Science points beyond tech tree

[Tantalus]

Greetings fellow kerbonauts,

while i had much time to spend staring at walls and ceilings (recovering from a small accident) i was thinking about one major design flaw that ksp has at the moment: science points and their use in late game. Currently, e.g. there is not much need to take a MPL to another planet, because once you are able to do so, you already have unlocked (at least almost) the entire tech tree, and there is not much use for sp beyond that point. Sure, you can "sell" sp for funds, but usually you have plenty of them, too.

 

So imho squad should "make sp a resource that is spent in other ways than just unlocking nodes in tech tree". There are two ideas i have about that:

1. make several high-tech parts cost funds AND sp. If e.g. each nerva you build costs 100 sp, you really have a reason to gain them before building your next big interplanetary ship.

 

2. make every interplanetary vessel, base, space station etc (in fact anything being outside kerbin soi) cost a certain amount of sp per day (lets say for maintanance). Cost could be calculsted on a per-head basis, 1sp for each kerbal aboard and 1 sp in general for unkerballed craft. That way you would have a reason to take a MPL to your laythe base, just for keeping it running at all. 

 

Sure, it would add some more management for the player, and danger of running out of sp by accident. But you still would have the option to gain some sp via strategy.

 

Regards

Tantalus

Edited January 12, 2016 by Tantalus

[Hannu2]

Is it impossible to get suitable balance by adjusting science and money sliders? I think that it is possible to get game very demanding.

In my opinion consuming of science points to maintaining things are very artificial. It would be more natural to demand money, presence or visits of engineers and some kind of service resource (as a model of spare parts, tools, consumable chemicals) to maintain stations.

I like Station Science mod and hope that its idea could be use in stock game. There are a large laboratory unit like stock MPL and small experiment modules which can be transported to lab and then back to give full science points. There are also other heavy units which give possibilities to execute more advanced experiments if combined with a basic lab.

[Tantalus]

I dont think this can be solved by sliders, as it is too much fundamental. You have to unlock the tech tree very high up to build efficient interplanetary ships, bases and stations, no matter how long you need to get there. Once you achieve this, there's little need for additional sp in current stock game. So you can say unlocking the tech tree to be able to build interplanetary makes interplanetry travel obsolete by design. 

Regards

Tantalus

[Warzouz]

Hmmm, that's an issue, sure.

The trouble is that you usually unlock all science before leaving Kerbin SOI. Unlocking science is mid-game, not end-game. When you start real interplanetary trips you usually don't have anything to unlock.

Science should go slower, but, even though, there are some strange high techlevel parts. Such as probe cores, big docking rings, ISRU. I don't know how to handle that.

 

I don't think spending science on parts or launches would do the trick. But game progression is a real issue in this game.

• Funds progression : funds are hard to get in the beginning/middle game, but very easy en end game. (that may be logical
• Science progression : probably too quick. There shouldn't be any science in KSC (except KSC itself)
• KSC progression : 3 tiers building are too little. The first step is quite easy, but the last step is too expensive and the gap too big. Basically, you have no restrictions...
• XP progression : too slow. When you start interplanetary travel, you merely have few 3 star kerbals. Scientist become mostly useless (except if you like collecting biome data as I do). Only engineers have a point to get to level 5.
• Reputation progression : very hard to get high, even it's not explained what it really do.

[Hannu2]

3 hours ago, Tantalus said:

You have to unlock the tech tree very high up to build efficient interplanetary ships, bases and stations, no matter how long you need to get there. Once you achieve this, there's little need for additional sp in current stock game.

I think that it is the point when sandboxlike end game begins. It is quite difficult to change because there are not any real achievements than put the flag and collect science. I have some visions but they are suggested years ago and it seems that they are mostly against Squad's principles. I use TAC life support system and rolegaming to give challenge to interplanetary phase.

You can also choose your way to play. For example I make first Duna launches with quite primitive ships when I get largest launchpad and VAB. I know that it is possible to unlock tech tree in Kerbin's SOI, but it is boring to repeat same things tens of times. It is more interesting to leave. Actually it is one thing why I like career. It forces me to use primitive crafts, take risks and have difficult but interesting situations. In endplay phase I have tendency to plan and calculate everything and overengineer so that all missions go flawlessly.

[swjr-swis]

Get 10k of 'extra' science points, and you discover there's more planets beyond  the orbit of Jool (add Outer Planet Mod).

Get another 20k points of science and you discover a nearby star system (add OtherWorlds Star Pack).

30k points more, and you unlock warp drive (add KSP-Interstellar), to actually visit the new system.

