Limiting Biome Science output

[Tau137]

Here is a feature request that should have been implemented already a long time ago:  science experiments should not give full science if similar results have already been obtained from another biome on the same planetary body.

1. First science report (specific to instrument) should give full science return, as it is now.

2. Any subsequent science experiment (specific to instrument) from the same body but different biome should only give ~1/2 of science return (i.e., C*2^(-N) outcome, where N is number of biomes already explored prior with this particular experiment). 

This does not require much change - even if keeping track of "science values" could be tricky, post-factum processing is easy ("you received only 1/8 science from gravity scan of surface of Mun Midland Craters, as it does not bring as much new information compared to the gravity scan results your have already obtained on this planet).

This change will curtail the desire to grind science on easily accessible bodies and will subtly force player to explore further, providing a lot more depth and challenge to tech progression (btw, it is not about "hardcore challenge", it is about keeping the player's interest in exploration and not routine/boring/repetitive missions).

Please consider this, as it is a major factor in player's enjoyment of continually exploring the game, as opposed to boredom of continually doing the same thing over and over again (the latter is more cost-effective in the current implementation, and that is a problem).

P.S.  Mods!????  Please?  Pretty please?

P.P.S.  This needs more consideration for surface/flying/low/high/space/etc. biomes, but it should not be difficult to come up with a proper formula (in the first approach, altitude-related biome variations can just be considered separated - i.e., gravirty scans on surface in various biomes are treated independently of gravity scan while in space over the same biomes.  That is not perfect but is already quite good.... and simple).

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Tau137

[Wjolcz]

Well, how about this: instead of limiting the science points output per body, make the science experiments generate reputation instead (+disconnect tech research from science and make it money-dependable instead) and improve the contracts system, because the current one is crap.

Missions and their [scientific/commercial] objectives should be the reason to explore, not science points.

Besides, I think it would be best if we could pick what kind of resource we want to use to unlock the tree with. I really don't want to grind for science in order to unlock new tech. I've done that before and it is not fun. I wish I could decide whether I want to fully focus on commercial or scientific objectives. Right now you can't easily progress by doing tourist, or any other commercial contracts only, because science points is what you NEED to progress. Not only it kills the sandbox feel of the game but is also bad gameplay design.

[Gilph]

Hi, sorry but I do not agree.

There are better ways to nerf science accumulation.  Logically, I think it's fine that you get full credit per biome per body. Temperature readings from Highlands and Lowlands on a given body should be different, and it's OK to get full credit for both. The thing about Science that is way OP is the MPL, as you get full points for an experiment per MPL.  Why repeat full points for an experiment just because a different MPL processed it? I'd rather see that eliminated and have MPL functionality similar to the Spectrometron in Station Science.  Schlep the experiment back to Kerbin? 100%. Analyze in a MPL? 80% Wimp out and just transmit data? 30%.  It makes science points finite again and gives credit for processing in an actual lab, whether it's on Kerbin or a portable one you brought.

But, I do agree that the whole surface/flying/low/high/space/etc thing can use some work.

 

[Pthigrivi]

Well if your intent is to reduce grind (a worthy goal) Im not sure if this gets you there. I do agree with you on #1. Actually that's not how it works now, you get most of the science for returning the first sample but you actually don't get all of it, requiring a player to repeat experiments on the surface, which is kind of silly. Really a returned sample should be worth 100% full stop. In fact if it was that way you could clean up the science UI because all you'd need to show one bar showing the transmitted vs recovered value. 1.2 does a lot to reduce grind because you can now put the Science container on an action group and your experiments on another and do almost all your science with 2 buttons. It could still use more work though and I quite agree with Gilph on the MPL mechanic.

#2 is interesting because in practice it actually has the opposite effect in practice than what you're hoping for. Early on in career development things followed a similar diminishing returns kind of system and all it really did was require players to repeat those tasks even more. If right now you can unlock the nodes you need to go to Duna for instance with 2 biome hops, in your version a player could do 8 biome hops and still not get there. 

I agree there's still something missing to the science experience and the repetition is still not quite squeezed out. To me its more about changing the way the experiments themselves work than drastically reducing payouts. 

[KerbMav]

13 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Besides, I think it would be best if we could pick what kind of resource we want to use to unlock the tree with. I really don't want to grind for science in order to unlock new tech. I've done that before and it is not fun. I wish I could decide whether I want to fully focus on commercial or scientific objectives. Right now you can't easily progress by doing tourist, or any other commercial contracts only, because science points is what you NEED to progress. Not only it kills the sandbox feel of the game but is also bad gameplay design.

