Should science change and if so, how?

[mcwaffles2003]

So in interacting with a lot of people here I feel a fair amount of people would like the manner in which science is conducted in KSP to change. I'm hoping in this thread we could discuss new manners in which we interact with the mechanic of unlocking parts and how science experiments should be conducted

In my personal opinion I would like to see greater involvement with experiments to a degree, and certainly more intuitive uses derived from them. I would like there to be an in game catalog that would update with data archived through experiments. This catalog would update and hold characteristics of bodies which have had experiments conducted on them. For instance, doing a barometer experiment could give a profile to the atmospheres density vs altitude possibly in the form of a graph in an in game wiki or even filling out the air pressure bar (that could previously be left blank) giving the experiment real practical use. Another example could be having a somewhat empty tracking station with only a few nearby planets tracked to start, then a telescope could be launched to track undiscovered bodies to find their orbits and other characteristics. All of these experiments would more actively engage players if there was a direct and usable benefit from them, though I still think gaining points to unlock parts could be a dual function.

I personally think having multiple tech trees would be an interesting way to go, each with 1 type of science point. Possible different trees could be as follows:

Command - new command pods and habitation facilities

Propulsion - engines and fuel tanks

Aerodynamics - wings, adapters, fins, etc... all things structurally related

Ground - landing gear, rover bodies and accessories,

Electronics - batteries, solar panels, science experiments, unmanned command modules, etc..

 

I would like to hear any ideas from anyone else, criticisms of those I brought forth or new ones of their own

Edited October 18, 2019 by mcwaffles2003
accidentally posted thread before it was complete....

[mcwaffles2003]

Sorry to bump my own post but I'm really curious how everyone here really thinks about how science is addressed in this game and ways they think it could get better. Really hope to hear your thoughts.

[Zarkov2]

I think the tech tree should be altered a bit, since the order of some unlocks are a bit strange (e.g. storage tank in the final tier,  no aeroplane parts available from the start, landing legs seem high-tech etc.)

Also, I think it would be better to use only milestones for unlocking nodes, at least for the first few tiers (such as orbital rendezvous -> unlock docking ports, Mun flyby -> unlock landers and landing legs etc.) And I would prefer if "biome hopping" wasn't a thing anymore, especially around KSC. Maybe make it possible to automate the process with polar orbit satellites equipped with experiments?

[mcwaffles2003]

55 minutes ago, Zarkov2 said:

I think the tech tree should be altered a bit, since the order of some unlocks are a bit strange (e.g. storage tank in the final tier,  no aeroplane parts available from the start, landing legs seem high-tech etc.)

Agree wholeheartedly

55 minutes ago, Zarkov2 said:

Also, I think it would be better to use only milestones for unlocking nodes, at least for the first few tiers (such as orbital rendezvous -> unlock docking ports, Mun flyby -> unlock landers and landing legs etc.) And I would prefer if "biome hopping" wasn't a thing anymore, especially around KSC. Maybe make it possible to automate the process with polar orbit satellites equipped with experiments?

I like the milestone idea and I understand the bore in biome hopping, but I just hope they make the biomes more interesting and some possibly having unique challenges because the hopping really gives a dV puzzle of how many can you get before you wont have enough to get back

Edited October 21, 2019 by mcwaffles2003
typo

[Pecan]

First, I just loved the title, "should science change ...", which suggests "science is wrong, I hate reality!" :-)

Second - I only play sandbox in KSP because the tech tree is so deranged (ladder is 5th-level IIRC?).  I'm fine with collecting science as a mini-game but there's no point in pushing that to per-experiment minigames.  These things get old fast and even the current "do this mission times then do it another 3 times in a slightly different position" is too much.  Possibly that would mean biomes are redundant but there's always ISRU.  At the moment the whole of career, science mode and biomes are redundant anyway so it couldn't be worse.

[Tweeker]

Yes, it should change. 

"Science" should be something you do as a mission goal. Period. It should have zero effect on unlocking new parts. No amount of space rocks, temperature readings, ETC will ever allow NASA to develop new rocket engines. 

 

Instead tech tree "points" should be earned based on things like:

X amount of fuel burned,  -----simulates testing of engines on test stands, or continuous improvement thru data monitoring of live flights. 

mission elapsed time. -------See above, continuous improvement thru data monitoring of live flights. 

Manned flight time (with life support) ----- gaining more experience at supporting Kerbal in space allows longer flights, allows more hours in space, alllows more experience. 

