Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

[Xurkitree]

One of the biggest gripes is that the stock experiment readouts are too generic most of the time.

[natsirt721]

9 hours ago, Francois424 said:

Remove the multipliers (or bring them in line with Kerbin, or as a middle ground, set them to 1x/1.5x).

Something to keep in mind is that experiments have a hard cap on their maximum return. E.g. the goo has a base science of 10, but a max science of only 13.  On Kerbin (0.3x) this yields 3 science, but on Minmus (5x) this only yields 13 (caveat: since reading the wiki article I have not tested this).  The largest base:max ratio seems to be the IR telescope at 1.43x. The fact that these large integer multipliers exist, yet don't seem to have significant impact is another example of poor design.

[Xurkitree]

One can recover them for their maximum value, which can strech all the way up to 300+ for high value experiments.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

I'd love to see the science be more like science, many of the instruments give specific data already, I'd like to see more proper data collection happening as opposed to simply running an experiment once. Eg. something like graphotron, or some long term science experiments. It'd be cool to be able to see the results as well, people could compare their research.

[Mr. Peabody]

I run the Caveman challenge. There is NOTHING that I want changed with the stock science system.

On ‎10‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 7:34 PM, DerekL1963 said:

"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.

I have only one emoji for this. 

[DerekL1963]

23 minutes ago, The Dunatian said:

I have only one emoji for this. 

It would be nice if you explained why rather than indulging in a drive by...

[Cassel]

Now we have learning points just like the experience in Diablo-like games, no matter with what weapon you're fighting, it's the pool of points from which you then buy new skills for what you want.
I would suggest a different solution. Learning points should be assigned to each part separately. So if you want to unlock a more advanced wing, you have to fly a lot with planes with primitive wings.
If you want to unlock an advanced rocket engine, you have to use a lot of available rocket engines.
The parts would still be arranged in the form of a tree, but to unlock new higher node (each node would be a new part), you have to use the earlier parts from this branch many times.
Such a solution could be combined with the atmosphere, vacuum, biomes and depending on where you use the vehicle, such elements of the tree gain learning points. An example a wing and jet engines will not earn points in a vacuum.

[Mr. Peabody]

9 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

It would be nice if you explained why rather than indulging in a drive by...

Commnet badly designed? Early game restrictive? Adding equipment to the start node?!!

No offense meant but have you ever played career in any difficulty other than easy or normal?

[DerekL1963]

8 minutes ago, The Dunatian said:

Commnet badly designed? Early game restrictive? Adding equipment to the start node?!!

No offense meant but have you ever played career in any difficulty other than easy or normal?

Well, the best reply I can give is the same one I've already posted - it would be nice if you would explain what you meant instead of just indulging in a drive by (with bonus personal aspersions).  We're trying to have a discussion here, and drive-by's aren't very useful.  If your problems are with my particular playstyle, that's actually not very useful either.

As far as game modes go, that's why I pointed out in my original reply that there's not going to be a "one-size-fits-all" solution.  That's simply not possible.  As any number of games have discovered, easy for beginners boring for veterans.  Interesting for veterans, too hard for beginners.

[MajorTomtom]

A good way to change it would be, in my opinion, to have a "science point per day" revenue based on your reputation (to make reputation useful) and your R&D center size + strategies that could allow to spend money for science etc.

Next to this stable revenue, you would have science rewards with contracts inspired from real life space science. I'm not talking about boring and overly difficult contracts such as "fly at 100 m/s at 50 km above 3 points that have nothing in common and test a ladder and run a goo", I'm thinking of contracts such as "land at that point, run that experiment", "land a rover and drive XX meters with that experiment on board" etc. It's mostly the same contracts but made easier and with less crazy conditions that are not that fun.

The science gathering could be made more interesting by providing more info when you "run your experiment". For example, you could imagine that a thermometer could be turned on prior to a landing and that you would collect data once on the ground and get a nice little temperature vs altitude chart, or pressure vs altitude etc. You could also, by taking enough measurements, have a 3D view of the magnetic field of planets on the map view etc. This mechanic doesn't change the game that much but makes it more enjoyable on the science side, as I'm sure a lot of us wonder sometime "how hot is Jool, how is the gravity field around pol etc"

A final touch is to add more science experiments (such as Dmagical science mod that is a must have in my opinion) and scrap the "send back" coefficient that lowers your reward when it doesn't make sense (for example : temperature readout)

[natsirt721]

The problem with pure science per day is that there is nothing stopping one from setting time warp at max and going out for dinner.  You should still have to work for the science.