The strategies give you the option of exchanging the three currencies for one another.

[Tau137]

15 hours ago, Gilph said:

Hi, sorry but I do not agree.

There are better ways to nerf science accumulation.  Logically, I think it's fine that you get full credit per biome per body. Temperature readings from Highlands and Lowlands on a given body should be different, and it's OK to get full credit for both.

Sorry, but I disagree.  What you described are easier ways, not better ones.  We do not need dumb nerf (I can do that in the options menu already, and it only makes the game more tedious), we need incentives for exploration vs. grind.  Please see below.

12 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Well if your intent is to reduce grind (a worthy goal) Im not sure if this gets you there. I do agree with you on #1. Actually that's not how it works now, you get most of the science for returning the first sample but you actually don't get all of it, requiring a player to repeat experiments on the surface, which is kind of silly. Really a returned sample should be worth 100% full stop. In fact if it was that way you could clean up the science UI because all you'd need to show one bar showing the transmitted vs recovered value. 1.2 does a lot to reduce grind because you can now put the Science container on an action group and your experiments on another and do almost all your science with 2 buttons. It could still use more work though and I quite agree with Gilph on the MPL mechanic.

#2 is interesting because in practice it actually has the opposite effect in practice than what you're hoping for. Early on in career development things followed a similar diminishing returns kind of system and all it really did was require players to repeat those tasks even more. If right now you can unlock the nodes you need to go to Duna for instance with 2 biome hops, in your version a player could do 8 biome hops and still not get there. 

I agree there's still something missing to the science experience and the repetition is still not quite squeezed out. To me its more about changing the way the experiments themselves work than drastically reducing payouts. 

I think you are missing the point.

1. Science cannot be "worth X amount, full stop" - it is a process of discovery, it is dynamic, and you cannot expect to gain knowledge sufficient to construct a fusion reactor by visually examining your **** ten thousand times (even if, similarity to performing the same science experiment in different biomes, you visually examine ****s of ten thousand other people, that will still not be sufficient).

2. The idea is to subtly force discovery and exploration by limiting the maximum amount of "science" (aka XP) available on each body, otherwise most sane players will opt for the easier route (which is to grind Mun and Minmus for 100% tech tree)...  I felt into this trap myself quite a few times - why should I launch this crappy and heavy probe to Dune when I can run a couple more missions to the Mun, and get enough science to construct something with an LVN engine...

 

The actual limits are up to a debate or can be made an option (1/2 will give the maximum x2 initial science (seems reasonable), 3/4 will limit grind to x4 (for players affected by low math and physics scores, as well as other space-faring disabilities), etc.) but there must be a limit, otherwise grind wins (it is easier and more efficient).  And afterwards, will the player really want to utilize all this advanced technology to go to (and may be even return from) Dres, after doing exact same thing about 20 times already on the Mun?

 

P.S.  Just in case you don't remember: KSP got Science way before biomes were introduced, and even back then the career mode was DOABLE and FUN.

 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Tau137

[Wjolcz]

5 hours ago, KerbMav said:

The strategies give you the option of exchanging the three currencies for one another.

They do. But that's not what I want.

EDIT: OK, so I really start to sound like one of these annoying customers that call me during my work, so let me elaborate:

What I would like to see in the career mode is no science points. I really don't like the fact that you have to deal with them. What I would like to do is to progress with money and reputation only through the tech tree. The current career is "designed" to force the player to gather science points sooner or later, simply because money is insufficient in the early stages of the career, thus rendering the money-to-science "strategy" useless.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Veeltch

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, Tau137 said:

1. Science cannot be "worth X amount, full stop" - it is a process of discovery, it is dynamic, and you cannot expect to gain knowledge sufficient to construct a fusion reactor by visually examining your **** ten thousand times (even if, similarity to performing the same science experiment in different biomes, you visually examine ****s of ten thousand other people, that will still not be sufficient).

What Im saying is within the confines of the game returning a piece of data should max out that experiment in that biome so players don't feel like they need to repeat that experiment while sitting on the surface to get the full amount. That could reduce the experienced level of grind (repeated tasks) by half.

