What do you think of science-to-tech research mechanic?

[Warzouz]

I voted YES : I'm quite happy with this mechanic. Here is why :

- It's quite efficient for new players. It limits new parts so new players aren't overwhelmed by the possibilities.

- the MLP was modifier in 1.0 to add a secondary mechanic to get science without grinding experiments.

- there are other issues that limits more than the science mechanics : the whole contract mechanic is not "Space Program" oriented. KSP is supposed to be a "Space Program" game, not a "Space Flight" game (it's said in the game title...)

- It's an incentive to explore other bodies, even if you can fill the whole tech tree with only Mun and Minmus (without MPL). With administration you can convert that to cash (the only somewhat useful usage of Administration...)

 

But that's true, science could have an additional late game usage. I know there is a nice mod that allow you to tweak parts with science. That's a neat idea, even if identical ships would have different performance depending on you current advancement.

[metl]

I have to agree with regex. The whole point of the modding community is to take what is provided in stock, and tweak it to suit your personal tastes. For what you're wanting, I would try the Engineering Tech Tree.

As far as the "government funding" issue, you're looking at it all wrong. Your KSC is a private company, doing contracts for other private companies. Governmental funding doesn't come into the equation.

As far as needing to use specific experiments to unlock specific parts, that just sounds like a convoluted mess trying to figure out what test unlocks what part next. There's a mod called R&D which allows you to spend science points to upgrade part stats. You might try that and see if that is more in line with what you're looking for.

[tater]

I unsurprisingly voted "no," but the issue is complex, as tech "purchase" is the only reward system in the career game, and people play to reward systems, even unconsciously.

On top of that, all aspects of career mode are intertwined necessarily, which means that the only "ideal" solution would be to do the whole career thing over with a plan from the start, and as @regex said, that ain't gonna happen.

My biggest issue from a gameplay standpoint is that the tree unlock plays in a very linear way, and the cart is driving the horse. I'd prefer to have a more player-driven version where I drive the tech towards whatever my personal mission goals are (and I'd prefer player driven missions instead of random side contracts as well).

[LordFerret]

Didn't vote. I see this poll existing only because you've played the game before ... otherwise you'd not know of the tech available. For the first time science player (I'm a science player, but this is my 4th time through), the tech tree is fairly balanced especially considering all the changes it's gone through (IMO).

[Superfluous J]

4 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Or, a lack of developer's vision, kin to the "it's good enough" approach, or simply being lazy.

I'd agree with that if every single game ever in the history of games didn't take similar liberties. FPSs let you carry too much ammo and reload quickly. Those that don't fail. GTA-style games let you run over pedestrians willy-nilly even when you're the "good guy". City simulators delete cars off the roads if they get stuck and can't reach their destinations. You build approximations and hand-waviness into a game because it's a game and sometimes you can't make things absolutely perfect because you don't have infinite time and money.

I've seen dozens of alternatives to the tech tree. Heck, I just made one this weekend. But I've yet to see a replacement that worked and was fun, AND actually existed anywhere but in text on this forum.

Edited August 29, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, metl said:

As far as the "government funding" issue, you're looking at it all wrong. Your KSC is a private company, doing contracts for other private companies. Governmental funding doesn't come into the equation.

Even private companies get partial government funding. The ideal approach would be if players could pick whether they want to do science (AKA government-driven) missions, or if they want to be a private company (selling ore, tourism, putting satellites in orbits).

2 hours ago, Warzouz said:

- It's quite efficient for new players. It limits new parts so new players aren't overwhelmed by the possibilities.

I really dislike this argument. If career is meant to be just another tutorial, then what's the point of in-game tutorials?

2 hours ago, Warzouz said:

- there are other issues that limits more than the science mechanics : the whole contract mechanic is not "Space Program" oriented. KSP is supposed to be a "Space Program" game, not a "Space Flight" game (it's said in the game title...)

You missed my point. I didn't mean it as "Kerbal Go Jet Planes First Program", but more of a "Kerbal Have A Choice Of What You Want To Do Next Program".

2 hours ago, Warzouz said:

But that's true, science could have an additional late game usage. I know there is a nice mod that allow you to tweak parts with science. That's a neat idea, even if identical ships would have different performance depending on you current advancement.

That's the exact problem with science. After the tree is done there's not much you can do with it. It just becomes useless. As if the devs said: 

-OK, so the idea needs to based around three basic resources
-Why three though?
-I don't know. It's a game. We will somehow deal with it later.

