Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

[natsirt721]

Over the years, there have been many airings of grievance regarding the science system in career mode.  With this poll, I hope to collect a sample (albeit a limited one) of the community's misgivings with the way the science system functions.  With this data, I and/or others may attempt to pose a satisfying solution either to be created by the modding community or posed to the development team as a stock mechanic rework.   

This poll was created based on my own experience with career KSP and about two hours of googling.  If you think I have left out a grievance leave a comment, and I'll add it to the poll.

Edit 10/25: Adding 'things are fine' and 'other' options.

Edited October 25, 2018 by natsirt721

[Nightside]

I think the main issue with science points is the disconnect between how they are acquired and what they are used for. Science points are (primarily) gained by exploration, and spent on Research and Development (access to new parts).

This logical disconnect chafes like a grain of regolith in a moonsuit. I think that tech advances are driven by the desire to visit a new environment rather than as a reward for having achieved a destination (with the possible exception of discovering a million-ton asteroid made of rare-earth metals or semiconductors).

Of coarse it is the game designers prerogative to "gamify" any particular thing in their game, but here they missed the mark a bit I think. Because this game provides one of the most realistic physics simulations out there, things that defy that realism are more noticeable. 

[DerekL1963]

There's a couple of those "grievances" are not organic to the stock science system, but rather are a direct result ofgame play choices.

"There is too much science available in the Kerbin system, reducing the incentive to explore beyond."  This is true of people who grind their way through all the science in the Kerbin System.  But grinding all that science is boring, and I do not understand why people do it and them blame the game for their choices.  I usually head outward as soon as I have a chance.  (With clever design and careful play, you can hit Duna pretty early on.)  But on the flip side, having all that science available means that folks who want to fly planes, etc... don't have to leave the Kerbin system.  Stay or go, the choice is up to player.

"Mobile Processing Labs make gathering science too easy." Then don't use them.  (duh)  The great and deep beauty in KSP is that it allows so many choices.  I've topped out the tech tree without using the MPL and didn't find it that difficult.  (The trick here is Jool and it's moons...)

"The tech tree is restrictive and prevent me from developing my program in the direction I want."  I have mixed feeling on this...  Yes, in some ways the tree is badly designed.  (Some of that bad design is the fault of bad system coughCommNetcough design though.  On the other hand, no matter how the tree is designed the player is going to have to make choices as to where and when to spend his points.  There's no stock tree that's going to satisfy everyone.

If the tech tree does have a problem, it's that the early game is so restricted - you're kinda forced (at least a little bit) into strip mining Kerbin, the Mun, and Minmus for science.  But you don't have to strip mine it all (not even remotely) to go interplanetary and really start scoring the science points.  (Or you can do as I do...  I wrote a MM patch that moves enough equipment down to the start node that I don't have to strip mine/grind.)
 

1 hour ago, natsirt721 said:

With this data, I and/or others may attempt to pose a satisfying solution either to be created by the modding community or posed to the development team as a stock mechanic rework. 

I have to ask - satisfying to who?  There's a myriad of play styles out there, and there's not going to be any one solution.  As I said above, the problem isn't as simple as "the system is borked beyond belief".  With a modest MM patch to move some items around, the stock tree works for me and my play style.  But if my tree were going to be standard, there would be people who would complain that it doesn't match their preferred play style.


 

[natsirt721]

48 minutes ago, Nightside said:

I think the main issue with science points is the disconnect between how they are acquired and what they are used for. Science points are (primarily) gained by exploration, and spent on Research and Development (access to new parts).

That is an interesting observation.  The implication with the stock cycle is new parts -> more accessible locations -> mission -> science returns & research-> new parts etc. The problem is that the cycle is that the following usually occurs: mission start -> new place -> science & research -> mission end, new parts, wait for a while for the next mission.  It looks like the disconnect is that between missions, nothing is actually being accomplished - the only way to progress is by perpetuating the cycle and constantly doing missions.  This to me implies that some sort of science over time mechanic (based on your achievements) is necessary to make it seem like the time between missions is actually worth something.

