New Mobile Processing Lab mechanics

Plusck · February 23, 2016

On 29/1/2016 at 2:49 PM, Streetwind said:

Okay, a serious question related to the processing lab's mechanics, for once:

According to the wiki, the lab generates data out of experiments based on the following:
- The science value of the experiment
- The location of the lab, and whether it is landed or in orbit
- Whether or not the experiment originates from the same SoI in which the lab currently resides

I would like to know about the second of those. Namely, I want to know precisely how the lab determines a value multiplier depending on its location. Does it simply read out the celestial body multipliers? And if so, does that indeed mean that a lab "high in space above <body>" generates less data from the same experiment than a lab "low in space above <body>"... except for Kerbin, where it's reversed?

All of the descriptions I've seen only make a difference between being generically "in orbit" or generically "on the surface". Since there is even the potential for "splashed down" and "landed" multipliers to be different (Kerbin does it!), that means that either the lab does not in fact examine the celestial body multiplier and has its own, less granular list of destination values somewhere... OR, said descriptions are oversimplifying the way it works.

So which of the two is it?

That's odd - I was sure I answered this question.

Must have been another thread. Particularly since I want this thread to die since almost all of the info in the first nine pages is obsolete. Hmm, maybe I should try and emphasise that last line a bit more... ; )

Seriously though, I did test this since I have a few labs moving around the Jool, Duna, Eve and Kerbin systems.

So:

the original* science value of the experiment determines, precisely, its "data value" for the lab
if you are "landed", you get a 10% bonus. There is no other location-based difference that I know of. I would assume that "splashed down" counts as landed but I haven't tested.
if you are within the SOI of the body where you picked up the data, you get a 25% bonus when you add it to the lab.

So I would say that planet reordering won't change anything other than removing that 25% bonus if the experiment is no longer marked as coming from the SOI where your lab is located.

* edit: the "original" science value is the value of that experiment the first time you do it. So a gravity scan in space just above a biome over Minmus, for example, would be worth 80 science points => 100 data if lab is in orbit or => 110 data if the lab is landed

Edited February 23, 2016 by Plusck

Streetwind · February 23, 2016

Aaaah, I see! Thanks, that perfectly answers my question

FreeThinker · March 17, 2016

I realy hate the fact you can generate infinate amount of of science this way. For me this is a potentialy game breaking features which robs players of the reasons to explore further than minimums.

Can't we create a modified version that make data generation usable only once instead for every processing lab?

Edited March 17, 2016 by FreeThinker

Snark · March 18, 2016

On 3/17/2016 at 8:26 AM, FreeThinker said:

I realy hate the fact you can generate infinate amount of of science this way. For me this is a potentialy game breaking features which robs players of the reasons to explore further than minimums.

Can't we create a modified version that make data generation usable only once instead for every processing lab?

I think the issue here is basically one of "different players have different playstyles".

For example: Personally, I agree with you. I don't like that it provides potentially infinite science, and personally consider the science lab to be a game-breaker, for my own play. But it's not as if that ruins KSP for me-- I simply don't use the lab at all. The only time it ever pops up is if I have to launch a base or a station with "have a science lab" as a requirement.

On the other hand: there are plenty of players for whom science is a grind, who would like the challenge of career and don't want to play sandbox. Those are players who want science to be easy so they can spend more of their play time doing other things that they like better. The science lab is designed to be a way to give those players an option for not having to grind science so much.

The goal (make lots of different players with different playstyles able to enjoy the game) is a good one. Is the implementation good (i.e. is this science lab behavior the "right idea")? Well, that's a matter of personal opinion, I suppose. It's a really hard problem to solve, from a game-design perspective. I'm not super fond of the current science lab mechanic myself... but I'm not inclined to kvetch because I don't think I should complain unless I can propose something better, and I'm hard-pressed to think of one.

Got a better idea?

FreeThinker · March 19, 2016

9 hours ago, Snark said:

I think the issue here is basically one of "different players have different playstyles".