45 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

I'd agree with that if every single game ever in the history of games didn't take similar liberties. FPSs let you carry too much ammo and reload quickly. Those that don't fail. GTA-style games let you run over pedestrians willy-nilly even when you're the "good guy". City simulators delete cars off the roads if they get stuck and can't reach their destinations. You build approximations and hand-waviness into a game because it's a game and sometimes you can't make things absolutely perfect because you don't have infinite time and money.

I've seen dozens of alternatives to the tech tree. Heck, I just made one this weekend. But I've yet to see a replacement that worked and was fun, AND actually existed anywhere but in text on this forum.

I am not annoyed about KSP because it's a game. It's just the fact that it was not thought-out well. And I don't feel like "didn't have money and time" argument really fits well here. They still seem to be developing the game, which would imply they still have both. It's just that they decided to not do anything with the current state of career, because the majority either thinks it's good enough, or there's a mod for that. And also, it's a 100% finished product you paid for, guys.

[Wjolcz]

Eh, who am I even kidding? I'm in the clear minority here. SQUAD will do nothing about career mode because the game is moddable.

Lock the thread, or whatever. I don't care anymore.

[Corona688]

10 hours ago, foamyesque said:

As many as it takes to get the point across, I suppose

Please don't encourage him.  If the devs cave in to one broken record, they'll have to cave into all of them.  Or more likely they'll just stop participating in such a toxic environment.

6 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Eh, who am I even kidding? I'm in the clear minority here. SQUAD will do nothing about career mode because the game is moddable.

Or perhaps they're not gauging their dev priorities on who's the loudest.

[tater]

I think the weakness of the "career" game is pretty unambiguous. The contract paradigm is sort of bizarre, and provides nothing more than side quests, where a substantial percentage are frankly absurd.

0% of the ore moving contracts make any sense at all (moving raw ore defeats the entire point of isru). Surveys are intentionally dispersed and made needlessly goofy.  Ditto tourist contracts. Most part testing contracts are idiotic, and many don't recognize simple facts---that a suborbital trajectory over an airless world is identical to any other airless world, or any orbit. You have to carefully curate to find any contracts that aren't awful.

[Armisael]

35 minutes ago, tater said:

0% of the ore moving contracts make any sense at all (moving raw ore defeats the entire point of isru).

Maybe they're interesting in large-scale soil samples.

35 minutes ago, tater said:

Most part testing contracts are idiotic, and many don't recognize simple facts---that a suborbital trajectory over an airless world is identical to any other airless world, or any orbit.

Different gravitational/thermal/radiation environments.

 

(Neither of these is to say that the current system is great, but most of the contracts aren't that difficult to figure out a reason for.)

Edited August 30, 2016 by Armisael

[Corona688]

You don't get contracts in science mode, where the topic question still applies.  Different mechanic.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Corona688

[tater]

Just now, Armisael said:

Maybe they're interesting in large-scale soil samples.

Move ore from moon A to planet B where I have no facilities. Right.

Just now, Armisael said:

Different gravitational/thermal/radiation environments.

Suborbital only requires that the craft intersect the world, I can be at the very edge of the SoI, and still be suborbital. It's ridiculous. 

 

7 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

You don't get contracts in science mode, where the topic question still applies.  Different mechanic.

True. The mechanic is still silly, and offers poor gameplay. It is silly because a dirt sample in no way informs engineers about how to create an RTG or a rocket engine. Poor gameplay because it is boring, the parts are in bizarre groupings, and because as a reward system, it just ends, long before the game ends (because the game doesn't really end).

For Science mode, I think I'd rather see a budget system that includes points to buy tech... you have a science goal, and you use your limited $$ and R&D budgets to try and achieve that goal. As you unlock more tech, your inventory of "off the shelf" solutions increases, allowing for less R&D to accomplish a given goal.

[W. Kerman]

It is okay for now, and it will improve at somepoint,

[Sharpy]

No, you don't need to go to the Mun to collect science data. You don't even need to perform a single 'experiment'.

There is a Strategy (through the Administration Facility) that allows you to skip grinding science entirely, if you're making enough cash.

Quote

 

Outsourced R&D

Why do all the data-crunching ourselves when we can contract external research labs to help us process the data we receive. These services aren't exactly cheap, but their R&D facilities are very impressive.

