What do you think would make rovers better?

[Flamingo]

Right now rovers is a pretty fun thing to build in KSP, even though the wheels aren't the best. But rovers don't serve much of a purpose. What do you think KSP needs to make rovers better and more useful, and not only more wheels and special warp systems. If you have ideas, please dont just say "more science parts for rovers" but come with specific ideas, for specific parts, that serve a specific purpose.

[Tyko]

I think the big reason rovers aren't more useful right now is because the game was built around making manned (kerballed) spaceflight simple. Kerbals don't add any weight to a ship, their consumables don't weigh anything and they can sit happily in a single seat capsule for years. Because it's relatively easy to send kerbals, there are less incentives to send rovers.

I'm not saying it should be changed, but, if life support and crew comfort were concerns we had to deal with I think that rovers would be a more viable alternative for many missions - just like they are in real life.

Edited September 8, 2016 by tjt

[Mikki]

A tool for rovers/ trucks... might not be possible but adding a ram carriage to flaten out/ create a even plane with a certain diameter to make lander pointlandings more ... straight.
In short: ram a flat area to make a simple landing/launchpad on slopey bodies.
One ram can make a certain area than it turns used, bring a second, third an so on to create a strip on Laythe or Duna/ Eve to create a whole landingsstrip out of launchpad pieces...

Dreaming on.

[katateochi]

I think what would give rovers more of a purpose (at least in career) is not so much more science parts, but a different scientific process.  The science done now is pretty much take a single reading here and then buzz off and take another lone reading elsewhere (usually at a distance that is exactly too far away to be fun to travel by land).  Not really very scientific. So, while this may bring back memories of tick-infested school geography field trips, we need to be able to perform transects, as an optional extra way of gaining more science from one area.
It should still let you do the current single point reading but in addition you could define a grid area around the target site and then either take a reading at each corner and one in the center, or a set of readings diagonally across the grid etc.  The size of the transect should be large enough that while you could do it on foot that would be pretty dull, and small enough that flying between the points wouldn't be efficient, so it would be the perfect application for a rover. 
From a game mechanic point of view it should define a circular area (with a radius of say 0.5km) around the target site and divide it into grids (10-20m squared). Each grid yields a very small science bonus, but has a low probability of yielding a high bonus. 

[pandaman]

Tracks.  Very 'grippy', but use a lot of power. 

Larger ones are good for heavy loads, small ones for light rovers on particularly rugged terrain.  And they look good too.

[steuben]

better stock control.

though this may have changed in the most recent versions, may change in 1.2. I haven't played with any fancy rover designs in the last few versions.

[adsii1970]

Not to sound dumb or bitter, but wheels that work. Mayne a selection of tracks, too.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Take the missions on Kerbin where you have to do 3 EVA reports at 3 destinations which are reasonably close to each other and add other planets to them. I always use a rover in a plane for these, on other planets I could use a rover attached to a lander. Would give me a reason to bring them.

The entire reason NASA took a rover to the moon was to drive to several different locations near the lander. The game needs to give us a reason to do this. Biomes are typically too far apart unless you are on a border.

I actually have a rover parked on the Mun which I drive about sometimes for fun...but sadly it serves no actual purpose.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[SpenSpaceCorp]

I think that some sort of camera that one could actually see out of and take pictures with would add a bit to not only rovers, but the general immersiveness of the game itself.

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by SpenSpaceCorp

[Flamingo]

42 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Take the missions on Kerbin where you have to do 3 EVA reports at 3 destinations which are reasonably close to each other and add other planets to them. I always use a rover in a plane for these, on other planets I could use a rover attached to a lander. Would give me a reason to bring them.

The entire reason NASA took a rover to the moon was to drive to several different locations near the lander. The game needs to give us a reason to do this. Biomes are typically too far apart unless you are on a border.

I actually have a rover parked on the Mun which I drive about sometimes for fun...but sadly it serves no actual purpose.

I very much agree with this, this would bring a lot more meaning in bringing rovers to other bodies.

[cosimas]

Ultimately, you'd want the rover kicking up dust and leaving tracks (maybe even bouncing a bit), like the later Apollo missions, so they were really fun to drive.