For example: Personally, I agree with you. I don't like that it provides potentially infinite science, and personally consider the science lab to be a game-breaker, for my own play. But it's not as if that ruins KSP for me-- I simply don't use the lab at all. The only time it ever pops up is if I have to launch a base or a station with "have a science lab" as a requirement.

On the other hand: there are plenty of players for whom science is a grind, who would like the challenge of career and don't want to play sandbox. Those are players who want science to be easy so they can spend more of their play time doing other things that they like better. The science lab is designed to be a way to give those players an option for not having to grind science so much.

The goal (make lots of different players with different playstyles able to enjoy the game) is a good one. Is the implementation good (i.e. is this science lab behavior the "right idea")? Well, that's a matter of personal opinion, I suppose. It's a really hard problem to solve, from a game-design perspective. I'm not super fond of the current science lab mechanic myself... but I'm not inclined to kvetch because I don't think I should complain unless I can propose something better, and I'm hard-pressed to think of one.

Got a better idea?

Yes, an PartModule that either inherits or completely replaces the Processing Lab, which limit reprocessing to single time usage for the whole game and then replace the stock module by the improved version. I'm surprised no one has done it yet.

Edited March 19, 2016 by FreeThinker

Snark · March 19, 2016

6 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Yes, an PartModule that either inherits or completely replaces the Processing Lab, which limit reprocessing to single time usage for the whole game and then replace the stock module by the improved version. I'm surprised no one has done it yet.

How does that solve the problem better? (I'm not saying you're wrong, it's not a rhetorical question-- I'd like to hear your thoughts!)

Right now it's essentially useless for people who like mining science, but highly useful for people who don't want to grind. To me, a better solution would be one that significantly improves the experience of at least one of those two groups of people, without hurting the experience of either. I'm having trouble seeing how non-repeatability would accomplish that.

First, consider the "science miners": I don't use the science lab now, 'coz it's overpowered for my style of gameplay. But making it non-repeatable wouldn't fix that. It would still be overpowered for me. I've never even used the repeatability feature of the science lab, since just a single use of it is overpowered for me. The Mun and Minmus already provide enough science to max out the tech tree, even without the science lab. Even if I don't mine them completely dry and just focus on the easy stuff around the equator, I can fill out all the parts of the tech tree that I care about with just a single biome-hopping mission to each of them. Adding a science lab to the mix will multiply the already-sufficient science by 5, without repeatability, which is over the top for me.

So I don't see how removing the repeatability feature from the science lab would be sufficient to make it useful to "science miners."

Okay, then, what about the anti-grinding folks? Would removing the feature help them?

...well, seems to me that removing the feature would actually hurt them. The whole point of the lab is so that people who don't want to spend a lot of time hopping biomes don't have to do so. I'm having trouble seeing how taking that feature away would help such people.

Plusck · March 19, 2016

51 minutes ago, Snark said:

[...]

Right now it's essentially useless for people who like mining science, but highly useful for people who don't want to grind. To me, a better solution would be one that significantly improves the experience of at least one of those two groups of people, without hurting the experience of either. I'm having trouble seeing how non-repeatability would accomplish that.

First, consider the "science miners": I don't use the science lab now, 'coz it's overpowered for my style of gameplay. But making it non-repeatable wouldn't fix that. It would still be overpowered for me. I've never even used the repeatability feature of the science lab, since just a single use of it is overpowered for me. The Mun and Minmus already provide enough science to max out the tech tree, even without the science lab. Even if I don't mine them completely dry and just focus on the easy stuff around the equator, I can fill out all the parts of the tech tree that I care about with just a single biome-hopping mission to each of them. Adding a science lab to the mix will multiply the already-sufficient science by 5, without repeatability, which is over the top for me.

[...]

Although I understand all of the different elements that go to make up this opinion, I still can't agree with your conclusions. Specifically, I can't see how it can be considered "overpowered" in any shape or form.

1) The MPL does not provide a solution for people who "don't want to grind", unless those are also people who "don't mind warping forwards for years at a time".

