A re-purposing of science

[mcwaffles2003]

2 minutes ago, PlutoISaPlanet said:

Man this thread is important, yet the conversation has died.

That's just how it be

[Pthigrivi]

I don't mind necrobumping this because it was a good conversation. I voted "good" but I probably should have said "like it but wouldn't do it that way". I don't actually disagree with any of this and I think an in-game wiki is a good idea, but I'm not sure flavor text is really a very strong game-incentive. I think players are driven by rewards, and unlocking parts is going to be the strongest motivator in the game no matter how you slice it. I also think longer duration experiments could work especially if there's some life support mechanic to counterbalance it, but it's worth considering how they feel in game. I wouldn't want anything you have to babysit, so if it's going to take just a few minutes it might as well happen instantly. The exception to this would be your barometer which could run while you're on ascent or descent--something you're doing anyway and not just going to time-warp through. And as a general rule things that are realistic are nice, but it's way more important that the game is actually fun (not that you'd likely dispute this last point).

To the point though I do agree experiments should have a purpose beyond unlocking the tech tree, but that purpose has to be about enhancing gameplay.  It's not enough that the barometer fills in a graph in the wiki, it has to provide some benefit to the player in-engine. A good example of this would be trajectory prediction factoring drag, something as far as I know only Mechjeb provides but is WAY helpful for aerobraking maneuvers and landing spaceplanes. Similarly having a full measurement of pressure and temperature for a planet's air column might help players predict if their present reentry vector will result in overheating by representing the future flightpath in bright red from the point of predicted failure. Players could then reduce speed or lift their Pe until the path turned blue again, letting them know the path is probably safe without having to guess and test. Even after the tech tree is complete this provides a clear incentive to drop a test probe down to the surface of a new planet and keep a barometer and thermometer on your crewed lander. 

I don't think all of the current experiments necessarily have clear gameplay benefits, but I think most if not all of KSP2's should. SCANsat is closer to the mark. Not only does it get mapping right by teaching players in-flight why polar orbits are important, but the information it provides--altimetry and biome mapping--are just critical overlays that players need. It's actually crazy that the main game doesn't have this. Using spectrometers and other instruments to sniff out different resources and spot unique surface features is critical to picking landing sites and potential colony locations and that information should be overlaid directly in map mode. 

That said, I'm fine with these experiments also producing science points that we use to unlock tech. I mentioned this in the other thread but credit to @shdwlrd for what is one the best ideas about fixing science I've heard in years--using labs to unlock nodes in the field rather than doing it all at KSC. I think you could also use them as mobile sample analysis locations so you didn't have to bring them all the way back to Kerbin, but making it so some nodes can only be researched in certain locations would go a long way to pushing players out from the Kerbin system earlier. It would also incentivize building research stations and diversify the function of colonies. I would leave some flexibility, making sure that each node had at least few locations at which it could be unlocked so players weren't locked into a specific exploration sequence. I think a lot of the basic structural parts and early engines could researched in the Kerbin system, with more and more advanced engines and colony tech being unlocked as you colonize other planets. 

Edited November 1, 2020 by Pthigrivi

[mcwaffles2003]

7 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I don't mind necrobumping this because it was a good conversation. I voted "good" but I probably should have said "like it but wouldn't do it that way". I don't actually disagree with any of this and I think an in-game wiki is a good idea, but I'm not sure flavor text is really a very strong game-incentive. I think players are driven by rewards, and unlocking parts is going to be the strongest motivator in the game no matter how you slice it. I also think longer duration experiments could work especially if there's some life support mechanic to counterbalance it, but it's worth considering how they feel in game. I wouldn't want anything you have to babysit, so if it's going to take just a few minutes it might as well happen instantly. The exception to this would be your barometer which could run while you're on ascent or descent--something you're doing anyway and not just going to time-warp through. And as a general rule things that are realistic are nice, but it's way more important that the game is actually fun (not that you'd likely dispute this last point).