In the meantime, rover surveys as suggested above would help.

[Daveroski]

I often use a lander with a rover for surface rescues then I don't have to worry about pin-point accuracy on my landings.

Using the rover and driving out to collect the survivor is more entertaining than just landing nearby.

Then there is the fun of reloading the rover into/onto the lander to take it back to the station in orbit so that it can be used again.

I would like to see other uses too though. Driving to imaginary points for imaginary data doesn't quite fill the hole.

 

[Corona688]

Cruise control, or perhaps a way to tie the throttle to the motors.

[Sharpy]

Interesting destinations to drive to - e.g. special terrain features where you can gather more science.

[SpacedCowboy]

19 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

Cruise control, or perhaps a way to tie the throttle to the motors.

Yeah, I've always liked that idea, consequentially I came up with some designs employing the little "Puff" engines. Throw on a couple RCS tanks and dummy down the thrust limiters on the "Puffs", Use the small landing gears instead of rover wheels and you can go a long way!

Edited September 8, 2016 by SpacedCowboy

[Alshain]

This is the ONLY case where I would say auto-pilot.  Piloting rockets and planes is fun, driving rovers is boring as watching sand sit on a beach.  The fact that you have to drive them great distances to be of any relevance, and that takes so much time, kills rovers.  Having special terrain features is great, but ultimately we need to be able to plot a course and have the rover follow that course while we aren't sitting there holding the W key.

@Corona688 Cruise control already exists in the game, sort of.  It's just not bound to anything by default and you have to have an axis controller to use it (i.e. flight stick throttle).  Using it helps some, but it's still kinda boring.  Unfortunately if you have only a keyboard, there is no incremental throttle control for wheels, like with rockets and planes.  There should be.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Alshain

[regex]

1 hour ago, katateochi said:

From a game mechanic point of view it should define a circular area (with a radius of say 0.5km) around the target site and divide it into grids (10-20m squared). Each grid yields a very small science bonus, but has a low probability of yielding a high bonus. 

Why not just add a passive instrument that simply "collects" science as you traverse PQS grids? Much more "sand-boxey" and provides incentive to simply rove around seeing the sights.

E: I mean that each PQS grid of a certain size should have a small science reward for travelling there with the particular instrument.

Edited September 8, 2016 by regex

[katateochi]

7 minutes ago, regex said:

Why not just add a passive instrument that simply "collects" science as you traverse PQS grids? Much more "sand-boxey" and provides incentive to simply rove around seeing the sights.

E: I mean that each PQS grid of a certain size should have a small science reward for travelling there with the particular instrument.

Yeah that would be better than having to stop and take readings. And you can still have some grids yield a high science bonus which provides more incentive to take a more methodical approach, but with a low enough probability that it's not something you could depend on for farming science.

[Corona688]

27 minutes ago, regex said:

Why not just add a passive instrument that simply "collects" science as you traverse PQS grids?

Radiation spectrometer, to measure mineral compositions?  In the end it's still a grind -- the game telling you to drive long distances to clear an arbitrary check mark, not because its an interesting experience, not because you'll find any useful in-game information.

The nature of the game is problematic here.  There isn't any information it could give us -- nothing we couldn't have gotten just from reading the wiki.  Players must either conquer game goals "because it's there", like a mountain, or cynically grind them for points.  There's no real discovery.

The only element that's actually unknown in the game right now is asteroids.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Corona688

[tater]

As has been suggested, an out of focus autopilot.

1. Tie the map view to what the player has actually observed---meaning the apparent altitude of the map camera is a function of crewed exploration (a radius around where you happen to be is available the same way you can zoom the camera now, right down to the faceplate). This would require some scansat-like photography parts to map surfaces (include crashers like Ranger, landers like Surveyor, etc).

2. Allow waypoints to be placed on the surface of the map. The rover will then follow them. Choose poorly, and there might be a crash. Allow probe rovers as well, but tie it to the new comms system, and perhaps set a max speed for rovers based upon the proximity of kerbals. Note that if you add waypoints without the map being zoomed in enough via mapping missions, the chances for accidents are greater.

