Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

[Loren Pechtel]

My thoughts on fixing science:

1)  Everything that you get from instruments should be 100% transmissable.  The idea that you need to bring back the instrument makes no sense to me.

2)  No more clicking.  Automated science sampler should be incorporated into the core game.  You simply need to bring the instruments to the place.  I would also apply this to EVA science.  (Make a few changes to the how science is handled internally.  Uniquely tag reports, direct reports to every part on the craft that can store them.  The entire UI of ASS could be removed, replaced with "automatic" switches on resettable experiments.  The only thing you would have to click is those experiments and only if you couldn't reset them in flight.)

3)  All experiments that are resettable should have higher tech versions that don't need resetting and thus can be done unmanned.

4)  An "experiment" that can get a surface sample--thus allowing sample return missions.

5)  Remove the crew report.  This one makes no sense.

6)  Putting a scientist on another world EVA should permit collection of much better samples.

7)  A new type of contract:  Haul instrument package (which would simply have a shape and a weight, we don't need a bunch of fancy graphics) to a certain biome, leave it for a certain duration, if landed it may include a return it to Kerbin requirement.  It "pays" in the science (they provided the package, you get to share what they learned.)

[Pthigrivi]

16 hours ago, Loren Pechtel said:

My thoughts on fixing science:

1)  Everything that you get from instruments should be 100% transmissable.  The idea that you need to bring back the instrument makes no sense to me.

2)  No more clicking.  Automated science sampler should be incorporated into the core game.  You simply need to bring the instruments to the place.  I would also apply this to EVA science.  (Make a few changes to the how science is handled internally.  Uniquely tag reports, direct reports to every part on the craft that can store them.  The entire UI of ASS could be removed, replaced with "automatic" switches on resettable experiments.  The only thing you would have to click is those experiments and only if you couldn't reset them in flight.)

3)  All experiments that are resettable should have higher tech versions that don't need resetting and thus can be done unmanned.

4)  An "experiment" that can get a surface sample--thus allowing sample return missions.

5)  Remove the crew report.  This one makes no sense.

6)  Putting a scientist on another world EVA should permit collection of much better samples.

7)  A new type of contract:  Haul instrument package (which would simply have a shape and a weight, we don't need a bunch of fancy graphics) to a certain biome, leave it for a certain duration, if landed it may include a return it to Kerbin requirement.  It "pays" in the science (they provided the package, you get to share what they learned.)

I like a lot of these. A few thoughts:

1) Yes, or at least 100% with full signal. The other important advantage is reducing repeat landings at the same location. If you want new science you should challenge yourself to at least find a new biome. 

2) I don't think I agree it should be fully automated. I think player feedback is important, but if there were "New Science" notifications and "Collect science" default action group akin to lights and landing gear all you would really have to do is press a button when the notification popped up--not so much a hardship. You also need the ability to manage your data so you can't remove the menu entirely, but it could be consolidated into one window with "transmit all" and "process all" buttons. 

3) Totally agreed that manually resetting on each new biome is a huge hassle. I don't think you need upgraded parts though, just ditch the reset mechanic. 

4) This is where I think the distinction between transmittable experiments and samples would help. If Goo canisters and Materials Bays produced samples that were untransmittable and required recovery or processing before transmission they effectively be your probe-based sample collectors. It would also help balancing the MPL, because its exclusive use would be processing such samples. 

5) I suppose. Again, if it was included in a "collect science" action group it wouldn't change much except to give a boost to unlanded, crewed missions. 

6) Love this idea. Id actually go farther to allow scientists to take core samples from ground scatter. I'd love to see a short animation for these as well.

7) This is also a fun idea. I've never been enamored with the "gather science" contracts, they're just too proscriptive and specific for me to bother with unless Im going to be doing that kind of thing already.

[Superfluous J]

On 10/28/2018 at 2:56 AM, Loren Pechtel said:

My thoughts on fixing science:

I really like 2 (of course, it's what I said ).

I like #6. Maybe extend it so a scientist can capture the extra science that hasn't been gotten yet, that they would have gotten had they been there the first time.

1, 3, 4, and 5 encourage probes over Kerbals and it's already too easy to just send probes everywhere.

I'd love 7 to be expanded into either a whole bevy of things (to represent anything from space telescopes to suicide Jool Atmospheric probes that you have to get to a certain depth in Jool's atmo to get full reward) or - just maybe - a replacement science system for career where all science doodads are removed and you must complete contracts for science, that dry up as you get more science points for a world.

