KSP2 alternative game mechanics discussion; the science system

[nikokespprfan]

Mandatory disclaimer on imagining new game systems for KSP2

The game will release in a year's time. We still haven't heard of it before last week, so it is probably safe to say that none of our suggestions will be heeded for the final game. At least, not in a way where we can ask the devs to significantly change direction. That said, there are plenty of reasons to work our collective hivemind into imagining what alternative game systems would look like, to detail them, to find what the problems would be, and how useful the idea's are when implemented. The goal of this thread is to go into detail about game systems that could have been different in KSP 2. As for the plenty of reasons of why this execrise could be useful; any future development of any ksp game in any capacity could have the benefit of having the players already figured out how the game could/needs to be improved in a detailed way. It becomes easier to implement something if it has a vision,  it becomes easier to implement something that has its kinks worked out, and it becomes easier to implement something that has community support behind it. And maybe, just maybe, good ideas can move the current devs to make changes before the release..... (who knows)

The science system is one many player like to see change, mainly because it doesn't reflect actual science. How would a hypothetical "good" science system look like. That is what this thread is for.

[Kaerbanogue]

Are you mentioning the science mode which was the original career mode? 

This system was very good to me, the most you risk yourself in hazardous missions, the more you'll get rewarded. Moreover it was kinda neat to take science measurements like what's the temperature and whatsoever... 

The only problem was those science parts looking, it was hard to make them look ok on your crafts

[DStaal]

I'll admit the science system in KSP isn't very realistic.  However, without adding a *lot* of busywork to it, I'm not sure what I'd replace it with - it does a pretty good job at what it's supposed to do.

[nikokespprfan]

 

4 minutes ago, Kaerbanogue said:

Are you mentioning the science mode which was the original career mode? 

This system was very good to me, the most you risk yourself in hazardous missions, the more you'll get rewarded. Moreover it was kinda neat to take science measurements like what's the temperature and whatsoever... 

The only problem was those science parts looking, it was hard to make them look ok on your crafts

yes I do. Most people who don't like the science system don't like it because it is a point based system. You explore the flagpole about the KSC to invent the nuclear engine. Real science doesn't work like that. So what I mean with this thread is how would a differnt science system look like.

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by nikokespprfan

[Nightside]

The tiered tech tree system would be more believable if it focused on ROCKET science R&D. That is materials/components, fuels, etc, and trying them in novel environments. 

The planetary exploration stuff should be connected with the mission system as explicit goals. 

 

[Bill Phil]

Well there’s planetary science, astronomy, astrophysics, and more to do with space science.

But I would argue that these should be somewhat separated from the rocket technology, perhaps only related tangentially like new colony tech after studying a new planet.

I don’t know how to make a system that has compelling gameplay. A realistic system would be time based (perhaps not too dissimilar to the X-COM series). Perhaps it needs a certain amount of resource input or something that requires gameplay (perhaps testing?) so that you can’t just timewarp until each tech is done. But it needs to be fun, and that’s the hard part.

[Kaerbanogue]

51 minutes ago, nikokespprfan said:

You explore the flagpole about the KSC to invent the nuclear engine. Real science doesn't work like that.

Never done that ahah pretty smart tho... 

I think the system has a lot of issues but it were, for me at least, pretty logical: with science you unlock new technologies that you can now buy with money.

Hope the devs will still find how to enhance this, because it used to become very redundant and easy (as you said) to unlock whole tech tree when you become experienced with the game. Wait and see

[neistridlar]

I think the more realistic version would be, you sell the science. Then spend the money to research new stuff.

As for the science collection side of things, I would like to see a system where you can not max out the science for a biome. Say for instance there would be a 500m radius around where the science was taken would be marked as used after 1 sample. That should give more purpose to rovers, while avoiding extreme tedium.

[Guest]

For the tech part it would be fantastic to have to run designed test missions to unlock specific technologies, something in between a scripted scenario and the part test contracts we have now.

[78stonewobble]

Off the top of my rather sleep deprived head... Doing and using things leads to improvements.. 

Using the first engine x number of times leads to newer, more efficient and bigger engines, which then after use leads to better one's. Using the first parachute leads to bigger better parachutes, which leads to... You know... 

 

So not a flagpole leading to engines, but engines leading to engines. Maybe in the case of eg. Nuclear engines you need ore and material samplings as well.