kerm

Good! I was hoping to engineer this sort of debate. I am also willing to admit I'm overdoing it with some of these requests. There is absolutely no question that fuel lines (and, I should add, LV-N engines) unbalance the game in favor of the advanced player. Regardless of your personal usage, they are widely understood to be two of the game's key techs... in fact, this is mathematically provable! They should both be tier 4 at a minimum. "Gameplay value" is subjective, and difficult to support with hard data, but I hypothesize that there is much to be gained from being stuck in the "stone age" of Saturn V tech of career mode for as long as possible. Many of the better player challenges impose exactly this restriction. Okay, excellent point, and if money budgeting is introduced this will be less of a problem. SQUAD (and indeed every developer) has to strike a difficult balance between casual "Angry Birds" gamers and hardcore "Dwarf Fortress" gamers. The issue of balance affects any modern developer, and there are no easy answers here, I know. Well, we agree in theory, if not implementation. Everyone understands some kind of fix is needed here. This is a critical point. OK, you're right. What I actually want is a high-value science experiment that requires yearly or even monthly manual servicing. I'm not sure what this would look like (space telescope with a busted lens?), but the key point is that you must master orbital docking or precision landing for it to have value. The problem now is that you can blast through the tech tree without ever using a docking port... overriding the "need" for many of the game's key techs. But contract missions are coming soon (in 0.23, maybe?) and I suspect that will lay many of these concerns to rest. If you'll permit me a rebuttal: TROPHY CASE !!!!!!!1!1!! This would be balanced against an overall increase of the required science points for advancement. There is a tremendous amount of player excitement about science, and indeed this is a general human quality. In the real world, actual people have volunteered their lives to increase this knowledge! (http://www.space.com/22758-mars-colony-volunteers-mars-one.html) If the devs are interested in gameplay value, this is a gold mine. We want to know the facts about the universe we inhabit, virtual or real. Give us the tools.

First off, let me say how much I enjoyed my first pass through career mode. The new animations and experiments are wonderful. The addition of subassembly dramatically increases the "fun quotient" of stock gameplay. And the introduction of biomes turns planetary exploration from a chore into a delight... I can't wait to see these rolled out to every celestial body. Now for the bad stuff: like many other players, I have some problems with the way science is implemented. I've seen many other threads expressing similar concerns. Here are the most frequent criticisms, all of which I agree with: 1. It's too easy to spam-transmit science. 2. All experiments happen instantaneously. 3. It's too easy to max out the tech tree (took me about eight hours of gameplay, and I'm not an expert by any means) 4. There is not enough visibility on data collection. 5. The tech tree somewhat unbalanced and illogical. Here are my suggestions for solutions. I've ordered these by my estimate of how much work they would mean for the devs: 1. Move fuel lines further down the tech tree Once you understand how to use it, asparagus staging turns the game into a cakewalk. Fuel lines should be a tier 4 tech. Arguably they should even be in a newly-created tier 5. (This would correspond well to the real world, where asparagus staging is still in the experimental phase.) 2. Make the back end of the tech tree far more expensive Most of the criticism I've seen focuses on the early part of the tree. These critics fail to understand an important real-world consideration: the early game MUST be kept simple, so new players are not overwhelmed. This is very important to maintaining SQUAD as an economically viable developer, and to ensuring a continuing stream of new players into the KSP ecosystem. (Anyhow, the fact that Kerbals invented rockets before ladders makes a perverse sort of sense to me.) On the flip side, though, the back end of the tech tree does not have to be friendly at all. In fact, it can be downright fiendish! Tier 4 techs currently cost 550 science a pop. I'd increase that by a factor of ten. Maxing out the tech tree should feel like an accomplishment, not an inevitability. 3. Disallow repeat transmissions This is the most commonly proposed idea, and I totally agree. Even if you bind your instruments to an action group, pressing the send data button 144 times in a row is neither realistic nor fun. Instead, each experiment should have one maximum transmission per zone. Data-based experiments like the thermometer, grav detector, barometer and crew report should each immediately give 100%. Materials-based experiments like Surface Samples, Mystery Goo™ and Science Jr. should give 20% once, with full points only available on recovery. This is probably the most important fix and also one of the easiest. 4. Require a data-collection period for certain experiments Things like Seismic data collection and Science Jr. should take days, weeks, or even months to complete. This encourages the establishment of bases and other permanent presences in space and on planets. Returning live Kerbals back home after long journeys should give us science too – i.e., the physiological effects of long-duration exposure to deep space and other planets should count as an experiment in itself. 5. Nerf the antenna The basic Communotron 16 unit is totally overpowered. It can transmit flawlessly to Kerbin from the far side of Eeloo at maximum distance with the Sun in the way. The more advanced antennae are actually inferior, offering only increased transmission speed at double the electricity cost. (Transmission speed is almost never an issue.) This problem can be fixed by introducing a maximum transmission distance for each antennae, with exponentially increasing power requirements and line-of-sight considerations taken into effect. 6. Knowledge base for collected data Everybody wants this. We should be able to know what experiments we've run where, and be able to see the collected data. This could maybe be sorted by celestial body in a handsome report? And while we're at it, why not have a... 7. Trophy case at the R&D center for returned surface samples Sorted by celestial body and biome, with accompanying chemical analysis. This wouldn't directly affect gameplay, but it would be totally awesome. And lastly, of course... 8. More SCIENCE! Geiger counters, magnometers, RADAR mapping, core sample drilling, methane probes, neutrino collectors, etc. etc. Also, there should be at least one multi-part experiment (Science Sr.?) so heavy that it requires orbital assembly. I feel like there really is no limit to the potential fun here. So those are my long-winded thoughts. Thanks again to the devs for such a great game.