Having the experiments work over a duration, imo, has several benefits:

• You can just let them run in the background and not try to catch the moment when you press a button
• Pushing the player to holding a condition as opposed to momentarily meeting it provides its own design challenges and can feel more engaging
• Sets up the system for mapping continuously
• Incentivizes long duration missions where probes will have to remain for months or maybe years

I honestly wasn't too incentivized here to promote realism, I just find the gameplay around this mechanic more rewarding to interact with overall. Any chance you have played with kerbalism?

7 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

To the point though I do agree experiments should have a purpose beyond unlocking the tech tree, but that purpose has to be about enhancing gameplay.  It's not enough that the barometer fills in a graph in the wiki, it has to provide some benefit to the player in-engine. A good example of this would be trajectory prediction factoring drag, something as far as I know only Mechjeb provides but is WAY helpful for aerobraking maneuvers and landing spaceplanes. Similarly having a full measurement of pressure and temperature for a planet's air column might help players predict if their present reentry vector will result in overheating by representing the future flightpath in bright red from the point of predicted failure. Players could then reduce speed or lift their Pe until the path turned blue again, letting them know the path is probably safe without having to guess and test. Even after the tech tree is complete this provides a clear incentive to drop a test probe down to the surface of a new planet and keep a barometer and thermometer on your crewed lander. 

I still hope science still plays a large role in unlocking tech and I agree filling out graphs alone should not be the purpose of science, though I do think that having mechanics like these presented as a resource to the player would be helpful as well as a good way to keep track of what data has been collected/has yet to be collected. I really like your idea of using temp/pressure data to give greater accuracy to the predictions of re-entry trajectories and the possible dangers during so! I think there are many more ways in which a system like this could provide engaging player interaction. Perhaps include a particle collector experiment to map out space debris or dust to map hazards or help buzzard ramjets (if they're included) know where to go to scoop matter efficiently. I think there's an insane amount of way s this kind of thing could be used.

7 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Even after the tech tree is complete this provides a clear incentive to drop a test probe down to the surface of a new planet and keep a barometer and thermometer on your crewed lander. 

This. This right here is a great example of the core idea behind the mechanics I'm talking about.

7 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I don't think all of the current experiments necessarily have clear gameplay benefits, but I think most if not all of KSP2's should. SCANsat is closer to the mark. Not only does it get mapping right by teaching players in-flight why polar orbits are important, but the information it provides--altimetry and biome mapping--are just critical overlays that players need. It's actually crazy that the main game doesn't have this. Using spectrometers and other instruments to sniff out different resources and spot unique surface features is critical to picking landing sites and potential colony locations and that information should be overlaid directly in map mode.

Honestly, I'd still be cool with some experiments that don't have any alternative benefits outside the tech tree, kind of like filler in any series, though many experiments definitely should have alternative benefits.

I feel features, like those in SCANsat, will be crucial to playing KSP 2 if resource collection will be part of the foundation of core gameplay. We will need accurate maps of resources on celestial bodies (unless its all just ore everywhere again D: [I doubt it]) and I hope those maps aren't simply handed to us. It would be far more fulfilling to create these ourselves.

7 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

That said, I'm fine with these experiments also producing science points that we use to unlock tech. I mentioned this in the other thread but credit to @shdwlrd for what is one the best ideas about fixing science I've heard in years--using labs to unlock nodes in the field rather than doing it all at KSC. I think you could also use them as mobile sample analysis locations so you didn't have to bring them all the way back to Kerbin, but making it so some nodes can only be researched in certain locations would go a long way to pushing players out from the Kerbin system earlier. It would also incentivize building research stations and diversify the function of colonies. I would leave some flexibility, making sure that each node had at least few locations at which it could be unlocked so players weren't locked into a specific exploration sequence. I think a lot of the basic structural parts and early engines could researched in the Kerbin system, with more and more advanced engines and colony tech being unlocked as you colonize other planets. 

I agree very much on the concept @shdwlrd brought up. This would give incentives to create stations and, like you said, "would go a long way to pushing players out from the Kerbin system".