Effects

• Takes 5 – 100% Funds Income
• Yields 1 Science for each 12812.73 – 10378.31 Funds

Setup Cost

 

76 100 – 800 000

 

Yeah, science is expensive. It's the way it is. Ever worked in any R&D job? I worked at a university. The stuff costs arm and leg, you pay super-premium for anything "for laboratory use". And then there are research grants. That's huge money, that goes to specific targets - it MUST be spent on stuff directly related to the grant. A neighbor department got a supercomputer worth four million dollars, that had to be switched off during summer because they couldn't afford air-conditioning. The supercomputer was from a grant, but AC would need to be doled out from private funds. People work for a pittance, with equipment worth millions - because salaries are own budget, equipment is grants.

 

So it stands to reason KSP's R&D works as a separate entity, based on grants, and hardly taps into the funds of the corporate side - because it could ruin it very fast! A contract worth a million funds yields a pitiful 100 science... and that's about how it looks in real life!

 

But if you decide that you want to fund research yourself, instead of depending on grants, hey, the way is open. Upgrade the administration building, implement the strategy, and grind contracts!

Of course you won't be able to build a SSTO since day one. You will need to earn an absolutely marvelous fortune to be able to unlock the right parts. And all that using pitifully paying Kerbin based contracts.

But at least you have no reason to complain about realism. That's absolutely realistic.

 

Oh well, there are other ways of turning profit too. If you can find the buyer for hydrazine in bulk...

 

 

Edited August 30, 2016 by Sharpy
(edit: recalled the correct price of the computer.)

[KerbMav]

It is good enough for me in my rationalisation:

The KSP gathers science data to feed the nerds back home, who in return crack their heads over new tech for bigger missions. It is more a give and take than real inhouse R&D - or a "science from space motivates them to think of new tech" thing.

[Xavven]

Getting soil samples to for "science points" that magically unlock an RTG doesn't make sense to me.

However, getting soil samples to increase your program's prestige (rep?) which increases your monthly funding, which allows you to pay for scientists and engineers to research an RTG does make sense to me.

Simple solution:

1. Implement life support so that time means something and it costs money to keep manned things in space.
2. Implement monthly income based on your rep. Rep decays over time, so you have to keep doing stuff or your funding eventually goes to 0. This prevents the "time warp for infinite money" problem.
3. Implement monthly expenses based on:
   1. The upgrade level of your facilities
   2. How many active probes you have
   3. How many active manned-flights you have
   4. How many actively science-generating Mobile Processing Labs you have (side note: this fixes the infinite-science MPL problem)
4. And finally, science points increase your reputation. Missions are worth reputation too, but science is worth more.
5. Going bankrupt = game over.

 

On the "Squad will never overhaul career" argument:

I disagree. Add a new mode.

1. Sandbox
2. Science Mode
3. Career Mode
4. Tycoon Mode (NEW!)

Adding monthly income/expense only requires that the admin building have a new tab (kind of like how the research lab has two tabs). The new tab is an income statement and balance sheet that simply shows you how much money you're making and why, and how much money you're spending and why. IMO this would take some dev time, but not an impractical amount in the least. I bet it's easier than the comms that RoverDude just programmed.

Add in a better tech tree as the cherry on top.

 

On the "mod it to suit your tastes" argument:

True, that's a valid point. However, I do buy into the counter-argument, which is that I don't want to purchase a game and then have to go out on the internet and find mods to build my own campaign. It feels like I'm the one building the game, not the devs. I prefer that the game to come with an interesting single-player campaign that is challenging and fun (and not just a tutorial) right out of the box.

 

[KerikBalm]

I think its fine.

As a gameplay mechanic, in many games, its well established... do more stuff to unlock better things.

We also have science we get without doing the clicking... like just returning a vessel from a location. Now there are the world's first things... although I think those award funds and rep but no science.

I rationalize it as follows:

Bringing back new data generates interest in the space program, and this interest leads to a bigger R&D budget.

In many things, related budgets are kept seperate. An example would be that NASA had to use X amount of money for the shuttle, it only had Y amount for planetary probes.

I think of science as my R&D budget, and funds as my operating/hardware budget.

Collecting surface samples and putting a kerbal on the ground of a new world (crew/EVA reports) leades to Kerbal Kongressmen increasing my R&D budget to develop more capable systems.

 

Contracts are pretty bad though.

I think they should take the UI that they use for looking at science reports (ie per world/body), and let you click on say duna, and then select from some options for duna (maybe you only want science from unmanned probes, maybe you want to establish a colony... ) , and get a set of focused "contracts".

Also, worlds first stuff should display showing achievements that you can get at each body, and the payouts.