Get 42k science points more, and you get the answer to Life, the Universe, and everything. The Magic Boulder reappears, except it is hollowed out, inhabited, and bigger on the inside than the outside. Jeb begrudgingly has to pay up his bet with Bill, and Val gets to say I told you so. You get a cookie.

[Evanitis]

It's really hard to set a career where both funds and science is relevant trough the whole game. But there are mods, and we can also tailor the difficulty by sliders or by savegame editing.

I also dislike how different are the sci rewards in the beginning and at the end. Either the early game is -very- grindy, or the late game is too short. Yeah, I know, unlocking the tree is not the end... but at that point I might as well just play sandbox. I enjoy the limitations.

One of my solutions was to start with 100% sci rewards, but decreasing it slowly. -15% every time I orbit a new body, and -15% again when landing on it first (Kerbin included). This way early game is done quickly, but by the time I visited Mun and Minmus, I only get 10%, so I have to do a lot of interplanetary stuff before the tree is done. Some might find it tedious, but I feel the lowest tech docking port is all I really need to go kinda' anywhere.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Evanitis

[Warzouz]

17 minutes ago, Evanitis said:

...

One of my solutions was to start with 100% sci rewards, but decreasing it slowly. -15% every time I orbit a new body, and -15% again when landing on it first (Kerbin included). This way early game is done quickly, but by the time I visited Mun and Minmus, I only get 10%, so I have to do a lot of interplanetary stuff before the tree is done. Some might find it tedious, but I feel the lowest tech docking port is all I really need to go kinda' anywhere.

Yes that may be a solution. On my next career, I'll set the science income at 50%, and force the "buy parts" option. I'll see if I get lower tech interplanetary.

On the other hand, I like space stations, and I'm not satisfied with the one I can build until docking port senior and large probe cores...

I might also forbid me to grind science at KSC. I'll see how it turns out in 1.1.

[Warzouz]

Sorry for double post, but I was thinking : maybe the solution of career balancing is not by tweaking the existing features because we mostly all play in a different manner. Maybe the solution would be to "add" more roleplay. So we wouldn't do stuff because we "can't" but because it's not logical or doesn't fit with the background. Sure that would be totally optional. That would improve the gameplay, not restrict it.

I think that a "mission" (regrouping of launches and ship under a "banner") would improve gameplay, especially if the game provides some sort of debriefing and mission review/history (could be a side effect of science collecting).

Also a true self created contract system would help to set more personal objectives and get in-game rewards.

[GarrisonChisholm]

4 hours ago, Evanitis said:

It's really hard to set a career where both funds and science is relevant trough the whole game. But there are mods, and we can also tailor the difficulty by sliders or by savegame editing... I enjoy the limitations.

One of my solutions was to start with 100% sci rewards, but decreasing it slowly. -15% every time I orbit a new body, and -15% again when landing on it first (Kerbin included). This way early game is done quickly, but by the time I visited Mun and Minmus, I only get 10%, so I have to do a lot of interplanetary stuff before the tree is done. Some might find it tedious, but I feel the lowest tech docking port is all I really need to go kinda' anywhere.

I really like this idea-  I am still in my first game, and the only interplanetary science I could get before Mun/Min completed my tree was from simple fly-bys of Eve & Duna.  All the science I get from the Jool system and Eeloo is just frosting on the cake, which is a little disappointing.

I would actually split a lot of part groups in the tree, so it requires a lot more science to get what you want and makes tier aggregation take longer.

[John FX]

I like point 1, I do not like point 2.

I would also suggest that training of kerbals should happen at KSC and cost time, funds and science but all kerbals should be able to gain levels in all classes

[MKI]

IN true "End-game" where there is no science nodes left the game gives you the advantage of strategies in the admin center. Throw your science at extra funds or increased reps for better mission (still fuzzy on that)

 

End game in Career is just like sandbox, but you have limited funds, contracts and strategies.

I see no easy way to just make science important at the end of the game, since Funds are the "main credit" that matters at the end of the game and through out it. Science is just a secondary currency that can net you extra funds.

[StrandedonEarth]

I agree that there's currently no point in piling up the SP after the tree is done. I do like the idea of spending SP on hi-tech parts like the LV-N and ISRU parts, as well as the Gravioli detector because that thing is an SP cow. Spending SP to level up kerbals (along with the current exp points) makes sense too, but I'd like to see the whole experience/skill thing overhauled as well. It's far too passive, I'd like a proper skill tree with branches and the possibilities of cross-training between the professions.

[Tantalus]

17 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Get 10k of 'extra' science points, and you discover there's more planets beyond  the orbit of Jool (add Outer Planet Mod).

Get another 20k points of science and you discover a nearby star system (add OtherWorlds Star Pack).

30k points more, and you unlock warp drive (add KSP-Interstellar), to actually visit the new system.

Get 42k science points more, and you get the answer to Life, the Universe, and everything. The Magic Boulder reappears, except it is hollowed out, inhabited, and bigger on the inside than the outside. Jeb begrudgingly has to pay up his bet with Bill, and Val gets to say I told you so. You get a cookie.

Yes this might be a way to deal with in roleplay-style, on the other hand i'd be glad to see a proper use of sp in stock game. 

 

Regards

Tantalus

 

[HebaruSan]

If the goal is that players tour the solar system before unlocking all science nodes, I don't think that can be done indirectly by fiddling with payout rates or diminishing returns. As long as the points can be gotten close to home, it makes the most sense to grind them there (in terms of time, cost, complexity, risk, etc.).

Rather, I think you would have to do it directly. Split the tech tree, planets, and even science points themselves into 4 tiers.

Tier 1 parts can be unlocked with science points collected in the Kerbin, asteroid, and solar SOIs, but if you stay there, that's all you get. Once you complete tier 1, you hit a wall and have to figure out how to go interplanetary to progress further.

Tier 2 points are acquired at Eve and Duna and can be spent to unlock the middle of the tree. You have to visit at least one of them (but you get to pick whether to explore one or the other or both). Again, once the tier 2 tech is done, you can keep grinding all you like, but the rewards for it dry up.

Tier 3 is Dres and Jool and most of the late game tech. Tier 4 is Moho and Eeloo, and the last few nodes of the tech tree are unlocked mostly as a sandbox-y reward rather than to be used for career missions (since you're almost done playing); maybe put the Vector and RAPIER here, but all science experiments should be earlier.

I realize that interplanetary missions could be challenging with only 30% of parts available, but they're not impossible either, and part unlocks are that much more satisfying if you have experienced a pressing need for them. The different progression tracks of the game (parts vs planetary bodies) would finally be lined up with each other by design, and there would be strong game-mechanic reasons to go interplanetary. You'd also have a reason to pass up that first Jool transfer window since you'd want to visit a tier 2 body first. The science multipliers would no longer have to be balanced against each other across the board, since they're no longer a single indistinguishable mass. The player's progression would be more predictable and therefore a better guide to how the tree should be organized (LV-N partway through Jool, maybe?). And all of this is do-able within the current biome-based right-click-fest as it is; the mechanics don't all have to be completely overhauled, they just need to allow for some differentiation.

[monstah]

Have you tried setting the slider for Funds way low? Finishing the techtree and piling up on SP is unavoidable, but swimming in cash isn't.

If you set your save so money (or rep) is very scarce, you can might find science points useful as a revenue source.

[Pez_]

I think this touches on a good point which is the way science is structured doesn't really make sense. What are the goals of science in terms of gameplay? I would say at the moment they are:

1) To give an incentive to explore.

2) To give a tech progression, so players aren't given too much they can do (but don't yet know how) all at once.

To be honest I think it fails at both of these. If 1 is the goal, then why is the best way to get science to take 20 different instruments to all of the quite similar biomes of the mun and minmus? Shouldn't it be big rewards for major milestones (getting to new planets/moons, setting up science bases there), not a biome/instrument grind? On 2, I find that I have excess science and am unlocking things before I really want to use them for something so (for me at least) that isn't working either. 

I would argue the science should also do other things like;

3) Give gameplay information. How thick and high is the atmosphere- can I aerobrake and if so at what height? What does the terrain look like- where should I land? How strong is the gravity- will this lander be able to take off?

4) Unlock easter eggs on the map.

However that's a probably a different discussion. 

[LordKael]

I think that the fact that the various instruments are only different on a cosmetic level is a major failing. 

26 minutes ago, Pez_ said:

I would argue the science should also do other things like;

3) Give gameplay information. How thick and high is the atmosphere- can I aerobrake and if so at what height? What does the terrain look like- where should I land? How strong is the gravity- will this lander be able to take off?

4) Unlock easter eggs on the map.

I mostly agree with this. I think that there should be an orbital scanner type piece that can reveal points of interest as it passes over them. Gives a real reason behind what orbit it goes in. There should be a point to running:

~an Atmospheric Analysis.... can a Kerbal take their helmet off without dying?

~a temperature scan with a probe: can a Kerbal survive an EVA here?

~for the mystery goo and Science Jr.: what will happen to various ship parts if they're in this environment? Maybe the atmosphere of Eve is so hostile that a specific brand of parts lose integrity, impacting lander/rover design. 

Barometer: do planes work? if so, how well? maybe provide an ingame reference source that shows pressure vs weight, with a line for required lift. That way, a player needs to run a pressure scan and a gravity scan, then consult the table in order to determine whether a given plane design will function. 

 

Just my two cents. 

[Pthigrivi]

I just posted some thoughts on experiments over in the career fixes thread so I wont repeat them here, but yes^ definitely differentiating between experiments and using them to unlock information valuable to the player outside of the tech tree would be the biggest thing for making experiments useful after the tree is complete. Making heat and drag bars visible, accurate resource mapping, aerobrake and trajectories factoring drag, TWR and dV information all seem like great places for this. As for what to do with accrued science at this point... Its hard to say? Converting them into funds is fine, but I agree with a few others here that the funds multipliers for bigger contracts are probably much too high. This might be difficult to balance, but it would be nice if we still had to think carefully about budgets even when mounting late-game Jool missions. If late game funds were tightened up converting science to funds wouldn't seem redundant or past the point of real value. 

All of this would be easier to discern if the game provided a slightly more defined goal. I happen to think it should be focused on exploration, with a general main-quest win state accomplished after a successful crewed mission to each body in the game. This isn't to say that even after this contracts for building bigger and better stations, bases and managing a real interplanetary colony system couldn't still be a fun, open endgame. Roverdude's MKS is fun but probably a little unwieldy for stock. Just including some basic life support systems with scrubbers and greenhouses fed perhaps with IRSU fertilizer could make for a relatively simple but still ambitious colony mechanic. 

Edited January 14, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Warzouz]

17 hours ago, monstah said:

Have you tried setting the slider for Funds way low? Finishing the techtree and piling up on SP is unavoidable, but swimming in cash isn't.

If you set your save so money (or rep) is very scarce, you can might find science points useful as a revenue source.

Hmmm, when I played my first career game, I had to deal with low income in early game. The solution wasn't using the administrative building (strategies) to get more funds, but to spend less. I dumped my regular launchers and went to recoverable SSTO rockets. I could heavy launch space stations for a bargain, which wouldn't have been possible otherwise (As SSTO space place aren't easily scalable, they don't wreck gameplay)

Adding more barriers to the game only leads to overcome them by using sideways strategies which may not be realistic. SSTO rockets are mostly interesting because LKO cost has bee reduced from 4500 to 3200m/s since beta.

IF the gameplay would be changed, I think it shouldn't allow to get all the tech tree to be unlocked before going to at least Duna. But again reducing science income is turning the game to be more grindy. And as you don't get parts that allow you to do it efficiently (docking rings and ISRU to allow multiple landings without redoing the same mission from the start) it's more frustrating than gameplay improvement.

 

Mauybe the game only lacks some "difficulty presets" so we can choose on how we want to play the game. That would be very simple to add to the game.

[Novak]

Original post -> http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/129882-idea-para-mejorar-el-juego/

Translated into English by: swjr-swis

------------------

Hi all!

As you know, once you finish the tech tree (a rather easy task), science points are let's say not of much use... or at all...

A way to regain the interest in farming more science (after completing the tech tree) would be to implement a system of "improvements" for the existing parts. I am talking of minor improvements, at a high cost in science points, which in connection with other parts would make our ship a "fraction" better. These improvements would be very small, maintaining the game's level of difficulty and challenge.

I give you an example:

As you can see, to lower the mass of the C.R 7 RAPIER by 0.1t, we would have to spend the chilling 1800 science points (from an initial total mass of 2.0t it would end up being 1.9t). As you can see the improvement would be laughable, but adding up the improvements of other parts it could crank up our ship a notch. The thing would be to keep the combination of improvements applied to all parts to up to 5% of efficiency in total.

The game would keep its level of difficulty, but it would add more incentive to explore and above all to keep the interest in acquiring more science.

Cheers !!

[Pthigrivi]

I'm usually against part upgrades but I have to say I don't hate this idea. It could be tough to find but there could be a balanced way to offer a few finite improvements over time. If they were held within 10% or so they could provide a nice incentive without breaking the game.

[Tantalus]

Hey Novak, this is a great idea.

[Matt77]

4 hours ago, Novak said:

Original post -> http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/129882-idea-para-mejorar-el-juego/

Translated into English by: swjr-swis

------------------

Hi all!

As you know, once you finish the tech tree (a rather easy task), science points are let's say not of much use... or at all...

A way to regain the interest in farming more science (after completing the tech tree) would be to implement a system of "improvements" for the existing parts. I am talking of minor improvements, at a high cost in science points, which in connection with other parts would make our ship a "fraction" better. These improvements would be very small, maintaining the game's level of difficulty and challenge.

I give you an example:

As you can see, to lower the mass of the C.R 7 RAPIER by 0.1t, we would have to spend the chilling 1800 science points (from an initial total mass of 2.0t it would end up being 1.9t). As you can see the improvement would be laughable, but adding up the improvements of other parts it could crank up our ship a notch. The thing would be to keep the combination of improvements applied to all parts to up to 5% of efficiency in total.

The game would keep its level of difficulty, but it would add more incentive to explore and above all to keep the interest in acquiring more science.

Cheers !!

I suggested a similar idea in a similar thread I started.  I suggested an Alpha Centauri (the game) style system where you can spend as much science as exists, with diminishing returns.  To expand on the example in your post, you could cut another 50kg off that engine, but you'll need 3600 points this time.  Then if you still aren't satisfied you can cut another 25kg off, but it'll cost you 7200 science.  Perhaps it could be divvied up so you could aim for weight savings, fuel efficiency or thrust.  Obviously it extends to other parts too.  Not sure how it would be implemented.

As you said, I started that thread because completing the tech tree is usually my aim, and the couple of times I did so I just stopped playing til the next update.

Another comment above made me wonder if science is just too easy to get on Mun and Minmus.  My last career, as soon as I got the Science Lab I sent one each to Mun and Minmus, together with a lander for each moon and a shuttle to return the science.  A tanker and a cheap orbiter to get the science back from LKO to the ground, and I walked the tech tree with early game tech, each time a pod returned with science it was in the thousands.

So maybe science should be a lot lower on the moons, or again have diminishing returns.  I mean is the regolith in the Midlands really all that different from the regolith in the canyon?

[Kerbart]

I think it would be good for Squad to take a few steps back, consider why there is a career and science mode and then overhaul the system completely. When you think about it, what we have right now doesn't make sense. There's three modes to play: Sandbox, Career, Science. What's the difference? Sandbox gives you immediate access to all goodies. Science puts up a bit of a challenge, Career makes it really hard.

That sounds great in theory. Challenges! Heroic missions! We all know how it turns out in practice; a lot of grinding. Depending on what your intention of career mode (and to a lesser extend science), the current situation can be very satisfactory or very frustrating. How can career be interpreted?

• An introduction to KSP. You start with simple parts and learn how to "Space" gradually without being intimidated about all possible choices and options. I think we all agree that Career is about the worst way to learn about KSP (sandbox is much better), but with zero information one can easily think that this is meant as a "teaching mode" for the game.
• A challenge to unlock the science tree.
• An incentive to visit the Kerbol system in a challenging way. Of course, lots of the technology required to do so is in the upper tiers of the tree, meaning that by the time you have the technology to go to Duna you've also unlocked the science tree and you're already done.
• Provide a framework for progression in the game. The tech tree doesn't really support this in a sensible way.
• An incentive to run a space program on the cutting edge of efficiency. How cutting edge depends on your career settings.

The last bullet seems to cover Career mode the best right now but it's as far from "career" removed as I can think (except for the "career" of your space program, but that'd be an odd choice of words).

What I would like to see as that it is simply addressed by providing a whole bunch of game modes:

• Sandbox. Anything goes.
• Introduction.  A "career-style" mode with a tech-tree geared toward learning the game. The tree would be fairly shallow and unlock large patches of technology like "rovers", "space stations", "interplanetary" and so on. Contracts would mainly, if not completely, be "world first" contracts -- achieve orbit, achieve manned orbit, etc.
• Historic. A tech-tree addressing historical progression (simple unmanned probes, manned, advanced unmanned, landings, etc)
• Adventure. Starting with a full tech-tree (or not?) the player has to complete a quest (with our without side-quests). Quests can be as simple as "visit Eeloo" but could also contain complex logistical operations like taking an ISS-style station apart and moving it to another planet. Adventure mode would obviously be a wonderful playground for modders/"mission builders"
• Economy. Basically the existing career mode. Perhaps with an additional incentive of earning an x-amount of funds in a y-amount of years?

Right now we're talking about Career mode and fixing it to make it fit what we think career mode should be. We need to stop doing that; we simple need a more flexible system with various game modes, preferably in ways that are easy to mod.