 

1 hour ago, Tau137 said:

2. The idea is to subtly force discovery and exploration by limiting the maximum amount of "science" (aka XP) available on each body, otherwise most sane players will opt for the easier route (which is to grind Mun and Minmus for 100% tech tree)...  I felt into this trap myself quite a few times - why should I launch this crappy and heavy probe to Dune when I can run a couple more missions to the Mun, and get enough science to construct something with an LVN engine...

What Im saying is reducing the value of that data actually makes the grind problem worse, not better. Players will still do repeat missions to the Mun instead of going to Duna to get the parts they think they'll need, they'll just have to do more of them. There are definitely good ways to reduce grind and encourage players to explore farther, I just don't think this is one of them. 

 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Gilph]

I think the ideas are all agreeable: reducing grind and removing some of the easy and OP portions of science accumulation. But it has to be appealing to all players.

The methods described in the OP assumes that everybody wants to go interstellar, and forces them to do so to progress.  I recently read the thread that discussed that a fair amount of players never leave the Kerbin system. Their sense of exploration is limited to the three bodies, whether they prefer to explore Kerbin with SSTOs, build bases on a moderate grav body like Mun, or enable ISRU activities on a low grav body like Minmus. The contracts that give funds and science to travel to specific locations and biomes satisfies their desire for discovery and exploration just fine. Plus, it provides a progression path that a game requires to keep the player interested. The reason why you chose to locally grind some extra science locally instead of creating the Duna science trip is that you chose to do so.  I recently started a second career game, and I am choosing to get more Duna science points than grinding Kerbin biomes.

I'm still not a fan of the original proposal, although having a sort of world first science bonus would be a good idea.  Obviously, the more places you go, the more you should get. But, if you want the nuke for your Mun tug, or an ion for your Minmus lander, there should be a way to get it. Going far away is only one way to explore, and distance is not always harder or more valuable.

[Tau137]

On 9/29/2016 at 5:12 AM, Pthigrivi said:

What Im saying is reducing the value of that data actually makes the grind problem worse, not better. Players will still do repeat missions to the Mun instead of going to Duna to get the parts they think they'll need, they'll just have to do more of them. There are definitely good ways to reduce grind and encourage players to explore farther, I just don't think this is one of them. 

First experiment - full data; subsequent experiments (same body but different biome) - diminished gains.   And quite quickly the next Mun landing will bring too few science points for the price (and play time) of sending it there, and mounting a Duna expedition instead will become a more cost-efficient proposition.

So, NO "scalar reduction is science gains"  -  either limit subsequent science gains (more fun, some grind still possible is needed), or make a hard cap on total science from a body (less preferable - less flexibility, less fun).

Science labs present another exploit, but that is a subject for a different topic.

On 9/29/2016 at 7:24 AM, Gilph said:

I think the ideas are all agreeable: reducing grind and removing some of the easy and OP portions of science accumulation. But it has to be appealing to all players.

....

I'm still not a fan of the original proposal, although having a sort of world first science bonus would be a good idea.  Obviously, the more places you go, the more you should get. But, if you want the nuke for your Mun tug, or an ion for your Minmus lander, there should be a way to get it. Going far away is only one way to explore, and distance is not always harder or more valuable.

All opinions are welcome.  The original proposal was, it short, to limit science gain from grind (repeating the same mission in different locations), while NOT limiting science gain from exploration (full data from new worlds, limited data from new biomes from worlds already explored).

If someone wants to send first Mun lander with NERVA engines, there could be several options still:

1. Play Sandbox (no limits, do whatever you want);

2. Tweak settings, enable/disable limited science gains as an option (what would be the point though, compared to #1 above?)

3.  Grind... perhaps not enough to get Warp Drive, but, if thorough enough, enough to get NERVA.  And the whole point is to make this latter option possible yet totally unattractive from cost (if playing career) and time (if playing science or career) perspectives.

 

My proposal does not totally eliminate grind, it just makes it INEFFICIENT, and as it stands now the grind is extremely efficient - you can get full science from just Mun and Minmus, even without abusing Science Labs... it is efficient even with CTT.  Am not the one to push for obligatory "hardcore gameplay", but effectively funneling players towards grind is NOT COOL, and is not fun - no matter if it is for an experienced player or a new recruit (there is just no incentive to explore, it is easier to grind and then... switch to the f-ing sandbox!  And then realize (surprise!) that there is nothing really new to discover, just different flavors of the same cake.  Or, one can just watch Scott's or another Youtube channel instead of playing the game... Developers, please consider this!)