I also think the world's first achievements should be higher, and you should be able to heavily commit to leadership initiative without spending lots of rep and funds. Some strategies should have their "setup costs" reduced to almost zero IMO.

[Corona688]

1 hour ago, Xavven said:

Simple solution:

1. Implement life support so that time means something and it costs money to keep manned things in space.

I like where you're going with this.  Costing money to keep things in space is less grindy than continually sending resupply ships, would give the mysterious "other space agencies" things to be doing, and deal with the lake-o-money you start accumulating in late career mode.

My plan for life support would have been the almost-doable-unmodded "kerbals eat and breathe RCS fuel", which I think fits the game better than the complex mods -- a simple in-game representation which you can imagine is more complicated if you want to but doesn't have to be.  It fit's what's there already(RCS on command pods and suits) and ties in with other game features -- like mining.  Suddenly the mini-drill isn't such a toy anymore, if its small output is enough to keep 3 kerbals breathing.

They could be combined perhaps.  Keeping RCS topped up on your stations in exchange for mere money could be one of the "strategies".  Or you could launch with a mundo pack and be set for a year.

Quote

1. Implement monthly income based on your rep. Rep decays over time, so you have to keep doing stuff or your funding eventually goes to 0. This prevents the "time warp for infinite money" problem.

This makes sense too.

Quote

1. Implement monthly expenses based on:
   1. The upgrade level of your facilities
   2. How many active probes you have
   3. How many active manned-flights you have
   4. How many actively science-generating Mobile Processing Labs you have (side note: this fixes the infinite-science MPL problem)
2. And finally, science points increase your reputation. Missions are worth reputation too, but science is worth more.
3. Going bankrupt = game over.

The more complicated you make it, the more likely someone will find a way to game it.  Of course, it is a game, so if they want to game it, more power to them I guess.

Quote

On the "Squad will never overhaul career" argument:

I think the key is to suggesting incremental changes, not "wipe out everything and start over" kind of ideas.  Things they can tackle piecemeal, which don't reinvent the universe.

i.e. Reorganizing the tech tree?  Doable.  Abolishing the tech tree?  Unlikely.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Corona688

[fourfa]

5 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

 My plan for life support would have been the almost-doable-unmodded "kerbals eat and breathe RCS fuel", which I think fits the game better than the complex mods -- a simple in-game representation which you can imagine is more complicated if you want to but doesn't have to be.  It and fit's what's there already(RCS on command pods and suits).

They could be combined perhaps.  Keeping RCS topped up on your stations in exchange for mere money could be one of the "strategies".  Or you could launch with a mundo pack and be set for a year.

I could get down with this. 

[Leopard]

I like it, would be nice to have multiple trees you can pick from and more increments, eg unlock fuel tanks individually and not in batches. Plus more themed branches, planetary science, comms etc.

oh, and include on consoles!

[Sharpy]

20 hours ago, Xavven said:

Getting soil samples to for "science points" that magically unlock an RTG doesn't make sense to me.

However, getting soil samples to increase your program's prestige (rep?) which increases your monthly funding, which allows you to pay for scientists and engineers to research an RTG does make sense to me.

Simple solution:

1. Implement life support so that time means something and it costs money to keep manned things in space.
2. Implement monthly income based on your rep. Rep decays over time, so you have to keep doing stuff or your funding eventually goes to 0. This prevents the "time warp for infinite money" problem.
3. Implement monthly expenses based on:
   1. The upgrade level of your facilities
   2. How many active probes you have
   3. How many active manned-flights you have
   4. How many actively science-generating Mobile Processing Labs you have (side note: this fixes the infinite-science MPL problem)
4. And finally, science points increase your reputation. Missions are worth reputation too, but science is worth more.
5. Going bankrupt = game over.

It's an interesting idea, and I kinda like it, but...

- first, THIS really forces you to go to Mun. Making your own planetary/airplane/shuttle/SSTO program without leaving LKO becomes completely impossible, as you won't be able to gather any reasonable reputation.

- The rep bonus change per planet would need to be MASSIVE too.

It takes about a day for a complete roundtrip to Mun. It takes 2-3 weeks for Minmus, unless you waste a lot of fuel for unoptimal trajectory. Launching to Duna on day 28 is no longer an option at all.

- long-term missions like Eloo, or even Jool 5 would be very hard to implement - chicken-and-egg problem, you need the kind of rep they give if you want to afford them. The current 'advance' system for contracts solves that.