1b) also, even before you do all of that warping:

- you don't get the MPL straight away, so you have to go through the science-gathering and learning process anyway before you get there,

- you still have to do all the science-gathering to start with before feeding it to the lab,

- science from Kerbin is low-value stuff, therefore low-data, therefore "grindy" if you want to try to fill an MPL with it,

- you need to launch and orbit (or land) the MPL to start with, which is not easy at the corresponding tech level (i.e. when the MPL first becomes available),

- you need to bring your science reports to your MPL, which involves orbital rendezvous skills (and time and effort), or rovers (and time and effort), and/or dropping back into orbit on the way back home (and time and effort)... and (can you see where I'm going with this?...),

- you need to dedicate a scientist to it. To be efficient, you need to send your scientist to plant flags on the Mun and Minmus, bring him/her home, then send him/her back up to the MPL to get a decent return. Preferably two scientists. Micro-managing your roster can feel pretty grindy, if you're really set on a "non-grindy" science return.

So in answer to your conclusion that it is great for people that don't want to grind, I would say no. It provides an alternative route for dedicating time and effort, it doesn't take away the need for some time and effort (or at least, planning and execution).

So, in any event, the only people who really can benefit from "non-grind" are those that are willing to warp forwards for years between missions. And they must be willing to do that after having done all the missions they needed to get the MPL to start with. A couple of quick missions to Ike and Gilly, not even visiting all the biomes, would also fill out the entire tech tree at that point so you could just as well claim that interplanetary travel is OP if you're willing to warp enough.

2) The MPL is absolutely not useless and over-powered for people who like mining science, because it adds a further benefit to industrious science-mining.

- mining science involves training up scientists to do it best, and once trained they have a place to "hang out" between missions, paying back the efforts made to train them,

- it can't be overpowered if you're seriously mining science, because by the time you get any significant return from the MPL your tech tree will be virtually maxed out, therefore it can't have changed your own personal style of play prior to that time.

So while I hear you where you say you find it OP and useless, I still don't understand why. In particular, I cannot imagine a point in time when you could have unlocked the MPL and then suddely found that your science-mining gameplay was being overshadowed by the science points you were getting from the MPL. I can understand you looking at the specs on paper and thinking that, but not actually finding that in real use.

I use MPLs all the time, from the time they can be unlocked. And I find that the vast majority of the tech tree is unlocked without a single "OP" data-derived science point.

3) "Repeatability" is not an overpowered aspect of the MPL in-game. This is because the repeatability of earning science points from experiments requires multiple MPLs and also multiple scientists and/or massive time warping and/or multiple stops at different moons and/or multiple repeats of missions you've done in early career.

So by the time you get around to using multiple copies of experiments to get science points, you no longer actually need the science, and they in fact become a way of ensuring a constant revenue stream to fund your exorbitant projects.

So for all these reasons, I cannot quite fathom how anyone could consider the lab to be overpowered and/or useless. It can't fundamentally change gameplay (unless you're desperately wanting to stop science-gathering missions... in which case one may wonder why you chose to play career to start with). It cannot compete with science-mining from missions, especially if you tend to have a bunch of missions on the go at the same time. And it doesn't provide something for nothing since optimal use of the MPL requires good planning and skills.

strollen · April 12, 2016

On 3/18/2016 at 1:00 PM, Snark said:

I think the issue here is basically one of "different players have different playstyles".

For example: Personally, I agree with you. I don't like that it provides potentially infinite science, and personally consider the science lab to be a game-breaker, for my own play. But it's not as if that ruins KSP for me-- I simply don't use the lab at all. The only time it ever pops up is if I have to launch a base or a station with "have a science lab" as a requirement.

On the other hand: there are plenty of players for whom science is a grind, who would like the challenge of career and don't want to play sandbox. Those are players who want science to be easy so they can spend more of their play time doing other things that they like better. The science lab is designed to be a way to give those players an option for not having to grind science so much.

The goal (make lots of different players with different playstyles able to enjoy the game) is a good one. Is the implementation good (i.e. is this science lab behavior the "right idea")? Well, that's a matter of personal opinion, I suppose. It's a really hard problem to solve, from a game-design perspective. I'm not super fond of the current science lab mechanic myself... but I'm not inclined to kvetch because I don't think I should complain unless I can propose something better, and I'm hard-pressed to think of one.