Edited October 10, 2016 by Tau137

[Wjolcz]

Oh, hello there. It's this thread again. And it's surfaced again. Excellent.

This whole arugment wouldn't exist if only devs were thinking when implementing the career mode. Your proposition seems to be "Give less science per body". Except that will make things worse and the dev time will be wasted again. Why? Because if the science is too low people just tweak the settings to get more of it and we're stuck in the vicious circle again. And you could just lower the science output each update and people will crank the output back up again and so on, and so on. Until the max output you can set is 1% for science rewards.

How to change this abomination of a mode in 2 easy steps:

1. Find Vanamonde's thread about game modes ("Do we really need game modes?").

2. Support the idea.

More freedom is always better than tweaks. It's like putting someone in a cage and then reducing the amount of bars, but thickening the ones that are left because your cell mate requested that, or the other way around. Just let everyone create their own game modes.

Kind of a poor metaphore, but eh. You get the point.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Veeltch

[StahnAileron]

I had a much longer post going, but it turned into a rant about KSP as a game, so I stopped.

Suffice to say I gave up on KSP as a game when it comes to Career mode. I just crank the science multiplier to 10x to get around that (poor) mechanic so I can focus on contracts and my own endeavors.

Science in KSP is completely broken and pointless with a fixed solar system every time you play. Astronomy and geo sciences should not drive technological progress (at least not as the scale KSP has it, which is basically 100%). If anything, I'd rather tech research be money-driven and upgrades to that tech being science driven. (Still kinda dumb, but makes more sense than a dirt sample somehow giving you access to aerospace expertise.)

Exploration needs variety or it gets stale quick. KSP could use procedurally generated content. (I'm tempted to say it needs it for gameplay longevity, or else the exploration and discovery aspect of KSP loses it's worth, which is where half of the charm of KSP lies. I hate saying a game needs something rather that saying I want it to have something.)

Hmm... Longer than I thought, but still shorter than my first attempt.

[Tau137]

1 hour ago, StahnAileron said:

I had a much longer post going, but it turned into a rant about KSP as a game, so I stopped.

Suffice to say I gave up on KSP as a game when it comes to Career mode. I just crank the science multiplier to 10x to get around that (poor) mechanic so I can focus on contracts and my own endeavors.

Science in KSP is completely broken and pointless ...

Cannot agree more.  And this saddens me greatly.

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Oh, hello there. It's this thread again. And it's surfaced again. Excellent.

(1)This whole arugment wouldn't exist if only devs were thinking when implementing the career mode. Your proposition seems to be "Give less science per body". (2) Except that will make things worse and the dev time will be wasted again. Why? Because if the science is too low people just tweak the settings to get more of it and we're stuck in the vicious circle again. (3) And you could just lower the science output each update and people will crank the output back up again and so on, and so on. Until the max output you can set is 1% for science rewards.

(4) How to change this abomination of a mode in 2 easy steps:...

(5) More freedom is always better than tweaks. ...

(1). Most certainly, it appears that the developers are too busy thinking of other things.

(2). No and no - it will not not make things worse (as those not wanting to play proper science/career will crank things up or switch to sandbox anyway), and developers' time just might be spend on engaging more people into playing the game for longer without being encouraged to do repetitive tasks, while instead being guided to do something new every time.

(3). It seems like you are missing the whole point of regressive science gains.  It is not scalar, it is geometric (or logarithmic, depending on how you look at it).  Do the math.

(4). Thank you, I will check it out (have not yet)

(5). I am not trying to take anyone's freedoms away, I am trying to encourage developers to implement a meaningful, grind-free (unless you REALLY want or have to grind) career-game progression.

 

Edited October 10, 2016 by Tau137

[StahnAileron]

@Tau137@Veeltch: Addressing both at once since nested quotes on reply by default isn't a thing here... Mostly agreeing with Veeltch:

1. As I understand it, Career wasn't even a thing and seems to have been more about pressure from the community. So yes, the KSP devs weren't thinking of career when it was implemented... Because I don't think they were thinking of implementing anything like it at the time (if ever at all...) KSP's original 1.0 release felt very much like a "DON'T CARE; GET IT OUT NOW!" moment considering performance, buggy-ness, etc. It felt like either the devs felt pressure from either the investors to get a product out or from the community. Remember, KSP had been in development for a long time (about 5 years at 1.0 release, I believe?) Someone wanted their money's worth, being it the employers or the consumers... So yeah, career = half-baked idea, to put it kindly.
2. A gameplay mechanic is broken if players regularly use an in-built option to help bypass or mitigate it. Even if a change doesn't make it worse, if it doesn't solve the problem, there's no improvement. No improvement can be just as bad is making it worse (or, uh, worse: at least making something worse is a sign they're willing to make changes. Keeping it the same means they aren't listening, don't care, or think there is no issue. Consumers are a finicky bunch and will view things in ways that'll serve their need first and foremost. Remember, humans are selfish.) So any changes that don't (attempt to) improve the system is a waste of effort.
3. Doesn't matter: if you lower gains, it just makes the grind that much more irritating. It's irritating now, even with a 10x boost, because Science is tied to tech, which limits progression. Regressive Science gains just makes people use the science multiplier more in the long run. We establish this as already broken.
4. Outside reading (and I think I may have posted there already...), so skip.
5. Trying to tweak a broken system is a futile attempt that just leads to misery for everyone. You either revamp the system completely or just toss it out and try something new. You can't make lemons into lemonade if what you started with was a turd. (I thought of using the turd/diamond metaphor, but I think that's been over-used...) More freedom would entail a better system/mechanic, not adjusting the current broken one.

And that's it... Probably misconstrued something along the way. If something seems off, let me know.

[Tau137]

3 hours ago, StahnAileron said:

@Tau137@Veeltch: Addressing both at once since nested quotes on reply by default isn't a thing here... Mostly agreeing with Veeltch:

1. As I understand it, Career wasn't even a thing and seems to have been more about pressure from the community.
2. A gameplay mechanic is broken if players regularly use an in-built option to help bypass or mitigate it. .... So any changes that don't (attempt to) improve the system is a waste of effort.
3. Doesn't matter: if you lower gains, it just makes the grind that much more irritating. It's irritating now, even with a 10x boost, because Science is tied to tech, which limits progression. Regressive Science gains just makes people use the science multiplier more in the long run. We establish this as already broken.
4. ...
5. Trying to tweak a broken system is a futile attempt that just leads to misery for everyone. You either revamp the system completely or just toss it out and try something new. You can't make lemons into lemonade if what you started with was a turd. (I thought of using the turd/diamond metaphor, but I think that's been over-used...) More freedom would entail a better system/mechanic, not adjusting the current broken one.

And that's it... Probably misconstrued something along the way. If something seems off, let me know.

1. Perhaps, but that is not the point. BTW, I was with KSP since release, too, and went through no science to science but no biomes (loved it, btw, as it gave just about the right balance for science progression), to current iterations (cool but utterly useless and game-breaking).

2. It is not a waste of effort - all the mechanics are there already and are working, it is just the balance that is screwed.  Tweaking that will be a minimal effort with major results.

3.  You are still not getting the math.  My idea is that you can get full science from the first experiment, but any subsequent biomes will give you only 1/2 or 3/4 of the first result in terms of science gain (e.g.: first surface sample - 100; second surface sample on the same planet but from a different biome - 50, from a third biome - 25, etc)  That means that you will not be able to get more than x2 (with 1/2 multiplier) or x4 (with 3/4) no matter how much you grind a particular planet, and results are diminishing with every mission (as opposed to current constant and reliable totals of x9 for Minmus and x15 for Mun).  Grind will become inefficient very quickly, and the player will be forced to try extraplanetray expeditions instead of being assured that the next technology level lies just behind yet another Mun landing (boooooring... first time is exciting, second time is ok, third time is a routine, forth time... "no, thanks", unless it is an anomaly or a surface base mission).

People who want to use science multiplier can always do so... or just play sandbox.  This change would not affect this category of players.

4 ("Why do we need game modes"): Absolutely irrelevant to the subject being discussed here.

5. We already have a system (however broken) in place.  What are the chances that it will suddenly be scrapped and replaced with a totally new, "better" one?  I'd say just about ZERO, especially considering that it is obviously not a priority for developers at the moment.  On the other hand, tweaking the existing system (minimal effort, see above) to satisfy a certain (non-negligible) subset of players while not affecting the others, and yet potentially driving up the interest and retention of players (including new/casual, KSP fans/oldfags liker myself, and those coming from the EDU branch) is a totally different story, IMHO, with significantly higher chance of ever seeing the light of day.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Tau137