[linuxgurugamer]

Forgetting Kerbalism for a moment, there are several other mod which require time for experiments to be run, such as L-Tech ( which I recently adopted and updated), Station Science, DMagic Orbital Science, KNES, and Im sure there are others

Edited November 1, 2020 by linuxgurugamer

[mcwaffles2003]

@linuxgurugamer Haven't tried the others, but Dmagic orbital science doesn't require time for its experiments on it's own the last I checked and it's a mod I use frequently (Unless this is a recent update, I've played with kerbalism on most playthroughs for the past year). SCANsat does in a way, requiring a full genuine survey of a planet

Edited November 1, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[linuxgurugamer]

43 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

@linuxgurugamer Haven't tried the others, but Dmagic orbital science doesn't require time for its experiments on it's own the last I checked and it's a mod I use frequently (Unless this is a recent update, I've played with kerbalism on most playthroughs for the past year). SCANsat does in a way, requiring a full genuine survey of a planet

Then that was my mistake.  L-Tech & Station Science  both definitely do take time to run, however. Another one which seems to take time is Nehemia Engineering Orbital Science, and there are others as well

[OHara]

It looks possible, so far as I have seen, KSP2 will not need a technology tree at all, because there are more natural mechanisms to gradually get use of technological improvements: the need off-Kerbin resources, some technologies only being useful outside the atmosphere, some requiring assembly in space. 

But if there is a technology tree, then as I read the discussion above, it seems possible to decouple 'science' from 'technology'.

I don't like the technology progression and never recovered any KSP1 science' from ScanSat,  but I like quite a lot ScanSat's natural in-game way to map out potential landing sites, and have a moving map of elevations and slopes available in-game.

When I was a new player and saw a barometer and other atmospheric sensors, I thought the idea was to put thos on a probe to record atmospheric density on Duna --recording a graph like on the OP-- so that I could figure how much area of parachute my crewed mission would need.

So in modded KSP1 there is motivation for science outside of unlocking nodes, that motivation being the useful information it gives you in-game.

On 11/1/2020 at 9:53 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

I still hope science still plays a large role in unlocking tech and I agree filling out graphs alone should not be the purpose of science, though [...]

Okay.  Myself, I would be happy with only the graphs.  I'm a little curious why you hope that.

I see two potential benefits to a technology tree in KSP.  (I haven't played other games, except CivII years ago, so don't have that perspective.)
1) revealing the complexity gradually so new players gain familiarity in a more pleasant way
2) providing a constraint that it is fun to overcome, in the sense of the expression "restriction breeds creativity"

Those benefits seem possible through a technology mechanism decoupled from science, such as:

On 3/17/2020 at 8:26 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

A more "realistic" mechanic in my view would be running engines for x amount of time in various conditions mixed with finances progressively unlocking more engines but that sounds a bit convoluted and more difficult to explain.

I thought that might work, and suggested something similar a few years ago. 

If there is a technology tree with nodes and interdependencies, and if there is a concept of 'flights' like KSP1 has, we could imagine that KSP keeps track of what technology nodes are represented on each flight at the start, and credit those nodes with whatever funds/science/reputation was earned when the the flight recovers.  Then when the credit count of a node is full, that technology is considered mature and the player can move on to the next more advanced nodes.

KSP1 has a similar mechanism for Kerbal experience, which I don't like, but it did not seem too difficult to explain.

[mcwaffles2003]

10 hours ago, OHara said:

It looks possible, so far as I have seen, KSP2 will not need a technology tree at all, because there are more natural mechanisms to gradually get use of technological improvements: the need off-Kerbin resources, some technologies only being useful outside the atmosphere, some requiring assembly in space. 

Could be wrong, but I think a tech tree was confirmed in that last radio interview @Nate Simpson had.

10 hours ago, OHara said:

But if there is a technology tree, then as I read the discussion above, it seems possible to decouple 'science' from 'technology'.

I don't like the technology progression and never recovered any KSP1 science' from ScanSat,  but I like quite a lot ScanSat's natural in-game way to map out potential landing sites, and have a moving map of elevations and slopes available in-game.

When I was a new player and saw a barometer and other atmospheric sensors, I thought the idea was to put thos on a probe to record atmospheric density on Duna --recording a graph like on the OP-- so that I could figure how much area of parachute my crewed mission would need.