Got a better idea?

1

I really like the MPL, and I think it is possible to use them and not exploit them, all you have to do is not go crazy with time warp. I am playing at Hard career level (with a slight boost to income),so without any revert to mission reloads I end up having to pay for all my rockets that go boom. I also have reduced science and contract income, and significantly more expensive upgrades, it is a challenge to pay for everything. The final upgrade on the R&D lab is 3.500K and I only have $1.500K. So I don't have funds to launch science only trips to Mun, and Minmus. Not to mention since Jeb died on Mun, I'd rather user safer unmanned landers despite them only yielding half the science.

It cost like 75K to launch a space station, and much of the cost is associated with the getting the heavy MPL labs into orbit around various objects., so it seems silly not to utilize them. Right now I have four polar stations around Kerbin, Mun, Minmus, and Kerbol which is on the way to Duna. Mun and Minmus have 2 stars scientist and the others 1 star. I have lots of ships active so I rarely warp more than a day at a time. About once a week I transmit science and get 40 science from the 2 stars, 20 from Kerbol and only 10 from Kerbin. The Kerbin station is only 1/2 full of science experiments, so I've made several not always successful attempts to add more science experiments to it The science absolutely adds up, but it takes more than a month worth of 4 labs to equal one manned mission to Minumus.

I find that much of my career is devoted to the care and feeding of the science labs. A Kerbin base expansion contract, cool I can add the Atmosphere fluid instrument, add tundra and ice cap biomes and also add more science to the MPL. Base expansion for Minmus, a good excuse to include the new orbital survey for future mining operations to my base.. I have landers on both Mun and Minmus and I periodically send them down to the surface, so that I don't run out of science for the lab I also use tourist spacecraft as a way of shuttling experiments from the science stations back to Kerbin.

All in all, I think the labs adds a lot element of realism to the career mode. I think without that added emphasis on gaining more science, adding or expanding orbital stations just another fairly lucrative way of making money . Without actively MPL I doubt I'd need nearly the number of Kerbals in my space program. I can easily imagine setting up another science base on or in orbit are Ike. but I'm out of scientists, and don't have spare 500K to recruit a new scientist. so that makes me excited to get more rescue missions.

I'm going to focus on making money. I expect that by the time I make another 2 million to upgrade my R&D, I'll also get enough science to need the upgrade. My science labs, will probably account for roughly as much science as I gain from exploring Duna and Ike.

Long term, I expect to complete the tech tree, and then probably stop playing Kerbal for a while. I imagine that I'll end up flying a similar number of flights as other who've "finished" the game. The difference is I won't have done as many manned missions to land on planets in such (probably Ike, Duna and couple of others) but I will have done probably more rendezvous and docking procedures as others because the mobile labs are such an important part of my career.

As I type this there are two space ships berthed at the ISS, the Dragon, and the Cygnus. I think it is fair to say that in the real world, NASA, the European and Russian Space Agency are all playing Kerbal at a very hard level. The super smart guys at SpaceX are paying the bills with satellites and space stations expansions/resupplies while they are gaining lots of science from doing part testing. NASA is gaining science from less expensive unmanned missions, but probably just as much from the ISS. Of course, I'll probably complete tech tree in less than 2 years and NASA has been doing it for almost 60 years :-).

KocLobster · April 12, 2016

The most productive and interesting thread derail I've ever seen.

Tyko · July 9, 2016

Help please! I read through everything I can find on the MPL. I built a station, harvested a bunch of experiments from the Mun. When I docked at the station I was able to click on the beaker button in my list of experiments and get data for them. Great, BUT, I read that you could still cash in on the same experiments by landing at the KSC.

When I hit the beaker button for each experiment it disappeared from my capsule. Do I really have to go and collect each piece of science, from each biome twice? Once to turn into data and once to cash in at KSC? or, am I doing something wrong?

FullMetalMachinist · July 9, 2016

41 minutes ago, tjt said:

Great, BUT, I read that you could still cash in on the same experiments by landing at the KSC.

This was recently changed with 1.1.0 to prevent the MPL being overpowered.