[Kernel Kraken]

My problem? Shouldn't I have wheels and wings/ plane parts well before I have rocket parts? What on Earth. Some early contracts are kind of stupid too. I cannot gather enough science at the start to get around Kerbin to gather the science it self- not to mention the funds required to upgrade stuff.

Or mabye I just suck as sciencing.

 

[klgraham1013]

32 minutes ago, natsirt721 said:

The problem with pure science per day is that there is nothing stopping one from setting time warp at max and going out for dinner.  You should still have to work for the science.

Decay of rewards over time if your space program is stagnant. 

[Mr. Peabody]

55 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Well, the best reply I can give is the same one I've already posted - it would be nice if you would explain what you meant instead of just indulging in a drive by (with bonus personal aspersions).  We're trying to have a discussion here, and drive-by's aren't very useful.  If your problems are with my particular playstyle, that's actually not very useful either.

As far as game modes go, that's why I pointed out in my original reply that there's not going to be a "one-size-fits-all" solution.  That's simply not possible.  As any number of games have discovered, easy for beginners boring for veterans.  Interesting for veterans, too hard for beginners.

What I meant is that (begging pardon of course) I agree with nothing in your original post. You are bang on as far as your second point, however. The reason this discussion will get nowhere is that each user has a different skill level and a different idea of what he would like to see changed in order to suit his specific game style. If the tech tree is changed it will be Squad who will have to make the decisions without player input because opinion varies so widely. Personally I would not like to see major changes made, but it will be what it's going to be. I hope there aren't any hard feelings.

[natsirt721]

13 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Decay of rewards over time if your space program is stagnant.

Not a bad solution, but the difficulty lies in defining 'stagnant' in game terms without a byzantine set of conditionals.

8 minutes ago, The Dunatian said:

The reason this discussion will get nowhere is that each user has a different skill level and a different idea of what he would like to see changed in order to suit his specific game style

Well, that's quite the fatalistic viewpoint, but one you are entitled to, certainly.  I think the one thing we all can agree on is that there is no golden hammer solution.  I would also think - hence this poll - that a significant portion of the community has at least some gripes with the current system.  If we can find some things that many people agree should be changed, then by all means some progress - be it by Squad or the community - can be made to better the experience of everyone.

[Cassel]

Continuing my idea from previous post...

The laboratory itself should not generate science points, only to develop a bonus (boost/acceleration) for acquiring these points from other sources.
For example, a laboratory in orbit after acquiring some data from experiments and a few days of work, should give the opportunity to run a boost that accelerates science points by 10-20% for one day (player would trigger boost in one of buildings), but only for parts that require a vacuum to unlock.
The laboratory on the surface of the moon or Duna should give a similar boost, but for ground and other related parts.
You could also do so that the laboratory in orbit of Kerbin gives only 5%, in the orbit of the moon 10%, etc. the farther you put laboratory the bigger is bonus.

This should also give the player a task, which to speed up the research should send/move the laboratory further, and it will require larger rockets or he can spend many more hours playing for lesser rewards and grind points closer to Kerbin.

If each node of the research tree is a separate part, you can divide them into different ways. One of ideas may be the distance the player has reached from Kerbin. My point is that some parts will only acquire science points if player fly outside of Kerbin's SOI or even farther.
For example, to unlock 3.5m tanks, no matter how many flights we take in SOI of Kerbin, they will not get a single point, but if we go further then 3.5m tank node will get few points each time we finish mission.

[DerekL1963]

1 hour ago, The Dunatian said:

The reason this discussion will get nowhere is that each user has a different skill level and a different idea of what he would like to see changed in order to suit his specific game style. If the tech tree is changed it will be Squad who will have to make the decisions without player input because opinion varies so widely.

Changing the science system involves much more than the tech tree...

But off on another though, thunk up while I should have been concentrating on this weeks post on my anime blog....

I think the one of basic problems with the science system can be defined thusly:  It's easy to add the ability to gain more science (via mods), while reducing the ability to get science is hard.  On top of that, the method of reducing the amount of science gains is about as subtle as a thermonuclear weapon.  The latter is the real problem, it makes it hard for the veteran player to usefully make the game harder and increase the interest level.  (For some values of "harder" and "interest level" as these things vary from player to player.)

So far, for me, the workable solution is a counter-intuitive one - I do both, making it easier and making it harder.  I use dMagic's science mod (which gathers more science and distributes the science tools around the tech tree) and I turn down science returns.  Distributing the instruments across the tree is the important change (IMO)...  I can concentrate on incremental increases in booster capability and fly more missions early on.  Later, when I need science in big thawkin' chunks to buy a node, I have to fly later developed instruments to places I've been previously.  Which is a reasonably historical model - look how many mission's we've flown to Mars for example.  Early crude ones because we didn't know much (scientifically speaking), later more successive advanced and refined ones  to answer the questions raised by the earlier ones.  (YMMV of course, this is designed around my preferences.)