@DerekL1963 Those are some good points, and I agree wholeheartedly with your comments w.r.t the poll options - the beauty of this game is that you can play it how you want.  However, more than any other 'problem' (perceived or real) with KSP, this one seems to be the the most ubiquitous and the easiest to implement a fix for.

This isn't a poll about 'what do I do to make the game fun for me', it's a poll about 'what is fun/not fun out of the box'.  The issue I see is that the career mode in its default state is both a) restrictive for new players with little knowledge of space mechanics but want a sense of direction in their gameplay and b) not challenging enough for veteran players without self-imposed restrictions.  This to me is the exact opposite of how a 'career' mode should operate - it should provide a challenging experience for players across the board, and meddling with science/cash/rep multipliers seems like a quick and dirty solution on the devs' part.  Some tweaking is of course necessary - I don't expect a one-size fits-all solution to single-handedly revitalize career mode - but the current distinctions between easy and hard are almost negligible.  Maybe hard mode should ship with a 30% science multiplier, I don't know.  Either way, thank you for the feedback.

[HebaruSan]

2 hours ago, natsirt721 said:

If you think I have left out a grievance leave a comment, and I'll add it to the poll.

The UI for running the experiments and managing data is very poor. Right click a tiny cube that may be moving, select an option from a cluttered menu, get a popup, click a disk icon. Repeat 5 more times. EVA your scientist, click Take Data, accept the warning yet again, click Restore. Repeat, then do the ones that don't require restoration, right click Kerbal for EVA report and sometimes a surface sample, return to cockpit. Review them again to transmit a few.

Toward the end of a recent mission I had over 60 science reports in my capsule, and the only way to interact with them is to open the popup again and click through them one at a time. If you gather a new EVA report and want to transmit it, you might end up having to click the save icon dozens of times. And if you want to transfer some of the data to another craft, you can only do it all at once because there's no way to grab only certain reports out of a capsule.

Even if you have the foresight to make an action group to run all your experiments, you still suffer from the problem of the popup only showing one at a time, so you still have to click the save icon 5 or 6 times to get through it. The science container can help some, but doesn't eliminate the EVA step because you still need to Restore two of the experiments.

All of this could be far more pleasant to deal with. A UI that can list multiple science reports, options to auto-gather or auto-transmit or auto-collect, allow scientists to Restore without EVA, auto-restore in place of the warning about taking data when a scientists is doing it, etc. A stock alert for when to run experiments would be nice as well; it's not much fun to run an experiment and then find out you already have it.

Edited October 23, 2018 by HebaruSan

[natsirt721]

4 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

<snip>

Great feedback, adding to poll

[Superfluous J]

IMO the main problem with science is that you have to do it. You should just get it for taking the experiments to locations. I discovered this problem on my very first trip ever to Eeloo. I realized, after the flyby was well over, that I'd totally missed it because I was right clicking little doodads on my ship.

[klgraham1013]

4 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

IMO the main problem with science is that you have to do it. You should just get it for taking the experiments to locations. I discovered this problem on my very first trip ever to Eeloo. I realized, after the flyby was well over, that I'd totally missed it because I was right clicking little doodads on my ship.

That automated science sampler mod is a god send.

[natsirt721]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

IMO the main problem with science is that you have to do it. You should just get it for taking the experiments to locations.

This would imply a passive science gathering method?  What about a 'toggle on' at the start of the flyby and a 'toggle off' when you're done, and the actual collection is automated? I hesitate to endorse a totally passive system but I agree, the current system has too much micromanagement of sampling for my liking.

Edit: by this, I mean the instrument would have an 'on/off' toggle which would automatically collect science and consume EC while it was on, and create the reports for any science gathered when it was turned off.