3. Add some science as you go as suggested by regex. Perhaps the amount is tied to rover speed, and scientist crew (the faster you go, the less science).

4. (crazy "end game" stuff follows) In-situ construction.

a. Perhaps new regolith moving parts could be added. Land XXX tons of supplies within 100m of some spot (perhaps the construction rover, itself is the spot, via a right-click, "Build here"), plus such a rover (and a certain number of crew/engineers) and a facility can be constructed on the spot (the spot might have to be within certain slope, etc). The facility would be a custom-designed for that world (basically a simple model, covered with regolith as radiation shielding). Another facility would be a construction shack (VAB/SPH-like) with a take off/landing area cleared and marked.

b. Related to roving around, perhaps the game could have semi-randomized caves added (rilles). The could appear in the sides of craters or canyons that meet certain requirements (not 100% random, but a random chance at any of many possible locations. These caves would have reduced construction costs in terms of required supplies, otherwise works as "4a," above.

Edited September 8, 2016 by tater

[regex]

13 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

Radiation spectrometer, to measure mineral compositions?  In the end it's still a grind -- the game telling you to drive long distances to clear an arbitrary check mark, not because its an interesting experience, not because you'll find any useful in-game information.

Tailor-made content intended to surprise or inform the user will never provide (literally) years of gameplay (in my case). It will always get old and it will end up being just as "grindy".

13 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

The nature of the game is problematic here.  There isn't any information it could give us -- nothing we couldn't have gotten just from reading the wiki.  Players must either conquer game goals "because it's there", like a mountain, or cynically grind them for points.  There's no real discovery.

That's the nature of a sandbox game; if you're not prepared to set your own goals you really don't belong.

Content for KSP should fit the idea of a sandbox game because it is one.

[Majorjim!]

An Auto pilot system that can follow waypoints at a constant speed would be ace. 

[tater]

1 minute ago, regex said:

Tailor-made content intended to surprise or inform the user will never provide (literally) years of gameplay (in my case). It will always get old and it will end up being just as "grindy".

That's the nature of a sandbox game; if you're not prepared to set your own goals you really don't belong.

Content for KSP should fit the idea of a sandbox game because it is one.

It's not the nature of a sandbox game at all, IMHO, it's the nature of this sandbox game because of the insistence on a "shared experience."

I don't play Minecraft much---maybe a few hours every time there is a big update---because it's sorta boring, though I actually like building stuff (I only play survival). Most importantly, I like building stuff in the context of the local world. I tend to try and protect/increase the villagers by making them larger towns, adding walls, etc., until they are rather huge sometimes. I have made more complex temples, etc, as well (some quite huge)... I then let my kids have the world to poke around in. Guess what, I like just riding around (walking is too slow, lol), looking for cool sites to build stuff. If every, single time I started Minecraft I was in the same seed, I'd not even go back and replay it even the few hours I have in the last couple years, without novel worlds to explore, it would be too boring to bother.

Interesting planetary surfaces, plus the feeling of actual exploration would make me more interested in looking around.

[regex]

12 minutes ago, tater said:

It's not the nature of a sandbox game at all, IMHO, it's the nature of this sandbox game because of the insistence on a "shared experience."

My statement had nothing to do with the "shared experience".

12 minutes ago, tater said:

Interesting planetary surfaces, plus the feeling of actual exploration would make me more interested in looking around.

There's a reason planet packs and total conversions are quite popular around here.

[Corona688]

30 minutes ago, regex said:

Tailor-made content intended to surprise or inform the user will never provide (literally) years of gameplay (in my case). It will always get old and it will end up being just as "grindy".

True.

Quote

That's the nature of a sandbox game; if you're not prepared to set your own goals you really don't belong.

Yes and no.  Sandbox games generally include large amounts of randomly generated features which you can interact with and shape to your own uses.  That's the "sand" part.

The only interactive environmental features in KSP are asteroids, everything else is static.  More of a "concrete floor" than "sand box".

It could become a sandbox, but I don't think it is one just yet, not quite.

Quote

Content for KSP should fit the idea of a sandbox game because it is one.

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by Corona688