[natsirt721]

2 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

I think the one of basic problems with the science system can be defined thusly:  It's easy to add the ability to gain more science (via mods), while reducing the ability to get science is hard.

 

2 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

I do both, making it easier and making it harder. 

You make it easier to acquire some science, but harder to acquire lots of science.

[LorenLuke]

The problem of science is multi-faceted, and while there are parts you can dissect, it's worth noting that one may need to consider binning the entire thing in lieu of something else. I'm going to make to a few points to note and consider possible alternatives (which may require corresponding mechanics to interact with them).

 

Point One-

1) Bar mobile labs, contracts, and asteroids, there is a finite amount of science obtainable in the Kerbol system.

2) There is a finite amount of science to spend. 

 

In MMOs there exists systems to generate and destroy in game currency (called taps/faucets and sinks, respectively). Effectively we have science taps, but no science sinks. If we had mechanics like scrapyard, where you have an inventory of parts that are built and can be used, as well as that of the Oh, Scrap! random failures mod, using science to research/increase part reliability for a type of part and a specific instance of part will provide that sink.

 

Point Two-

The tech tree and tech nodes. I can understand things like the Nerva costing what they do, or rockomax boosters coming after the lighter faire, but having to spend 65 to get any sort of probe core, and another 90 to be able to get a rechargable power source is right out in my opinion. Having more parts to where I can start with, or spend the 10 science to get, enough to build a very low level plane, probe, solid rocket, etc.

Sort the tech tree into part classes and types with each low level available- solid propellants, fuel tech, structural reinforcements, probe cores, capsules, space planes, reentry tech, EVA tech, science processing, and power systems, so the result ends up being more nodes, but less restrictions on the paths you can take. Want to not do planes? Great. Want to focus probes? Great. It expands the play style options to suit player decisions rather than force them into a box.

 

Point three-

There's no universal way to convert straight resources from one to another either instantly over time. There's some strategies that enable conversion of science and prestige to cash, but not the other way. Personally I figure I should be able to pay my science monkeys to do more research with a bit of all my money, but they don't seem to want to take it (plus, the conversation can function as another sink).

 

Add these three things and I believe, if nothing else, it still would be a better system than what we have.

Edited October 25, 2018 by LorenLuke

[Pthigrivi]

Great poll, @natsirt721. I love this topic because its true that the science system isn't great but no one seems to be able to agree on why its not great, so it's nice to see some more detailed data on the subject. The approve/disapprove model is particularly helpful. From this I think we can glean a few things:

• Science quantities and distribution are polarizing, but mostly balanced. Similarly the delegation between contracts and science appeals to and offends a roughly equal number of players.
   
• The transmission loss and science points mechanics are in principle broadly approved of. 
   
• The process of gathering science, the tech tree, and the mobile processing lab balance have more detractors than supporters. I will include clickiness and data management in this category as I imagine there would be very few votes for "Make science more clicky and cumbersome." 

Which is mostly as I've suspected, though the cures are not necessarily obvious. I've written about this at length in the past (which you can find here, if interested.) but I think it's worth talking about a few points:

Science collection:

The problem here to me is equal parts monotony and repetitiveness. Science doesn't feel like science because there's nothing really out there to find, which means what we really need is a more developed system of anomalies and surface features that provide science bonuses. The data you gather really also ought to provide you with information that's valuable in-game, unlocking heat bars, trajectory factoring drag, etc. Most obvious though is the clickiness problem, which to me could be solved by flashing a "new science" notification on the screen and providing a science collection action group akin to lights and landing gear. There's also a data management problem that could be solved by splitting science into two categories: transmittable, (temperature, barometer, and gravoli readings etc.) and processable, surface samples and atmospheric readings. This would cut clicking by half, nerf the MPL, and allow all science to be consolidated with "Store all", "Process all" and "Transmit all" options into a single window like so:



Time-Based Mechanics: 

This is trickier than it may seem on the surface. The first problem is if you give rewards based on time players can warp to get them, and if you offset that with punishments for warping you hinder players who want to warp a mission out to jool rather than tool around around KSOI. That doesn't mean time-based mechanics are impossible, it just means they need to be carefully and flexibly calibrated. The first option to accomplish this would be a well-designed life-support system that allowed for warping but required players to spend money, mass, and careful consideration to warp for long periods. Not everyone likes life support though, so what's needed also as @klgraham1013 points out is reward decay. My personal favorite solution to this is a time-based bonus reward for getting to places before specific dates; ie, if you land on the Mun or Duna by X date you receive extra rewards. Hard mode could then turn down the base rewards and require veteran players to get places faster to sustain their programs rather than grinding endlessly.