Edited October 23, 2018 by natsirt721
clarify

[Superfluous J]

57 minutes ago, natsirt721 said:

This would imply a passive science gathering method?  What about a 'toggle on' at the start of the flyby and a 'toggle off' when you're done, and the actual collection is automated? I hesitate to endorse a totally passive system but I agree, the current system has too much micromanagement of sampling for my liking.

That would be fine, and assuredly better than now. But this is a game about making rocket ships and sending them to different planets. Not right clicking tiny moving objects to click the correct button on their popup menus.

[Xavven]

4 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

The UI for running the experiments and managing data is very poor. Right click a tiny cube that may be moving, select an option from a cluttered menu, get a popup, click a disk icon. Repeat 5 more times. EVA your scientist, click Take Data, accept the warning yet again, click Restore. Repeat, then do the ones that don't require restoration, right click Kerbal for EVA report and sometimes a surface sample, return to cockpit. Review them again to transmit a few.

Toward the end of a recent mission I had over 60 science reports in my capsule, and the only way to interact with them is to open the popup again and click through them one at a time. If you gather a new EVA report and want to transmit it, you might end up having to click the save icon dozens of times. And if you want to transfer some of the data to another craft, you can only do it all at once because there's no way to grab only certain reports out of a capsule.

Even if you have the foresight to make an action group to run all your experiments, you still suffer from the problem of the popup only showing one at a time, so you still have to click the save icon 5 or 6 times to get through it. The science container can help some, but doesn't eliminate the EVA step because you still need to Restore two of the experiments.

All of this could be far more pleasant to deal with. A UI that can list multiple science reports, options to auto-gather or auto-transmit or auto-collect, allow scientists to Restore without EVA, auto-restore in place of the warning about taking data when a scientists is doing it, etc. A stock alert for when to run experiments would be nice as well; it's not much fun to run an experiment and then find out you already have it.

The click-fest is probably the weakest aspect of science as implemented today. For one, it needs is more zaz:

• I'd like to see some animations for kerbals taking surface samples.
• The mystery goo should do more than just open a door -- there should be goo that squeezes out from the holes and freezes or burns up.
• Same with the Science Jr. -- Have some materials in the bay that interact with the environment. The flavor text keeps telling me the materials glow. Well, let's see some glowy stuff!
• The temperature gauge should shoot a visible laser beam that sweeps around. Even though IRL the laser on an IR thermometer doesn't do anything but help the user point the sensor, it satisfies the rule of cool.

The rest of the sensors that are passive, like the atmospheric pressure gauge, gravmax, etc. should automatically collect data, and should be able to store more than one result. Kerbals should be able to store more than one crew report/EVA report. I realize the limitation was probably there for expediency in early development, but now that the game's matured, this ridiculous limitation needs to be fixed.

[Tyko]

I'd like to see more types of experiments but more specialized as to what biomes they work in. A clearly different set of experiments on a lander versus and orbiter for example. I'd also like experiments to take time - orbital experiments could take time in certain altitude bands or require you to scan a certain amount of the planet - kind of like ScanSat. Lander experiments could take several days of measurements forcing you to actually land for more than 10 seconds.

Sample returns should be significantly more valuable and crewed experiments should be as well - this would really drive more complex missions and delay collection of some science points until you had more tech making repeat missions more interesting.

I don't really mind the science point = unlocking parts model. It's very Kerbal - it's simple to understand and allows for a progression from simple to complex rockets. Sure it could be tweaked, but the basic idea is easy. One could imagine many interim steps where the experiment findings are used to bolster financial support in Congress and industry, which is used to fund tech development, which drives advances in science, which results in better parts, but i'm okay with that being glossed over because I really don't want to have to deal with Congress or the military industrial complex.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Tyko

[KerbolExplorer]

The problema i see with science is that it doesnt make sense..(Thanks to this rock from the mountains we can make a nukclear engine!)It does not make sense.Maybe for a new player its easier to learn but for a more experienced player.....Its just boring..