So in modded KSP1 there is motivation for science outside of unlocking nodes, that motivation being the useful information it gives you in-game.

I share the feeling but I don't think everyone is as fascinated in graph/spreadsheet data collection if it doesn't show any immediate benefit and can be circumvented via online wikis or just ignoring the mechanic. I feel like this kind of mechanic would require incentivization for people to find it's use and care to learn how it works

 

 

10 hours ago, OHara said:

Okay.  Myself, I would be happy with only the graphs.  I'm a little curious why you hope that.

I see two potential benefits to a technology tree in KSP.  (I haven't played other games, except CivII years ago, so don't have that perspective.)
1) revealing the complexity gradually so new players gain familiarity in a more pleasant way
2) providing a constraint that it is fun to overcome, in the sense of the expression "restriction breeds creativity"

Those benefits seem possible through a technology mechanism decoupled from science, such as:

Quote

A more "realistic" mechanic in my view would be running engines for x amount of time in various conditions mixed with finances progressively unlocking more engines but that sounds a bit convoluted and more difficult to explain.

I thought that might work, and suggested something similar a few years ago. 

If there is a technology tree with nodes and interdependencies, and if there is a concept of 'flights' like KSP1 has, we could imagine that KSP keeps track of what technology nodes are represented on each flight at the start, and credit those nodes with whatever funds/science/reputation was earned when the the flight recovers.  Then when the credit count of a node is full, that technology is considered mature and the player can move on to the next more advanced nodes.

KSP1 has a similar mechanism for Kerbal experience, which I don't like, but it did not seem too difficult to explain.

A downfall of science being fully untied from the tech tree would be that it would also begin to inhibit it's integration into the game as most data will be able to be looked up on the web instead of designing a whole set of missions solely to retrieve data that is already available via other means. Doubly incentivizing science on the other hand, in my opinion would result in:

1. Start of game
2. Player has almost not parts and wants more
3. Player needs to unlock tech nodes
4. Player runs several science experiments and unlocks a couple nodes, meanwhile the player notices their small collection of data integrated into usable info and thinks "that's neat"
5. Player continues on through progression and begins to want more parts
6. See step 4.
7. After a fair bit of science is accumulated the player notices they actually have a sizable percentage of the data about Kerbin. Just as I assume the many of us that use SCANsat feel, a half completed map begs to be finished, and similarly I feel that would be the case for the in game wiki and a spark would be started. 

Now the science point rewards for these discoveries could be scaled flat or linearly instead of exponentially as the player moves to further celestial bodies so that they have a large impact at the beginning of play, helping unlock early techs, and towards the middle/end game the science point accumulation from a system like this would be negligible. At this point though, the player will have learned the more nuanced purpose of this system, using it resourcefully as an extension of the scope of mission profiles. As for how science is accumulated after this you could then include 

Quote

A more "realistic" mechanic in my view would be running engines for x amount of time in various conditions mixed with finances progressively unlocking more engines but that sounds a bit convoluted and more difficult to explain.

and have this kind of system work exponentially with requirements matching the exponential growth so late game it becomes how science is largely gained and early game it leads to minimal benefit, pushing players into learning the science gathering mechanic.

[OHara]

7 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I share the feeling but I don't think everyone is as fascinated in graph/spreadsheet data collection if it doesn't show any immediate benefit and can be circumvented via online wikis or just ignoring the mechanic. I feel like this kind of mechanic would require incentivization for people to find its use and care to learn how it works.

You might be right about the average of 'everyone' but I can give my perspective as a concrete example.

When I started KSP1, curiosity insentivized me to look into the Science mechanism.  I did not like it at first, then the desire to unlock parts made my try to play that aspect of the game, then I knew for sure that I disliked the Science mechanism.   I had no problem cheating myself infinite Science points, unlocking nodes when I got bored with the old ones, and had no worries that I was missing out on anything.

Different mechanisms might have appealed to me --- waiting for 10 minutes on an experiment would not, but automated experiments would --- and in that case I would have been curious enough to discover those mechanisms.

