Revamp scientific progress

[Jappards]

When I look at how things are developed in real life and in kerbal space program. Science is a currency? Now that I think about it, it just doesn't make sense to me for a game aiming for realism. So it should be revamped to approach realism a bit more. First of all, the tech tree as we know it dissappears compleetly.

Discovery

Instead of having the start unlocked, you have to start by doing research on the subject you want to experiment with, but you don't need to discover everything from the beginning, things related to Chemistry are already discovered. To discover something, you need to observe something. In some cases a scientific tool is needed. To unlock certain experiments, you need to observe certain things.

Experimentation

Then you experiment to unlock a certain part.T do that you need to unlock certain technologies, but before you can do the experiment you need to discover it first. These technologies have a certain level ranging from 1 to 3. Technologies need to be a certain level before certain parts are unlocked. Bigger parts than small require a better level aswell as tiny parts. Experiments have a random chance to unlock a tech and a smaller chance to improve existing tech, but if you already know something about a certain tech, you will be given more information about the experiment you are doing.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Jappards
Formatting

[ImJake]

It is unrealistic that by driving around and learning about the bios on the mun you are able to "unlock" something like better parachutes, but I've just kinda accepted it at this point. Something that helps validate that idea though is that it's other Kerbal companies and not the KSC that makes the parts, and nodes in the tech tree represent technological precession with time.

Maybe you could gain science for using a new part since it would make sense that you would be learning about its properties and be able to improve on them, but I see that as being highly separable and exploitable.

[Jappards]

It is unrealistic that by driving around and learning about the bios on the mun you are able to "unlock" something like better parachutes, but I've just kinda accepted it at this point. Something that helps validate that idea though is that it's other Kerbal companies and not the KSC that makes the parts, and nodes in the tech tree represent technological precession with time.

Maybe you could gain science for using a new part since it would make sense that you would be learning about its properties and be able to improve on them, but I see that as being highly separable and exploitable.

1. Not quite. With those kerbal companies having underground test facilities in underground kerbal cities making the parts would still not make sense as an agreement: For any experiment on any biome you get science points which you can spent in any direction to help develop.

2. Science as a currency doesn't link up to technological progression with time if you can directly choose what to develop

[CaptainKipard]

Science shouldn't be a currency at all IMO, and if it must be it should be a temporary currency that you turn into funds. It's FUNDS that drive research IRL. The whole science system is just incredibly silly.

Anyway don't hold you breath on this. Squad locked themselves into a dumb decision early on, and no amount of argumentation has yielded any change so far. We were promised a better tree.... What we got was the same nonsense++.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[Orionkermin]

Science shouldn't be a currency at all IMO, and if it must be it should be a temporary currency that you turn into funds. It's FUNDS that drive research IRL. The whole science system is just incredibly silly.

Anyway don't hold you breath on this. Squad locked themselves into a dumb decision early on, and no amount of argumentation has yielded any change so far. We were promised a better tree.... What we got was the same nonsense++.

That's an interesting Idea actually. I wonder how well it would work to simply make every part available from the start, but bigger and more complex parts require more funds to develop. It would allow players to build out their space program the way they see fit from the get go. Part development costs would need to be rebalanced of course.

Maybe I'll give this a dry run using a module manager cfg to move everything to start and tweaking the game settings. I'll use strategies that turn science into money, to represents funding provided for the studies.

[Superfluous J]

I'll never understand the hatred for this. It's unrealistic, sure, but it's an abstraction. That's what games (and even simulators) do.

[CaptainKipard]

That's an interesting Idea actually. I wonder how well it would work to simply make every part available from the start, but bigger and more complex parts require more funds to develop. It would allow players to build out their space program the way they see fit from the get go. Part development costs would need to be rebalanced of course.

Maybe I'll give this a dry run using a module manager cfg to move everything to start and tweaking the game settings. I'll use strategies that turn science into money, to represents funding provided for the studies.

This sounds really good to me. Actually I should have added that Reputation should also be a modifier or factor into how much funds you get. Will you mod strategies to convert 100% into funds then? Post a link here when you start a development thread.

I'll never understand the hatred for this. It's unrealistic, sure, but it's an abstraction. That's what games (and even simulators) do.

It's not an abstraction though. It's largely contrived.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[tater]

Science in the game is terrible. The whole point system needs to go out the widow to a large extent.

Science needs to be valuable each game in and of itself. This pretty much requires some fog of war (a randomized Kerbol system). If each career start could be a new solar system, with nothing known we cannot know by telescopic observation from Kerbin (Kerbin itself could vary like an RSS scaling, perhaps, but stick within what the engines, etc are balanced to, so 1X Kerbin to maybe 3X kerbin at most), then science might have meaning. "Scanning" could be done with cameras to actually be able to see a map-view, atmospheric scanning can tell you more about what is needed in terms of chutes, etc. ISRU could require data from the surface (or atmosphere) and be forced to be planet specific.

[Aercus]

I honestly believe you guys are singing to the choir on this one. The game now having entered 1.0.X is not likely to see any changes and certainly not one of this magnitude. The reason that the research system is as thus is because of how you are intended to progress in the game. It its more a matter of encouraging players to explore new places than it is to aid realism. KSP is not 100% realistic and is not intended to be.

[CaptainKipard]

I honestly believe you guys are singing to the choir on this one. The game now having entered 1.0.X is not likely to see any changes and certainly not one of this magnitude.

I think at this point the only way for Squad to save face would be to release a separate conversion DLC that converts the science system to something approaching what we've been screaming about.

The reason that the research system is as thus is because of how you are intended to progress in the game. It its more a matter of encouraging players to explore new places than it is to aid realism.

No that's just nonsense. Squad know very well that players didn't need an incentive to go out into the solar system before career mode was implemented, so they don't now. That's just flat out incorrect.

KSP is not 100% realistic and is not intended to be.

Please don't resort to strawmen. It makes you look silly and doesn't move the conversation along at all.