I think scince should be earnd by funds and time.....For example:1000 funds=2/dayI think that makes more sense...

Edited October 23, 2018 by KerbolExplorer
Just why do you wanna know this?

[Tyko]

51 minutes ago, KerbolExplorer said:

The problema i see with science is that it doesnt make sense..(Thanks to this rock from the mountains we can make a nukclear engine!)It does not make sense.Maybe for a new player its easier to learn but for a more experienced player.....Its just boring..

I think scince should be earnd by funds and time.....For example:1000 funds=2/dayI think that makes more sense...

That could work, but what do players get when they explore and run experiments? I think the idea that you have to explore to advance your tech, at the most basic level, is a logical one. I'm just not sure how it gets from "I've explored the Mun" to "I have better engines".

[sturmhauke]

Maybe rather than "get points to spend on tech" it should be "choose which tech to research next and then go earn points for it", like the way Civilization does it. There could also be things like making a surprise discovery with a Duna atmospheric sample, which leads to free points in tech related to landers or spaceplane parts or something.

[natsirt721]

31 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

Maybe rather than "get points to spend on tech" it should be "choose which tech to research next and then go earn points for it", like the way Civilization does it. There could also be things like making a surprise discovery with a Duna atmospheric sample, which leads to free points in tech related to landers or spaceplane parts or something.

This is good for systems where you constantly earn science, but in KSP you mostly get science in chunks whenever your missions reach a new place. I don't really see the difference between 'selecting tech -> earn points -> get tech' and 'earn points -> select tech -> get tech'.  The second part of your comment I like, but in order for it to be implemented I think the science points would have to be divided into classes of experiment with each tech having a number of points from each class.  In this way, you could select which node you want to invest which points in, and also couple exploration more directly with the rewards you recieved.

e.g.: tech nodes with structural pieces would require more points from materials studies or surface samples, whereas tech nodes with aerodynamic components would require more points from atmospheric samples and barometer scans.

 

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, KerbolExplorer said:

The problema i see with science is that it doesnt make sense..

I've never ever had a problem with this. It's a video game. Hitting orcs shouldn't make you able to barter better but the XP gained can be put in that skill in a surprising number of games.

"But, 5th Horseman! That game is fiction and this one is real!"

[sturmhauke]

3 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

I've never ever had a problem with this. It's a video game. Hitting orcs shouldn't make you able to barter better but the XP gained can be put in that skill in a surprising number of games.

"But, 5th Horseman! That game is fiction and this one is real!"

There are other RPG XP systems out there, although usually in the pencil-and-paper realm. I will note that to gain skill points in Elder Scrolls games, you generally have to use that skill more. Hence all the jumping around in Morrowind to boost Acrobatics (which looks ridiculous, but that's a different problem).

59 minutes ago, natsirt721 said:

This is good for systems where you constantly earn science, but in KSP you mostly get science in chunks whenever your missions reach a new place. I don't really see the difference between 'selecting tech -> earn points -> get tech' and 'earn points -> select tech -> get tech'.

The second part of your comment I like, but in order for it to be implemented I think the science points would have to be divided into classes of experiment with each tech having a number of points from each class.  In this way, you could select which node you want to invest which points in, and also couple exploration more directly with the rewards you recieved.

e.g.: tech nodes with structural pieces would require more points from materials studies or surface samples, whereas tech nodes with aerodynamic components would require more points from atmospheric samples and barometer scans.

Maybe instead of the current research lab where you dump random experiments in and get science points out, we could have different types of research labs for different environments (soil, atmo, orbital). Instead of dumping experiments in, you just keep them powered and they generate different kinds of points.

[Superfluous J]

9 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

There are other RPG XP systems out there, although usually in the pencil-and-paper realm. I will note that to gain skill points in Elder Scrolls games, you generally have to use that skill more. Hence all the jumping around in Morrowind to boost Acrobatics (which looks ridiculous, but that's a different problem).