[Steamcurl]

I think part of the disconnect is that we need to go back to the question of "Why do we do science in space IRL?"

The mechanic to get points to unlock the science tree is extremely abstract, as others have noted, but some existing modes do a great job of tying in science and exploration to directly furthering mission goals.  For example, SCANSat altimetry provides night-landing assistance via the minimap feature allowing you to see the ground height you are heading for (before getting surprised by teh short-range radar alt in the cockpit!).  The resource scanner likewise gives important data on ore concentration to allow you to plan the landing site for your ISRU to be effective. 

This direct link between a module's abilities, the exploration task required for it to function (scan height and elliptic path for height/biome mapping, polar orbit for stock ore scan), and the benefits to mission planning and future missions is far more rewarding than the abstract science point system.

I'd like to see a way to make the same link for some of the other instruments, because part of the problem is that we start out *already knowing* about the whole solar system and the properties of the planets.  Imagine if you could have things like:
-No planets beyond Duna revealed until a space telescope is orbited.
-No altimetry info unless pressure sensor or radar alt sensor carried on craft.  Planet has to be altitude-mapped to threshold percentage before craft can have that info without carrying sensors.
-No trajectory prediction in an new SOI without a Gravioli accelerometer
Each of these steps could be rewarded on first instance with science points BUT more importantly, they directly contribute to the ability of the player to succeed at that mission and future missions.

Similarly for other parts development, I'd love to see them tied to specific accomplishments, such as:
-Materials study in X different space environments -> unlocks Y part node
-Accumulated X days on crewed mission -> unlocks Y crew module
-Mystery goo in X different biomes -> unlocks Y crew/exploration/lifesupport-related tech node
-Sat comm constellation with X sats connected -> dish tech node

Is it still grindy?  Potentially, but it's at least outcomes are more closely tied to actions.  Changing the # required is an easy way to adjust the difficulty/grind factor.

I'm not sure if it'd be possible to break the tech tree down such that a node can be unlocked, but have part Y from that node is restricted till a mission goal is met, but that is something that could keep the objective a bit more intuitively inline with existing tech nodes (e.g. unlocking Space Exploration gets the ladders and wheels, but the hitchhiker crew modules require a mission goal - actually this might be able to be tied into how contracts check for part unlocks, if unlocking the node can then generate a mission contract that sets a 'first' milestone to enable that part?)

These can all still generate generic science points to fill in areas of the tech tree that might not have a mission goal/experiment that makes sense, but having mission objectives tied more closely to both unlocking the tech AND developing future mission abilities gives us a great reason to keep hauling science kit out to the deep black.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Steamcurl
Accidental double-paste

[Geonovast]

I wouldn't mind if the science experiments were mini games instead of "Push button, read quip" and how much science you got was based on how well you did...

[HebaruSan]

16 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

I wouldn't mind if the science experiments were mini games instead of "Push button, read quip" and how much science you got was based on how well you did...

Please no. If it's going to be disconnected from the core gameplay loop of flying a ship, then the less disruptive it is the better.

Maybe if the "game" aspect of it was based on things you're already doing in flight or map view, e.g. experiments run continuously and the data value depends on the path you took? Sampling a more elliptical orbit would gather more Gravioli data, atmospheric sampling would scale with greater altitude and distance, seismic would reflect the total surface area you covered, etc.

Edited October 29, 2018 by HebaruSan

[Loren Pechtel]

13 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I really like 2 (of course, it's what I said ).

I like #6. Maybe extend it so a scientist can capture the extra science that hasn't been gotten yet, that they would have gotten had they been there the first time.

1, 3, 4, and 5 encourage probes over Kerbals and it's already too easy to just send probes everywhere.

I'd love 7 to be expanded into either a whole bevy of things (to represent anything from space telescopes to suicide Jool Atmospheric probes that you have to get to a certain depth in Jool's atmo to get full reward) or - just maybe - a replacement science system for career where all science doodads are removed and you must complete contracts for science, that dry up as you get more science points for a world.

I do agree that many of these encourage probes--but I don't see that as a big problem.  If you're just going somewhere to do one thing unmanned is the way to go.  Kerbals should be used for the missions where flexibility is required.  Expanding on #6:  There's a big pile of science available in a biome that is obtained by putting a scientist in a lab landed at the biome and they gather science at a rate based on their skill level until all the science from that biome is gathered.  This wouldn't be just a click and go like most science missions.

Thinking about it, the gravity scanner should also be modified.  No biome-based science, but rather a fair pile of it that's obtained slowly from a probe in a polar orbit about the body.  That's how gravity maps are made.