 

 

 

[rocketbuilder]

I had never played Kerbalism before and I found that I actually did my own science missions as I discovered things about the mod - for an example I sent a small station into LKO to see what it takes to keep 2 kerbals alive for 30 days in space, and while I got no actual science out of that, I did learn allot about kerbalism. Now I am gonna send some kerbals into the Van Allen belts for a couple days to see how they do. Thats is the kind of science that should get you new parts in KSP 2.0.

[Superfluous J]

All I care about is I never want to have to click anything ever again to gain science, or any points.

I don't have to click the solar panels to collect power I shouldn't have to click the thermometer to take a reading.
 

[Tweeker]

12 minutes ago, rocketbuilder said:

I had never played Kerbalism before and I found that I actually did my own science missions as I discovered things about the mod - for an example I sent a small station into LKO to see what it takes to keep 2 kerbals alive for 30 days in space, and while I got no actual science out of that, I did learn allot about kerbalism. Now I am gonna send some kerbals into the Van Allen belts for a couple days to see how they do. Thats is the kind of science that should get you new parts in KSP 2.0.

Exactly,

In KSP you get a limited amount of science from situations,  recover a craft that survived a flight 6 science, Sub-orbital flight 8 science,  return from the surface of the Mun? 35 science. You can unlock a substantial portion of the tech tree with out ever "doing" any science.

[Guest]

Like the career and the tech tree it should be redesigned by professional game designers with gameplay in mind, I really hope they don't go with the nostalgic option of porting the badly designed placeholder systems from KSP1.

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Guest

[mcwaffles2003]

On 10/21/2019 at 7:24 PM, Tweeker said:

Yes, it should change. 

"Science" should be something you do as a mission goal. Period. It should have zero effect on unlocking new parts. No amount of space rocks, temperature readings, ETC will ever allow NASA to develop new rocket engines. 

 

Instead tech tree "points" should be earned based on things like:

X amount of fuel burned,  -----simulates testing of engines on test stands, or continuous improvement thru data monitoring of live flights. 

mission elapsed time. -------See above, continuous improvement thru data monitoring of live flights. 

Manned flight time (with life support) ----- gaining more experience at supporting Kerbal in space allows longer flights, allows more hours in space, alllows more experience. 

I like your stance for tech upgrades though I dont agree science should be as mission goal. I wish science could be useful in the ways of how science is actually useful. We visit planets and moons with everything essentially already discovered, we know where an atmosphere begins and its thickness vs altitude, we know what temperature it is and the composition of its atmosphere before ever launching a rocket. This is why I originally suggested creating a game catalog where in data is captured and maps out all the systems. This way we would need to find where bodies exist and the paths they move along, send probes to investigate how one could land on them once theyre reached, and finally, find out why we wanna go there in the first place.

The missions should still focus on profit, were running a space program, but what does space have to offer? Perhaps you might want to set up an industrial mining colony and send back your product to kerbin to be sold to the market. What bodies have materials worth mining and where are they? To find out we should send a probe to spectroscopically observe the the planets soil for trace rare minerals, followed by landing at areas of high concentration and taking core samples, after this one could set up a prospecting colony to begin small scale excavation to see if this venture would be lucrative. If all looks well ship 100 kerbals there, expand the operation and take in the profit (advancing technologies and interstellar transport isn't cheap you know). Perhaps thats also how we could create upgrades... if you want tech advanced it costs money, a lot of money, I've never heard of cheap R&D at least. So I agree running current equipment should count towards tech progress but also having funded labs on the ground.

Maybe unlocking tech shouldn't be instant but instead each tech advancement has a progress bar dependent on both related part use and funded research. I think if youre using a chem rocket that should highly count towards progress of other chem rockets but definitely shouldn't count for say... ion thrusters. New tech branches should have to be discovered solely through R&D and breakthroughs to new fields should be very expensive, acting as gate keepers to ability to expand out further.

This feeds a recursive intuitive cycle:

Explore - Find prospective planets

Discover - Send probes to discover features of the planets

Colonize - Send probes/kerbals to create an outpost

Exploit - Mine, refine, and transport profitable materials back to kerbin 

Research - Utilize profit to fund higher efficiency transport, machining equipment, QoL systems, etc...

 

Essentially a 4X type system where we omit "eXterminate" and replace it with research and form a closed loop until the whole universe is colonized and theres nowhere left to go.... (mods can fix that part)