I played around with a "learn by doing" mod in KSP. It never got off the ground mostly because I can't code my way out of a wet paper bag, but also because I could never really convince myself that it was actually any better than what we already have.

[OHara]

28 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

"But, 5th Horseman! That game is fiction and this one is real!"

Something very close to that is the appeal for KSP to me, and I would guess other players for whom KSP is the only interesting computer game.

The exceptions to reality (like planets 10-times too small for their surface gravity and pilots that can take multi-year trips without food) are simple, and leave a set of self-consistent rules that are close to reality in the interesting ways.  The few gratuitously unrealistic parts bother me.   

For a while I rationalized the mechanism, by which collecting surface samples unlocks the next engine, as representing how demonstrating the value of a technology, by doing something impressive with it, draws attention and investment toward improving that technology, and how simply using technology gives the some of the data used to improve it.  I even played with a scheme where I tallied science points to the unlocked technologies, representing how much they have been tested and appreciated, opening next tech in the tree only after the unlocked prerequisite tech had been used to earn its own cost in science.

Now I ignore science.  I get it if convenient, cheat it if I want the next tech for my career mode game but I don't have the science yet.

Edited October 23, 2018 by OHara

[sturmhauke]

1 minute ago, OHara said:

Now I ignore science.  I get it if convenient, cheat it if I want the next tech for my career mode game but I don't have the science yet.

I've kind of abandoned my career save. I still have it, but there are a couple nodes I haven't bothered to unlock yet. In that game I actually never got to any bodies past Kerbin SOI, although I do have a solar orbit rescue in progress and a probe waiting for its Duna transfer window.

Instead, I've mostly been playing in sandbox and collecting all these sweet badges.

[Chel]

I like Science because it adds a challenge. You actually have to go to other biomes and planetary bodies, collect it, and either transmit or return to Kerbin with it to continue your space program. There's a great deal of progression and forward thinking involved with it.

[Francois424]

Here's my take on how to fix gathering science in current KSP.

The points are okay on Kerbin, and there are many biomes.  Then you get to Mün and right there the problem starts.  If you go to Minmus it's even worse and it gets progressively worse as you explore the Kerbol System.
IMHO the multipliers are just too high.  Kerbin has 0.3x for landed on a surface biome.  Minmus has 5x (over 15 times as much).  And it gets far worse.
Restricting science gains thru the game difficulty menu is flawed.  As it reduces science from Kerbin as well, meaning it's an absolute grind to get off the ground, so to speak.

How to fix it ?  Remove the multipliers (or bring them in line with Kerbin, or as a middle ground, set them to 1x/1.5x).  Kerbin is unchanged, Mün and Minmus are quickly fixed, and the same goes for the rest of the Kerbol System.
So no matter what world you go to, you always get roughly the same multipliers for science (ie: between 8 and... 15? per experiment. It's been a while since I've done science around Kerbin, my numbers might be off)
I don't know, but that should be an option for the core game as it's a better difficulty setting than the existing one.
There's always the OP Mobile processing lab if you get tired and prefer to get a nice shortcut.

My 2 cents.  I would mod it but I'm as lazy as it comes.
Other than that I really like the way it's done, and it's worth it to do other trips as you unlock better experiments.

[Superfluous J]

Actually thinking along those lines, I recall the last time I didn't think the science available was way too much, was back when there were no biomes. One shot per planet per experiment.

Same with me modding it. I would if I could bother but ... well I can't

[KerbolExplorer]

9 hours ago, Tyko said:

That could work, but what do players get when they explore and run experiments? I think the idea that you have to explore to advance your tech, at the most basic level, is a logical one. I'm just not sure how it gets from "I've explored the Mun" to "I have better engines".

You get  from exploring and maybe some perks.Maybe if you find an anomaly you get a small  bonus or the max number of science points you can get in one day is increased