Don't forget the Sensor Array Computing Nose Cone (formerly the Avionics package.) At 200 Mits, it's by far the highest data-yielding experiment in the game. Dropping one into an atmospheric planet gives you 3 sampling options (upper atmosphere, flying, and surface) with a 90% transmission rate.

Filled these in: Kerbin Height Differences: * Flying (0 - 18k) * Upper atmosphere (18k - 70k) * Space near Kerbin (70k - 250k) * Space high above Kerbin (>250k) I'll keep updating this post with other celestial bodies as well. UPDATE DUNA * Flying (0-12k) * Upper Atmosphere (12k-42k) * Space near Duna (42k-140k) * Space high above Duna (140k-SOI) Right now the Ice caps don't register as a separate biome. I'm busy the rest of the weekend, so someone else should update for Eve, Jool and moons.

Feature. You can't scan for barometric pressure or temperature in deep space. Temperature only works while close to a planet, and barometer only works in atmosphere.

Here's what I think is happening, based on your post: you landed at the "Mun's Polar Lowlands," close to the North Pole. However, the separate "Mun's Poles" biome is also present near the North pole. Indeed, both biomes can be found at BOTH the North and South poles, very similar to Tundra and Ice biomes on Kerbin. But I don't *think* you get additional science for visiting both, anymore than you get additional science for visiting both of Kerbin's Ice caps. Here's evidence: Bill's pooched landing very close to the north pole: 79º 42' 5" N 14º 53' 23" E Surface sample from his location reads "Mun's Poles"

Yes. I dropped landers with the full science complement on both the solid and liquid surfaces of Eve. These do give different results, at least for some of the instruments. In particular, I remember seismic working on land but not at sea. Additionally, the avionics package generates different results for "upper atmosphere above Eve", "flying on Eve," and "at Eve's surface." I can't remember if it gave different results on liquid and solid surfaces.

Last night I put a satellite in low polar orbit around the moon last night and did a few dozen passes. I created an action group for the gravity wave detector, and ran a report whenever I saw something interesting. I found 13 different geographic features; there may be more. * Mun's Poles (I think these both count as one) * Polar Lowlands * Northern Basin * Mun's Highlands * Mun's Midlands * Polar Crater * East Crater * East Farside Crater * Farside Crater * Northwest Crater * Highland Craters * Twin Craters * Southwest Crater Each biome generates its own distinct gravitation field, both at high (>60k) and low (<60k) orbit. By parking yourself in a slightly eccentric polar orbit and being observant and patient you could obtain something like 2600 science with the grav detector alone. Or, you could do what I did, which is face plant Bill into the Mun's north pole in search of rocks.