Oh the Tech-Tree:

Im of the opinion that the tech-tree isn't that bad. It just needs some noodling. There are a few glaring missteps, (lookin at you, ladders and stack adapters), but broadly speaking we need more early-game play-style flexibility. If players want to start with probes or planes we should let them, and allow them to push down those avenues until they wish to convert to other tech-strains. Here's the tech tree I developed, which provides that early split and from there I think flows much more evenly:



PS. Great post @LorenLuke

Edited October 25, 2018 by Pthigrivi

[Hydrothermalventclam]

I started playing in career mode a few months ago, and for the most part, I really like the science system.  In sandbox mode, the game sometimes felt like there was nothing to do, there was no incentive to land on other planets, or send probes to places.  However, now I need to send probes and landers places to run experiments.

My main complaint with the science system is with the experiment transmission.  It bothers me that the barometer, thermometer, seismic sensor, and gravity sensor don't give the same science value when they are transmitted, compared to when they are recovered.  They are all digital sensors, and their real life equivalents all operate perfectly fine remotely.  

I would love to hear other people's opinions on this. 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Hydrothermalventclam

[Superfluous J]

15 minutes ago, Hydrothermalventclam said:

My main complaint with the science system is with the experiment transmission.  It bothers me that the barometer, thermometer, seismic sensor, and gravity sensor don't give the same science value when they are transmitted, compared to when they are recovered.  They are all digital sensors, and their real life equivalents all operate perfectly fine remotely.   

I would love to hear other people's opinions on this.

My personal opinion on this is that these experiments you see are just simplified stand-ins for actual experiments. Nobody IRL is going to send a thermometer to the Moon all by itself, land, transmit back "Yup it's below 0 here" and be done. They'd send a bevy of things depending on their technology available (aka how far along in the tech tree) and budget (weight and money, which often translate into the same thing). So you send a "Thermometer" which represents all the super-light things you can fit on a probe early in your technological development. You send a "Mystery Goo" or "Science Jr" which represent far more robust experiments and you get more science at a low level of tech for more cost, and a one-and-done limit.

I'm getting a bit wordy (as usual) but in short, you're not ACTUALLY slapping a thermometer on the side of your rocket like it's an aquarium.

[Hydrothermalventclam]

3 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

My personal opinion on this is that these experiments you see are just simplified stand-ins for actual experiments. Nobody IRL is going to send a thermometer to the Moon all by itself, land, transmit back "Yup it's below 0 here" and be done. They'd send a bevy of things depending on their technology available (aka how far along in the tech tree) and budget (weight and money, which often translate into the same thing). So you send a "Thermometer" which represents all the super-light things you can fit on a probe early in your technological development. You send a "Mystery Goo" or "Science Jr" which represent far more robust experiments and you get more science at a low level of tech for more cost, and a one-and-done limit.

I'm getting a bit wordy (as usual) but in short, you're not ACTUALLY slapping a thermometer on the side of your rocket like it's an aquarium.

Fair enough.  I actually like this explanation a lot.  It still annoys me that none of the stock science experiments will transfer for 100% science value though.

[sturmhauke]

29 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

I'm getting a bit wordy (as usual) but in short, you're not ACTUALLY slapping a thermometer on the side of your rocket like it's an aquarium.

I agree that it represents something more complex, but in real life we have all kinds of probes sending all kinds of data remotely. Data from the Webb telescope or Parker probe wouldn't be worth any more if we brought the sensor packages back to Earth.

[AlamoVampire]

Well, if you ask me, career/sci only is not really worth playing. The IDEA of gathering science from experiments is fundamentally a spectacular one. In practice however its just a glorified experience point grind. To me it is poorly balanced. So much so that a simple command pod with the basic starter experiments can gather enough points on the pad to let you unlock enough parts to vaccuum thee KSC deeply enough to fill the tree if not fully then nearly so. At least this was the case in mid/late 2016 when last I tried career. It needs to be tweaked (again going on likely obsolete data) for sure. I would love to have a story driven career mode, but I guess thats why I prefer sandbox mode. Get to write the story as I go lol. Uh so in conclusion? Science needs to be tweaked to be made more meaningful and to give us a reason to push beyond LKO. Smoothing out how we gather science somehow (Not sure how as I lack enough experience with career/sci modes to make a meaningful suggestion) couldn't hurt. op 05:55:30