kerbin's deserts). Why not make a crater field on Duna inside those bigger craters? What about spawning volcanic shafts, lava flow etc around Laythe's mountainy islands? Sandtraps on Duna getting rovers stuck perhaps? More rocks or less rocks per biome?

[geb]

Personally I would like to see fewer biomes. For example, you might reduce the Mun to having just plains, poles, crater, and canyon biomes, since those are all visually distinct. Being able to see the difference between biomes should be important.

It would also be nice if only certain types of science instrument were biome sensitive, and most just gave a general result for the world as a whole.

[CarlosMaximus]

I'm not sure about getting rid of biomes completely, at the moment, they give a reason for multiple landings on Kerbin's moons, and the "visit a specific place" idea has merit, but would require precision landings, something a new player would probably find difficult. How about just reducing the science multiplier for Mun and Minmus, that way people would have to visit other planets to complete the tech tree, and new players would be rewarded for multiple landings on other bodies, whilst still getting plenty of practice in. Personally, I visit Mun/Minmus 5 or 6 times each, and then focus on a Duna mission. Just because the tech tree Can be finished in Kerbin's SOI, doesn't mean it HAS to be finished in Kerbin's SOI. Just my tuppence worth.

[KN_Namida]

I hate the fact that they're called biomes to begin with...

[daver4470]

But what if biomes is just the precursor to procedurally-generated terrain detail, like plants and such? I wouldn't assume that "different science effect" is ALL that biomes will ever amount to.

[Menecroth]

I believe that biomes should be more like "always in shade"; "always in kerbol-light"; "Crater rim"; "Impact site" etc. not "left hand crater"; "upper slope" et al.

.

I like the sound of this kind of implementation of biomes. I like the biomes in that you can take different soil sample from different locations and such to help you develop the technology to send missions further afield. But as Peter1981 and I believe Geb mentioned, it should be places that we can see as being distinctly different from some other place we've been.

[DMagic]

I think the principal problem with biomes is that there is no stock method for determining which biome you are in. This encourages tedious click spamming, dropping in and out of timewarp, and, worst of all, getting in and out to check EVA reports.

I think SCANsat in combination with Science Alert provides the ideal solution to this, but that's not stock, and until there is a stock solution to this biomes will continue to be problematic.