Previously you could process an experiment in one lab, then take it over to another lab, and again and again to get infinite science points. The change makes it so that you lose the original science experiment when you process it in a lab to get rid of the infinite science exploit.

Tyko · July 9, 2016

hmmm..but now it's really grindy...I have to visit a biome and collect samples twice if I want to cash in and I want to research. The fix still doesn't stop "infinite science" because someone who wants to take the time to run around from lab to lab can still do that - they just have to add a stop at the biome each time and they have to time accelerate for years and years to reap the benefits.

I'll be honest, when I saw the name "mobile processing lab" I expected it to do just that - process my experiments for me, for full value, just like I would at KSC. The benefit would be that I wouldn't have to fly my samples home, the trade-off is that I have to invest in a mobile lab infrastructure, acquire more scientists and pay energy costs. That seems like a fair balance.

It feels like the new balance was struck to plug an exploit used by a handful of power players rather than balancing it for a "regular joe" player who want's to explore, gather science and move on to new adventures.

Edited July 10, 2016 by tjt

bewing · July 10, 2016

If you have two or more krew compartments on your exploration vehicle, then you can take two samples during each biome stop -- and store one copy in each compartment. All it means is adding 1 tonne to your lander for an extra crew module. And then you can take an extra kerbonaut with you for bonus points. It doesn't have to be grindy with just a small equipment adjustment.

Tyko · July 10, 2016

13 hours ago, bewing said:

If you have two or more krew compartments on your exploration vehicle, then you can take two samples during each biome stop -- and store one copy in each compartment. All it means is adding 1 tonne to your lander for an extra crew module. And then you can take an extra kerbonaut with you for bonus points. It doesn't have to be grindy with just a small equipment adjustment.

Yep, that works. I still think the labs should do more of a 1 point of science for 1 point of experiment value exchange, but do it very quickly rather than 1:5 over months. This would give players a reason to send science labs with their interplanetary expeditions to cash in on science that normally loses value when being transmitted.

Edited July 10, 2016 by tjt

le_daim · November 16, 2016

On 10/07/2016 at 4:47 AM, bewing said:

If you have two or more krew compartments on your exploration vehicle, then you can take two samples during each biome stop -- and store one copy in each compartment. All it means is adding 1 tonne to your lander for an extra crew module. And then you can take an extra kerbonaut with you for bonus points. It doesn't have to be grindy with just a small equipment adjustment.

Hi. I think there is another way to do this, for a much smaller cost: the stock science container. On each biome, you do all the experiments you want, then collect into the science box and re-do the experiments to put them into your crew compartment.

Edited November 16, 2016 by le_daim

bewing · November 16, 2016

You are perfectly correct, but the new mini-science container didn't exist when I wrote that.

le_daim · November 17, 2016

18 hours ago, bewing said:

You are perfectly correct, but the new mini-science container didn't exist when I wrote that.

Glad to see we agree on this point. Plus, I saw a dude on youtube sending back the mini-science container from the surface of Mün using only one chute, two separatrons and a decoupler. The only condition is to be approx. on the retrograde side of Mün. I am currently working on a rover with several little science boxes, in order to get maximum science points as soon as a biome is done, without waiting to get all these experiments to the KSC. I may post some pics or vids here once the design is over!

Tyko · January 30, 2017

is there a way using MM to change the way Science Rate works? I know I can lower the number from 7 to 6, or whatever.

I'm asking about actually switching Science Rate from an exponential curve tied do how much data you have to a truly flat rate - i.e. base rate + location bonus + scientist bonus = X science generated per day regardless of whether you have 100 Data or 1000 Data.

@RoverDude - if you have any advice I'd appreciate it. Since you appear to be the expert on this

Edited January 30, 2017 by Tyko

bewing · January 30, 2017

2 hours ago, Tyko said:

is there a way using MM to change the way Science Rate works?

Not using MM. You'd need to write a .dll to change the formula.

Tyko · January 31, 2017

1 hour ago, bewing said:

Not using MM. You'd need to write a .dll to change the formula.

thanks...shoot...I'm pretty good with MM, but my DLL kung fu is weak...

New Mobile Processing Lab mechanics

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation