Making current planets more interesting brainstorm

[Van Disaster]

55 minutes ago, THX1138 said:

There are already a load of great ideas in this thread, I just wanted to say that I think the current planets are majorly boring. I don't know what I was expecting but I've been repeatedly disappointed when I get to a planet and there's nothing there! I guess that's what most planets are like though

TBH I look at pics of Mars & wonder why anyone would want to go there too. I'm sure if I was a geologist ( what's the current term? exogeology? xenogeology? ) I'd be absolutely fascinated, but unfortinately I'm not

Starting to get some good discussion going at times - I'll toss another item on the list of questions:

* How do you see any real life ideas being implemented in KSP?

It's all very well saying "oh, finding water/survival/collecting interesting rocks would be fun", but that's not really any nearer helping to define a new feature of the game than "make a cheese planet!". Preferably a new feature should be an extension of an existing one somehow ( don't sweat the technical details too much, but look at an existing mechanic & see if it's halfway to your idea ) but there's nothing wrong with adding something entirely new if it's a good idea. The big advantage of this particular game is that if we get a well enough defined idea, we can go away and prototype it as a mod.

[KerikBalm]

I doubt there will ever be something to do besides mine fuel and just rover around for the purposes of roving around in Sandbox mode

The game supports more interesting mining by allowing for different resource types, so that you may need to mine from multiple different locations to get all the stuff you need - but that's just going to be a more complex mining system.

Surface bases with life support mods are an example of this: a system that is essentially just a complex mining operation to allow your kerbals to survive indefinitely.

If complex mining operations on a planets surface count as something fun to do, then maybe thats the way they should go (or just leave it an option that you can get via mods as it is now).

The science bases: in career once the tech tree is unlocked, these are just money farms. I mine science from biomes and return them to the surface base to refine into credits.

 

I suppose one could add really big surface habs that allow you to level-up kerbals in career mode without returning them to Kerbin. Even bigger colony parts that allow you to produce kerbals? (if they hadn't added female kerbals, we could argue that you could grow asexual kerbals from a big greenhouse like thing )

Something like extraplanetary launchpads?

I would also like to point out that such things may not make the planet no more interesting than if you just used one of the mods the moves KSC to another world... like so:

 

[Tyko]

I'd like to see points of interest on those planets - unique canyons, rock formations, mountains, really rich veins of a resource- visually and scientifically interesting locations that one could visit, screenshot and collect science from.

If they were procedurally generated from a whole list of possible locations and they weren't all in every game that would be even better because then you wouldn't start a game knowing the X location will always be on Ike...

Edited July 14, 2016 by tjt

[Brownhair2]

On 7/11/2016 at 11:22 PM, nikokespprfan said:

...too implement: Already been done.

I'll correct myself: they aren't 100% accurate. At least, circumbinary systems aren't. [The other kind] systems are pretty easy.

[Rath]

All I want is for stuff to be diffrent in diffrent places.

[Speadge]

2 hours ago, Rath said:

All I want is for stuff to be diffrent in diffrent places.

yeah, just turn them 90°

 

[Daveroski]

Imagine a dozen completely different Kerbol systems. Or maybe just three or four to start with. The system being selectable in the game options.

All the planets different in number formation and name. Different numbers and styles of moons. Kerbol being anything from a white dwarf to a blue giant.

KSP could have true procedural worlds and despite popular misconceptions, everyone who plays would get the same worlds.

Careers could still be uniform in nature and adaptable for each system.

These individual worlds could then be individually modified by the developers to produce desired formations from geysers to canyons.

Mapping an essential part of exploration.

Colony building part of the game scenario complete with SOI vessel production at colonies.

An end of game scenario where, when all of the colonisable worlds are colonised, you have to build a generation ship section by section, in orbit...  and launch for the stars.

Never going to happen... but if you are going to have dreams, they may as well be the really juicy ones.

 

 

[John FX]

revamp science, make it more modular (for example an eco scan could be atmo and temp) and have it affect research nodes, as in you can`t unlock the faster jet engines if you have not broken the sound barrier, you can`t unlock larger lifting engines until you have put something in orbit or in orbit around a certain body etc

[Gman_builder]

I think the whole Kerbol system needs a huge overhaul. I.E. Better more detailed textures, and different terrain scatters. Like geysers, canyons, rivers and volcanos.

I also think the orbits of all the planetary bodies need to be much larger. Then there would be more room for smaller details like a asteroid belt, comets, and dwarf planets. It would also make the system a better analog to real life. Possibly even a "Planet 9" analog that doesn't appear on map view, who knows maybe that's already in the game... But seriously the planets and their moons need new textures and better terrain scatters.

I think volumetric clouds could be done with a much lower performance hit than what current mods like EVE create. Look at War Thunder for example. Gaijin added PHOTOREALISTIC ACTIVE clouds with little to no performance hit at all. I know WT and KSP are almost un comparable as games but the technology to create clouds and weather is there. On that note, clouds and weather like wind and rain need to be a stock feature with certain aspects of it that can be turned on and off similar to terrain scatters.

More Easter eggs is also a necessity. Another mission to the kraken just doesn't really spark the same enthusiasm that it did years ago. The game is amazing as is but there isn't that much to actually DO anymore. Adding more Easter eggs would encourage people to go out into the great unknown again in a blind hunt for the rumored Kraken's brother or planet 9.

Feel free to tell me what you think of my ideas

-Gman

 

[Colonel Cbplayer]

After watching some Top Gear (well this episode to be specific) A huge ore mine would be a cool site to build rally cars, since their nothing to drive cars on kerbin.

Another idea would be that all the agencies and companies had their own headquarters you can find and paid a visited.

[Pthigrivi]

I wrote a long post on this not too long ago. You can read it if you like.

Spoiler

So this is going to be a bit long so I'll do my very best to be concise. We've talked a lot about this and I've posted some thoughts in the past, but I wanted to make as clear a suggestion as possible. The science system is one of the oldest career elements and the one I think people are at present least satisfied with. Its doing a lot of things right and I love the general idea, but in practice its pretty clicky and more than a little grindy, and I for one think the problem lies not in the tech tree or the principle of science points in general but with the experiments themselves. There's also the matter of the current 'emptiness' of the planets. There just doesn't seem to be much out there to find. I intend to suggest fixes to both problems.

1: Biome Mapping and Anomalies:

So first and foremost is Biome mapping. Anyone who's used DMagic's very clever Scansat mod knows just how helpful this can be. Right now in stock biomes are essentially invisible, which means you really have no idea where you're going before you get there. What should happen instead is that players could send an orbital probe ahead to scan the surface and use those scans to plan landing locations for more ambitious missions. Landing locations should also matter, which is why I propose that different biomes should have slightly different science multipliers. Here would be a sample map of Duna:

Ideally this would simply be displayed as an overlay with the bonuses listed on mouse-over. Notice the ??? Those are your anomalies. You wouldn't know what they were from orbit, but upon landing and entering the very small biomes around them they would hold significant science boosts. Here's what you might find if you located them on the surface:

To reduce legwork I imagine across the entire system you might only have several models with effects that could be re-skinned from world to world. Here are some examples:

- Interesting rock formation (crystals poking out of the ground)

- Volcanoes (Dormant, Active, and Cryo)

- Geysers and Hot Springs

- Liquid Water (Pools on the surface)

- Ice Formations (Same model as Rocks, re-skinned)

- Fossil Beds

- Stromatolites

- Primordial Goo

- Existing fun things

All of a sudden now there is stuff out there, not just featureless empty worlds. Because visiting them gains science rewards (and World Firsts) there's a real reason to go find them. Because they appear small, perhaps only 5km in radius from orbit, there's also now a reason to bring rovers and planes and send probes ahead so you can scout the surface. They also make for great screenshots to show your friends where you've been, and could form a solid goal for hardcore completionists. More than that they give the planets dimension. The exploration process doesn't stop when you put a flag in the ground. These are real places to be explored and interacted with. But we can do more than that I think:

 

Make Experiments Fun:

I'll totally admit this is a heavy lift, but I think its really critical to making experiments not just a thing to click but something really fun and rewarding to engage with. There are 2 main problems: 1) clicking on half a dozen experiments and crew reports and eva's and sending a scientist out to collect everything over and over is really, really repetitive and takes away from the core fun of the game: flying rockets; and 2) Experiments don't feel like conducting science because they aren't producing information valuable to the player outside the tech tree. To fix this, first, the process of data collection should be made automatic so players aren't preoccupied by constantly right-clicking through parts. Instead players should have to fly differently or do something special in-engine to make experiments work. Next, each experiment should provide the player with information valuable to playing the game. Not only would this make experiments feel more relevant and real, but it would make them valuable even after the tech tree was complete. Here are some examples:

Goo Canister: This would be your first bit of science equipment and would be one time use unless you had a scientist aboard. It cannot discern between biomes and only gives unique science points for being landed, being in atmosphere, or being in near space. It works like this:

 

Thermometer: This is up next, and automatically logs science whenever it enters a new biome. It cannot discern between Biomes above the low atmosphere. Also having one aboard will make heat bars show up rather than parts just glowing red. It works like this:

 

Barometer: This part comes next in the tech-tree and pays out for the vertical swath of the atmosphere it passes through. This means landed on the surface it gives basically zero science, but if you put it on during launch you get a great deal. You can also exploit this using drop-probes on other planets. As an addition to skills pilots might be able to predict aerobraking and trajectory information factoring drag for planets with a complete barometric scan.

 

Atmospheric Analyzer: Next we're going to turn this into an atmospheric sample collector. For this experiment to work you would need to roughly hold altitude and speed for 10 seconds, which generally would mean resting on the surface or under some form of powered flight. At some point down the road if atmospheric Xenon could be collected and refined these might give precise concentration values.

 

Gravoli: This is now your Biome Mapper and should come much earlier in the tech tree. I won't steal DMagic's wonderful work, but I do think there's a value to understanding surface mapping in a real way so I think its worth actually having a scanning radius which would be displayed graphically and the player would have to inject it into a polar orbit that would produce a complete scan. Science would pay out for the proportion of the planet's surface that had been scanned. 

Altimeter: This is the first new part I would add. It works similarly to the Gravoli as a surface scanner and pays out for scanned area, but instead produces an attitude overlay. This could be really critical for night landings and if stock clouds are added. I think it should also have a different operating altitude necessitating either repositioning or a separate probe. Also having one on board would allow the player to see real surface altitude rather than their altitude above sea level.

Survey Scanner: Works similarly and produces a low-res resource scan as it does now as well as science. Each of these could also have different power requirements that could make staying outside the planet's shadow important for efficient scanning.

 

Narrow Band Scanner: I actually really like the way the stock prospecting system works, but I'd make a few tweaks here as well. This should really display as a steady stream rather than requiring manual refreshing. I would also have it add a position marker on the Nav Ball for anomalies once they were within 5km.

Surface Sample Collector: This would replace the surface scanner and should really have a little armature and drill so you had to do some careful design to make it work. It should come late in the tech tree but in principle allow surface sample collection by probes. These could determine ore concentrations themselves or be delivered to a mobile lab for processing.

Seismometer: This is now our impactor experiment. First you place the sensor on the surface, then you smash an object into the surface near it. You are then awarded science points for the overlapping area. The impact radius would be determined by the speed and weight of the impactor, so more precise hits and bigger booms make for more science. You will also be able to see high-res resource values within the scanned area.

 

Materials Bays: Materials Bays would be moved back in the tech tree and be used for loading and exposing samples. When a surface or atmospheric sample is recovered, it goes into a catalogue of available samples. Upon launch, the Materials Bay can be loaded with up to 5 of these samples, and when exposed those samples produce science based on the value of the sample multiplied by the distance of the exposure location. This means that a sample from the launchpad exposed at KSC will be worth very little, but a sample from Gilly exposed on Laythe will be worth a great deal. Samples would generate science for 30 days and then become spent. Materials Bays could be reloaded by a Mobile Processing Lab, but only with samples banked at the time of the Lab's launch and with samples processed by that lab. This means bringing a lab to another body will be useful for processing and gathering science from that body over time, but samples cant be magically transported across the Kerbol System. Indeed routing samples from surface to lab to materials bays (and from planet to planet) to maximize their value would be the real challenge.

Edit: Importantly you don't have to collect dozens of samples to make it work. You collect the one sample and once its been recovered or analyzed by a Mobile Lab you can load it into materials bays indefinitely. Think of it like the sample you're collecting from the surface is a nice hunk of rock, but what's going into the Materials bays are just little specks you're filing off. When loading the Bay you'd see something like this:

And the values would pay out like this:

Mobile Labs: With material studies now moved over to the Materials Bays, the lab can be used primarily for processing and reloading samples. In addition new contracts could provide special samples which could either be pre-loaded or delivered to existing labs for processing and/or loading into materials bays. Examples could be things like "Plutonium Sample from C7 Aerospace" or "Beehive Sample from Research and Development Division". Unlike other data sources samples would now be non-transmittable, and would require either recovery or processing at a Mobile lab. Level 1-5 scientists could convert samples 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% respectively. Once processed these samples would reveal precise ore concentrations for that location.

Transmitting data: Really importantly, all of these experiments as well as crew and EVA reports should be automatically collected and stored whenever new science is available, or at least a notification should come up saying "New science detected" with an option to "Collect all science." For simplicity's sake, I feel like clicking any pod or antenna ought to bring up a single data log indicating all stored data in one screen, the value of each piece of data, and giving the option to transmit. I'll be interested to see the changes Roverdude has made to the antenna system in the future, but in my mind the most straightforward solution is that all data except samples should be in principle 100% transmittable, and all losses could be controlled by the quality of your arrays. 

That was crazy long. Kudo's if you made it through haha. Maybe all of this is pie in the sky, but I think this kind of thing would be really important though if we wanted to turn science from a kind of clicky drag into a really fun bit of gameplay. We shouldn't have just a mandatory list of parts to attach and click through, we should be really engaging with these spaces and gleaning valuable information from them. 

tldr:

- Add biome mapping so players can plan landings.

- Give bonuses for different biomes so it matters where you land.

- Add surface features with high bonuses to encourage precise landings and scouting with rovers and planes.

- Give experiments in-engine dynamics that require you to interact with planetary surfaces.

 

So yeah, basically create game mechanics that reward players for really engaging with planets rather than just landing any old place. We could also for sure use a graphics and terrain detail polish with clouds and things. Life support and a habitation mechanic would be really great, but maybe beyond the scope of this thread. Im really liking USI LS right now, and it's pretty close to a state that could be brought in for stock. I've modified the big converter's cfg to produce fertilizer which really helps make self-sustaining bases manageable. If it were brought into stock I could see requiring a separate mineable resource to fill this role though. It would be really great to be able to live off the land a bit without things being overly complicated. 

Edited July 17, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[tater]

The whole science for points thing plays into he basic problems with the game, however. I agree that all the points @Pthigrivi makes above make sense within the current paradigm, but it's mostly more of the same reasons for going places we have aside from the surface features additions, which at least might look cool to visit. 

What if the surfaces and features were interactive in the sense that scatter with collision boxes would be---you need to scout/map to pick decent landing areas, or face tipping over/breaking?

[cubinator]

4 hours ago, tater said:

What if the surfaces and features were interactive in the sense that scatter with collision boxes would be---you need to scout/map to pick decent landing areas, or face tipping over/breaking?

I think one way to do this is to not have any indication of what a planets surface is like before you've actually scanned/imaged it. Let's say I'm launching a probe to Duna for the first time in the game. In the map view I can see it as a fuzzy red sphere with no surface features except the poles are white, because that is all that Galileo Kerman could see through his telescope on Kerbin. As I approach it, that would be what I see in the normal view as well, because I haven't imaged it yet. Once near the planet, I'd use an onboard camera to take a picture of it and it's moon. In the camera view I'd be able to see the planet as it really is. The picture would give a high-resolution (or not, depending on the distance and quality of the camera) image of that side of the planet. The other side, however, would remain a featureless red half-sphere, because I haven't imaged the whole planet yet. Even after I've imaged the planet, it would still appear as a smooth sphere until I perform altimetry scans with another scanning part. From orbit, rough details in the terrain would be visible, but you'd either need to get closer to the surface for higher terrain detail or get better scanners available further along the tech tree. If you tried to land on someplace you hadn't imaged well, you'd still hit the ground depending on the real terrain, not what you'd imaged. If a Kerbal is on the ship, they can see the planet in full detail (as much as their distance allows) but the map view still doesn't get updated unless they take a picture. This would encourage players to send mapping satellites ahead of their manned missions so that they can plan out a safe landing site ahead of time when they can't see the map view. I'd also encourage higher terrain detail with things like cliffs and canyons to avoid, and making terrain scatter actually dangerous by putting collidable boulders and rocks in clusters, making certain areas (possibly the greater part of some worlds) extremely dangerous to land on (think Apollo 11). Active terrain features that can hit or destroy ships like geysers, volcanoes/cryovolcanoes, and even rock slides and earthquakes would not only make for interesting events to watch, but also make it necessary to prepare for very unique situations on each world. There might be different cameras and scanning parts like infrared and near-infrared, gamma and x-rays for imaging the Sun, and cameras that detect certain materials in the surface or atmosphere. Magnetometers and radiation meters would also provide scientific data about the worlds.

[RatchetinSpace]

4 hours ago, cubinator said:

I think one way to do this is to not have any indication of what a planets surface is like before you've actually scanned/imaged it. Let's say I'm launching a probe to Duna for the first time in the game. In the map view I can see it as a fuzzy red sphere with no surface features except the poles are white, because that is all that Galileo Kerman could see through his telescope on Kerbin. As I approach it, that would be what I see in the normal view as well, because I haven't imaged it yet. Once near the planet, I'd use an onboard camera to take a picture of it and it's moon. In the camera view I'd be able to see the planet as it really is. The picture would give a high-resolution (or not, depending on the distance and quality of the camera) image of that side of the planet. The other side, however, would remain a featureless red half-sphere, because I haven't imaged the whole planet yet. Even after I've imaged the planet, it would still appear as a smooth sphere until I perform altimetry scans with another scanning part. From orbit, rough details in the terrain would be visible, but you'd either need to get closer to the surface for higher terrain detail or get better scanners available further along the tech tree. If you tried to land on someplace you hadn't imaged well, you'd still hit the ground depending on the real terrain, not what you'd imaged. If a Kerbal is on the ship, they can see the planet in full detail (as much as their distance allows) but the map view still doesn't get updated unless they take a picture. This would encourage players to send mapping satellites ahead of their manned missions so that they can plan out a safe landing site ahead of time when they can't see the map view. I'd also encourage higher terrain detail with things like cliffs and canyons to avoid, and making terrain scatter actually dangerous by putting collidable boulders and rocks in clusters, making certain areas (possibly the greater part of some worlds) extremely dangerous to land on (think Apollo 11). Active terrain features that can hit or destroy ships like geysers, volcanoes/cryovolcanoes, and even rock slides and earthquakes would not only make for interesting events to watch, but also make it necessary to prepare for very unique situations on each world. There might be different cameras and scanning parts like infrared and near-infrared, gamma and x-rays for imaging the Sun, and cameras that detect certain materials in the surface or atmosphere. Magnetometers and radiation meters would also provide scientific data about the worlds.

I completely agree. Landing on planets is a lot harder in real life than it is in this game, and adding some of the hazards plagued in real life could be good for this game. The crew of Apollo 11 had to steer their lander offcourse because their computer was landing them in very rocky terrain, the Curiosity rover had to implement a sky crane so the delicate instruments wouldn't be damaged by dust created by the rockets. Haphazardly plunging a probe with 10 parachutes into Duna's atmosphere to just land softly doesn't seem fair in my opinion, it should be a lot harder to get something to the surface.

[cubinator]

9 minutes ago, RatchetinSpace said:

I completely agree. Landing on planets is a lot harder in real life than it is in this game, and adding some of the hazards plagued in real life could be good for this game. The crew of Apollo 11 had to steer their lander offcourse because their computer was landing them in very rocky terrain, the Curiosity rover had to implement a sky crane so the delicate instruments wouldn't be damaged by dust created by the rockets. Haphazardly plunging a probe with 10 parachutes into Duna's atmosphere to just land softly doesn't seem fair in my opinion, it should be a lot harder to get something to the surface.

I agree wholeheartedly, landing ought to be a truly different challenge on every world. Right now, if you can land on the Mun you've got the skill to pilot a lander onto any world just as easily, save for the occasional atmosphere. I'd suggest the walls of craters be loose and prone to making ships slide down and tumble, and dust would indeed damage precise instruments such as those I've suggested in my previous post. More specifically surface-oriented sensors and experiments would be a plus for rovers and surface bases. Of course, new players might take a lot longer for their first Mun landing if too many dangers were presented. This could be remedied by having a scanner part available early in the tech tree that, when placed in LMO, would be able to plot out a reasonably safe landing site.

An idea for the more in-depth science packages: Sticking a bunch of tiny, very specialized sensors in a service bay and having to click on each one individually to operate it isn't going to be fun. If this were to be implemented, I'd suggest the following overhaul: Instead of having to click on each experiment individually, there would be a Science window that could be brought up in the command pod/probe core's right-click menu. This window would keep track of all the experiments on the ship (these would be placed in the ship editor as usual) and would be what you'd use to read experiment data and manage collection/transmission of science, all in one place! It'd be a much easier way to deal with all the science experiments, especially when there are lots of them. Cameras and other mapping scanners could be managed from that window as well, and clicking on one of the camera's icons would take you to the view from that camera, where you could take pictures which, when transmitted/recovered, would gain you science points and reputation points, because they would be released to the public as well as analyzed by scientists. They might even get you some Funds, if you sell posters to the public!

[KerikBalm]

4 hours ago, RatchetinSpace said:

The crew of Apollo 11 had to steer their lander offcourse because their computer was landing them in very rocky terrain, the Curiosity rover had to implement a sky crane so the delicate instruments wouldn't be damaged by dust created by the rockets. Haphazardly plunging a probe with 10 parachutes into Duna's atmosphere to just land softly doesn't seem fair in my opinion, it should be a lot harder to get something to the surface.

We already sort of have that for the mun, you don't want to land on a crater rim, the procedural generation has made finding a nice landing spot difficult.

FWIW, I think the Apollo 11 landing has been a bit over dramaticized. Yes they altered course, but just out of an abundance of safety. " the astronauts encountered a premature low fuel warning. This was later found to be the result of greater propellant 'slosh' than expected, uncovering a fuel sensor. On subsequent missions, extra anti-slosh baffles were added to the tanks to prevent this. "

This terrain isn't so hard to land on vertically:

There's not so many things to hit here:

You don't need to be super precise in the above case to avoid an obstacle.

Duna's gravity is only 80% of Mars' and its atmosphere is about 6 times denser. Under those conditions, the landing you describe does seem "fair".

It won't work on a proper Mars analogue (get kopernicus, edit duna's atmosphere and surface gravity... watch your probe smack in at 60 m/s even with spammed chutes). regardless of collidable terrain scatter.

The hazards present in that photo or mars, and by terrain scatter, would mainly apply to horizontal rolling landings. A horizontal landing on mars would be suicide. You're not going to touch down there at hundreds of km/h and have your wheels roll through all those small rocks and boulders.

Horizontal landings are already really difficult in the game. They are only really practiced on Laythe and Kerbin. While it may be a bit too easy on kerbin, its hard to say what the terrain of laythe should be comparable too. If compared to white sand beaches, sandbars, etc, then.... I guess its fine.

Kerbin though.... one wouldn't want to do a horizontal landing in a forrest, that's for sure.

[lugge]

I disagree with the make-landing-harder-guys.

This will not solve the issue that, once you've landed, there is nothing to do on this dusty rock. In fact, going interplanetary on stock is challenging enough (remember the thread about most people NOT going interplanetary).

The same applies to the idea of having 3 or more Kerbol system which a player can choose from. In fact, you only would have more planets for your going-there, plant-flag, screenshot, done!-Tour.

Remember, this topic is about making planets more interesting and adding long-term missions. We really do not need more or more-challening worlds, we need love for existing worlds or gameplay features which support long-term missions (no, not more biomes for science grind).

 

[KerikBalm]

Well, more detailed terrain would make any visit more interesting.

It seems to me making good landing spots harder to find would only make the planets seem more like just empty wasted space. You're now even less likely to visit other parts of the planet. It would only be good if combined with an incentive to go to a place that is hard to reach - this might encourage landing at a distance and deploying a rover to do some trekking to whatever mcguffin you're after.

They already sort of encourage this with the surface scanner - set down a rover and drive around looking for the highest concentration... I just don't really bother with that - the narrow band from orbit is good enough and as long as the drills are pulling in ore, I can wait.

I really can't see this changing with any reasonable feature.

You go to the surface for ore

You go to the surface for science

You go to the surface for a contract

You go ot the surface just for fun - and here is where increased terrain detail would help.

I think interactive science minigames will just make the science grind even grindier.

 

Don't over think it, just make the terrain interesting, and people will go there to look at it.

I really like Mars' terrain + an ocean. When I look for place to make a surface base... just like I do for duna and laythe and Mun, I look for terrain that is interesting and good for landings.

Mun: I chose by the equatorial mun arch - interesting, near a biome border, high ore concentration

Laythe: I chose one of the bigger islands, with a little bay - good for landing SSTOs horizontally - a flat island, but the higher points not too far from the beach have some ore

Modified - Mars: so many to choose from:Tharsis plateau? Relatively flat, thin atmosphere makes rocket ascents easier and allows for uncomplicated powered descents - vallis marinaris runs through it (interesting+ different biomes nearby) - or I could choose an elongated island in the delta from the outflow of vallis marinaris - flat and good for horizontal landings, island location is interesting - can use the ocean as a runway instead - can operate boats and stock subs from it - denser air makes aircraft operation possible (its modified mars, has O2 and .135 atm pressure) - or the summit of one of the volcanoes for even less dV needed to reach orbit - veyr interesting location... or the top of the "shield" of olympus mons.... or the flat "floodplains" (?... or did the river used to snake back and forth flattening it before cutting its final channel? I'm not sure what happened) of river valleys here:

Or... getting away from the outflow channels near vallis marinaris... the northern edges of the ocean are all nice smooth and flat... good for bases.

Admittedly, I've left the cratered highlands mostly alone, and haven't yet done anything at the poles... but the terrain is so varied and different that I actually put a lot of thought into where I will land, I go fly over other places to see if they may be better or more interesting locations, and I actually made my surface base airmobile so that I can take it apart and move it if I find a better place.

Right now the planets are too homogenous.

Your choices for mun: big crater, small crater, or inbetween a crater.

Duna: poles, highlands, lowlands

Dres: near the canyon or not near the canyon.

Laythe: big island, small island, tall island, short island, poles.

Eve is potentially more interesting... but its so inaccessible. Solar power is relatively ineffective due to the thick atmosphere. Rovers strain under the strong gravity - and its the largest planet with a solid surface in the game... rovers are *slow* - its just hard to move around on eve and you certainly won't be biome hopping with an eve lander like one does on Mun. Even with an ISRU operation, any reusable rocket powered craft isn't going to be able to go far and come back for refuelling (and you'll need to design for the added difficulty of surface refeuling on the surface under high gravity). Your choice then becomes a big lander and a low elevation landing, or a smaller lander and a high elevation landing. You land... can't realistically travel very far from your landing site, and then asced again... maybe you land near the water, and make a short walk or drive to the beach... but thats it. Electric fans/propellors would be great for eve.. and would open up more of its surface to exploration. Balance them so that a fuel cell powered craft has a very good range (so you can go far from the ISRU), or that one could fly them high enough to get to an altitude where solar works better and they can sustain flight on solar power - now you've got a way to go exploring eve - and then you can add more biomes to eve and have players go fly around in eves atmosphere collecting biome science.

The atmosphereless rocks... its hard to do much with them, but they could still have som interesting geological features as I mentioned in a previous post

Edited July 18, 2016 by KerikBalm

[tater]

Any sort of realistic bases pretty much requires bring them. Maybe "earth moving" would be a cool thing to add.

[Wjolcz]

On 17.07.2016 at 5:35 PM, Pthigrivi said:

- Add biome mapping so players can plan landings.

I agree. Any planning tool would be great for this game.

On 17.07.2016 at 5:35 PM, Pthigrivi said:

- Give bonuses for different biomes so it matters where you land.

- Add surface features with high bonuses to encourage precise landings and scouting with rovers and planes.

Aww man, we will never agree on these two.

The first one: making certain biomes have percentage bonuses won't make landing on bodies any more appealing. In fact, it will result in players visiting the biomes with the high yield only. The whole science gathering system should go right out of the window and into the trash.

The second one: Yes for cool surface objects, canyons and more bodies with craters like the ones Mun has, but as stated above the science system where points are gathered is broken and will never be balanced. Unless it's completely remade, of course.

On 17.07.2016 at 5:35 PM, Pthigrivi said:

- Give experiments in-engine dynamics that require you to interact with planetary surfaces.

I agree. The experiments are boring and repetitive. Also more experiments.

On 17.07.2016 at 5:35 PM, Pthigrivi said:

So yeah, basically create game mechanics that reward players for really engaging with planets rather than just landing any old place.

I wish we had programs in the career mode, where building an actual infrastructure based around a planetary body/moon is actually meaningful (provides reputation as long as it's maintained and expanded). I think that would be more involving than just landing, spam-clicking science, warping 'til the launch window to go back home opens, landing and recovering. I actually want to care about my bases, stations and interplanetary ships and be rewarded for doing so. Right now the career feels like "launch, harvest science/complete a random side-quest, go back, repeat". That's not how a KSP career experience should look like.

On 17.07.2016 at 5:35 PM, Pthigrivi said:

Life support and a habitation mechanic would be really great, but maybe beyond the scope of this thread. Im really liking USI LS right now, and it's pretty close to a state that could be brought in for stock. I've modified the big converter's cfg to produce fertilizer which really helps make self-sustaining bases manageable. If it were brought into stock I could see requiring a separate mineable resource to fill this role though. It would be really great to be able to live off the land a bit without things being overly complicated. 

This would also be awesome to have.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Veeltch

[tater]

We'd all like "wow" factor visual improvements, that goes without saying.

As for gameplay, it's way more complicated. I'm with @Veeltch on "biomes" (that name needs to go, it only applies to places with biology, it'd be like calling the munar surface an ocean). It just slightly changes the grind structure. I suppose it depends on the vision of the "end game."

Say for argument that the end game became long-term habitation/outposts. Depending upon the way the Joolian magnetosphere works, certainly only Kerbin and possibly Laythe are places not awash in deadly radiation. Every other body would require habitats to be buried in regolith. The RL analogs are about 5m for the Moon, and about 3m for Mars (that's how deep they need to be covered in their local soils).

If building outposts using local shielding were a thing... 

1. It gives kerbals something to do on a planet.

2. It makes some sites potentially better than others (add lava tubes?), and perhaps requires more science (this area is better suited to tunneling, etc).

3. Maybe some new construction parts, like a nuclear powered drill (fuses regolith into a glass tube as it penetrates), a front loader, etc.

4. It provides an incentive to come up with 'AI" kerbals that can do certain construction work on their own (really just a cool visual effect, so that when you bring resupplies, the kerbals at the outpost "look busy").

5. Perhaps such interesting features could somehow be randomized. Certain terrain types (a combination of the current biome data, plus local terrain shape) might be where rilles form. Perhaps they are not always breaking the surface in the same place (forcing some exploration).

[Raptor9]

On 7/17/2016 at 10:35 AM, Pthigrivi said:

...snip long post...

- Add biome mapping so players can plan landings.

- Give bonuses for different biomes so it matters where you land.

- Add surface features with high bonuses to encourage precise landings and scouting with rovers and planes.

- Give experiments in-engine dynamics that require you to interact with planetary surfaces.

...snip...

There's a lot in @Pthigrivi's post that I like.

Regarding updating planets and such, as much as I would like Gas Planet 2 (and/or 3), more gas planet moons, more interesting terrain (like real-world Mars), and other cool phenomenon like ice geysers or weather...I think if we see anything like that it will be a ways off.

However, to address a few of the previously asked questions with my own two cents: adding more stuff to do on a planet I believe would be a bit more manageable than "Planet Overhaul 2017".  I am no programmer, just a KSP player, so I'm probably about to speak out of my rear end here.  The following are a few things that I think could be implemented with an update or updates that don't require the scale of the KSP 1.1 update.

At the moment, when you build your first surface base, the only two contracts (that I've so far encountered at least) that allow you to get repeated use out of the base itself are resource extraction/refinement, or getting "Base Expansion" contracts.  The second contract type is especially troublesome to me as, depending on your skill level and computer hardware, after a while the amount of parts in physics range may start dragging down your gameplay.

Point #1 addressing "Things to do": I would propose that the likelihood of getting a surface survey contract (ie "Take seismic surveys at Site Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc") in the immediate vicinity of your surface base goes up.  This would give the Kerbals on-site consecutive scientific jobs to go out and complete, so Bob climbs in his rover and checks out some random crater a few kilometers to the east of the base.  The more of these surface base area surveys that are completed, the further out from the base they will continue to populate or be more spread out in area.

Point #1 gameplay additions:
- Player gets more utilization from his surface base.
- Player is encouraged to develop reliable and/or better rovers (or even aircraft for atmo planets or small thruster-craft for vacuum moons) to cover increasingly larger areas and/or longer distances from the surface base.
- If a player prefers brand new survey sites not close to the base, or if he/she does, the appropriate contract will become more prevalent based on the player's contract acceptance preferences.

Point #1 estimated development requirements:
- Contextual Contracts aspect would need to be updated and revised.

Point #2 addressing Base Part Count: A dedicated set of surface base parts would need to be developed to not only further encourage surface bases, but it would provide a more manageable long-term base expansion contract scheme.  Namely, these parts would really need to be "assemblies". A single-part base module that lacks only utility additions such as wheels or antennas or the like.  One such mod that I think would be an outstanding example of this strategy is Kerbal Planetary Base Systems.  Many of the part modules serve multiple purposes or store multiple resources.  One such part has fuel storage, engines for propulsive-landing, and properly oriented side surfaces that can easily accept landing struts or wheels.  This combines fuel tank parts, engine parts, and any structural pieces for mounting all into a single part tracked by KSP physics.

The same could be said about new and dedicated rover command pods or chassis.

Point #2 gameplay additions:
- Parts better suited to surface base gameplay (ie, the existing PPD-10 Hitchiker pod and MPG-LG-2 Processing Lab are somewhat cumbersome to correctly orient and piece together on the surface.  These parts are more optimized for space travel in my opinion).
- Any given computer would be able to handle larger bases due to an overall reduced part count per base module.

Point #2 possible limitations:
- When incorporating several functions into a single part, this may limit a player's creativity or construction options to a degree.  A proper balance would have to be found between the lego-like system of KSP, and keeping part counts low.
- When incorporating multiple functions into a single part, a bug that affects one system has the potential to affect the use of the entire part.

Point #2 estimated development requirements:
- Brand new parts would need to be developed or existing mod parts would need to be updated/incorporated into the stock game (sort of like Spaceplane Plus in KSP v0.25).
- All aspects of career such as tech tree, contracts, and science system would need to be updated/tweaked to reflect additional part types.

Obligatory Caveat: Again, I am no programmer, nor do I understand what goes into programming a game like KSP.  The above paragraphs are simply what I think would be a more manageable "short-term" project to give us all more to do on the surface.  Also, I understand that the bulk of these suggestions address Career gameplay, and some KSP players prefer Sandbox (or Science).

[KerikBalm]

8 hours ago, tater said:

Say for argument that the end game became long-term habitation/outposts. Depending upon the way the Joolian magnetosphere works, certainly only Kerbin and possibly Laythe are places not awash in deadly radiation. Every other body would require habitats to be buried in regolith. The RL analogs are about 5m for the Moon, and about 3m for Mars (that's how deep they need to be covered in their local soils).

Well, Eve would be safe from radiation too... but its temperature would be way too high unless kerbal biology can tolerate those high temperatures.

I think you're overstating the radiation risks though. Outside of the radiation belts of a planet, the intensity of radiation from solar wind declines with distance. Eeloo should be fine. Even Mun and Minmus (assuming they're outside kerbins belts, as our RL moon is outside earth's) wouldn't be so bad.

Then we'd have to know if Duna has a magnetic field or not, and if Ike is within it. If it does, then Duna would be very safe... if it doesn't... welll lets look at mars: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22520-mars-is-safe-from-radiation-but-the-trip-there-isnt/

Mars' atmosphere provides significant protection. Duna's atmosphere is over 6 times thicker. Surface pressure is caused by the weight of the air column above. On earth that air column can support 761mm of Hg. That is on Earth, the mass of air above us is the same as if we had a 76.1 cm thick shield of mercury above our heads. Duna's atmospheric pressure would only lift 50.75 mm Hg in earth's gravity... but due to its lower gravity, it would actually lift 169mm Hg. This is equivalent to a 20.2cm lead shield. I think Duna's surface, at least at the lower elevations, would be safe. Uv radiation gets through, but that's easily blocked by opaque materials. Mars of course, is going to need to be adjusted down by a factor of 1.1/6.667 and .3/.376 ... for only 2.66 cm "lead shielding equivalent" for its atmosphere - which is still fairly effective.

Moho- yea, that's gonna have a lot of radiation

Eve- safe, its got to have magnetic fields protecting it, so low orbit should be relatively safe too. Gilly- probably dangerous for long term habitation

Kerbin - safe. Mun and Minmus... probably wouldn't want to stay there for months on end.

Duna - safe. Ike: don't know, its farther from the sun, it may or may not be in radiation belts of duna, as it does orbit pretty close

Dres - probably safe just due to distance.

Eeloo - probably safe due to distance.

Pol/bop - probably safely outside jools belts.

Tylo and Val - probably inside jools belts and very deadly

Laythe - Low orbit is probably deadly, even if it has its own magnetic field, jools will over power it. However, its atmosphere will provide substantial protection on the surface.

 

5 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Point #1 addressing "Things to do": I would propose that the likelihood of getting a surface survey contract (ie "Take seismic surveys at Site Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc") in the immediate vicinity of your surface base goes up.  This would give the Kerbals on-site consecutive scientific jobs to go out and complete, so Bob climbs in his rover and checks out some random crater a few kilometers to the east of the base.  The more of these surface base area surveys that are completed, the further out from the base they will continue to populate or be more spread out in area.

This sounds reasonable and relatively easy to implement

[tater]

Venus and Mars have no appreciable magnetosphere, so their radiation environment on the surface is actually pretty bad. Mars is 0.67 miliSieverts per day, so they get a year of Earth background every 5.2 days. Deep space is a several hundred mSv per year. Venus is bad, too (no magnetosphere). Eve rotates sort of normally though.

[Wjolcz]

12 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Point #1 addressing "Things to do": I would propose that the likelihood of getting a surface survey contract (ie "Take seismic surveys at Site Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc") in the immediate vicinity of your surface base goes up.  This would give the Kerbals on-site consecutive scientific jobs to go out and complete, so Bob climbs in his rover and checks out some random crater a few kilometers to the east of the base.  The more of these surface base area surveys that are completed, the further out from the base they will continue to populate or be more spread out in area.

I agree. The points of interests should generate around the area of a lander/base, or simply around the landing site designated by the contract (though I would really prefer if they were called missions).

12 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

- If a player prefers brand new survey sites not close to the base, or if he/she does, the appropriate contract will become more prevalent based on the player's contract acceptance preferences.

I wish that programs/filters (much like in Strategia mod) were a thing. There would be for example a program asking you to land in a certain crater (Northern Crater Exploration Program) and once that's done more objectives pop up asking to drive around said crater/point of interest and perform experiments. It would actually give meaning and purpose to building bases.

12 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

- All aspects of career such as tech tree, contracts, and science system would need to be updated/tweaked to reflect additional part types.

IMO it should get a complete overhaul. Science points are the real drama of the career mode right now. They don't serve much purpose apart from restraining the player's choice of parts and making the whole career paradigm work completely backwards (i.e. go places and get science first, unlock parts later)

It would make much more sense if they were completely gone. (the most important things in that thread are the way the reputaton works, programs and the loop).

Edited July 19, 2016 by Veeltch