Thinking that KSP1 was a game about exploration (and orbital mechanics of course) I expected to be building maps and atmospheric plots (maybe organized in something like a spreadsheet).  The maps from ScanSat are useful, especially how they are integrated into the game. I expected to see orbital plots across the surface, with which to plan a launch or landing, and wanted to scan the local elevation to find a smooth enough spot to land a spaceplane.  ScanSat is a great way to get those things that I wanted, through playing the game itself.   

Similarly, sending an atmospheric probe to the planned location for a base would be a more fun way to find the atmospheric density there and plan how many parachutes I need on the base.   True, I could note how fast the probe descended under its parachute and scale to my next craft, or use the alt-F12 menu to see densities as the probe descends, but KSP1 encourages looking it up on the wiki, which I find less fun than experimenting to find it.

I think the ability to ignore individual game-mechanics is a good thing.  Players who would enjoy some aspect of the game have the opportunity to try it when they first start playing, or can skip over it and play again if they like.

[shdwlrd]

Science should have either an active and/or passive effect if you do it. Let's take ScanSat for example. You take the time to map a planet/moon. You have a height map, a biome map, and a resource locations. That would be an active effect. The passive effect is you now have a map to navigate the surface easily. 

Now this could be applied to the stock, routine science. You can learn the temperature gradient that can help a colony in some way. You learn the pressure curve for a planet and help your  aerodynamics on that planet. You study the gravity of a planet and find a change that you can exploit or have to avoid.

Basically make science useful to do. That way if you can't be bothered with it, you can still play the game. But some aspects are easier if you do do the science. 

[Dman979]

Moved to KSP 2 Suggestions.

[mcwaffles2003]

On 11/3/2020 at 10:09 AM, OHara said:

I think the ability to ignore individual game-mechanics is a good thing.  Players who would enjoy some aspect of the game have the opportunity to try it when they first start playing, or can skip over it and play again if they like.

I agree though I believe effort should be made to make a mechanic as appealing as possible to as many as possible. But hey, for those that don't like it still, who is anyone else to tell you how to play?

On 11/3/2020 at 10:09 AM, OHara said:

Different mechanisms might have appealed to me --- waiting for 10 minutes on an experiment would not, but automated experiments would --- and in that case I would have been curious enough to discover those mechanisms.

The point in making experiments take time isn't so much to force the player to wait as much as it is to get the player to place a craft and make it capable of holding a specific type of condition. I think this would offer a more fulfilling form of difficulty. For instance, instead of getting a craft to barely breach the atmosphere, making it to 75,000 m, clicking a button and generating a full map of the planet before quickly plummeting back down... It just makes more sense to have the player need to create an orbit and discover on their own that a polar orbit is the most optimal then have  a map generate over time as your craft continues its orbit.  As for the waiting, that is an inevitable byproduct of this, there is time warping or moving onto another project while the first gathers data.

[Dientus]

5 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

The point in making experiments take time isn't so much to force the player to wait as much as it is to get the player to place a craft and make it capable of holding a specific type of condition.

This and let's face it, realism..

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

  As for the waiting, that is an inevitable byproduct of this, there is time warping or moving onto another project while the first gathers data.

Exactly.

 

[Jack Mcslay]

I think it would be pretty interesting if the game requires you to send survey satellites in order to gather details about each celestial body's surface in order to get elevation and biome information

This shouldn't affect the Kerbin-facing side of Mün as it's so close that Kerbals should know it in a fair bit of detail, but Minmus would be small and far enough that it would need it

Edited July 12, 2021 by Jack Mcslay

[mcwaffles2003]

21 hours ago, Jack Mcslay said:

I think it would be pretty interesting if the game requires you to send survey satellites in order to gather details about each celestial body's surface in order to get elevation and biome information

This shouldn't affect the Kerbin-facing side of Mün as it's so close that Kerbals should know it in a fair bit of detail, but Minmus would be small and far enough that it would need it

That's really what I would like to see since not only does it reflect the real world approach to space based discovery but also adds a layer of strategy to the game requiring a bit more critical thinking from the player. Not needing to map the moon for that reason would be a sensible inclusion but so long as the general mechanic is added I think the game would benefit.