how would you like research to work in ksp2?

[jastrone]

its pretty safe to assume there will be a career or atleast a science mode in ksp so how would you like that to work?

[MechBFP]

34 minutes ago, jastrone said:

its pretty safe to assume there will be a career or atleast a science mode in ksp so how would you like that to work?

Actually not a safe assumption. 

[jastrone]

6 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Actually not a safe assumption. 

how not. why would you want to build colonies in creative mode. and i doubt you would unlock every part in the begining that is bad for the learning curve

[MechBFP]

25 minutes ago, jastrone said:

how not. why would you want to build colonies in creative mode. and i doubt you would unlock every part in the beginning that is bad for the learning curve

They are calling it an adventure mode. No information on what that entails though, and if it will be anything like the science or career modes in KSP 1.

What I mean is don't assume it will be similar, at all, to the existing modes.

[jastrone]

12 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

adventure mode

well it wouldnt be much of an adventure if you already had everything unlocked. there must be something blocking you from reaching the goal. thecnological progresion fills that need perfectly

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, jastrone said:

1. collecting research points

• like ksp 1(doing experiments)but improved.
• having labs spacestations and colonies doing research going faster the more labs you have and on more exotic locations.
• unlocking new stuff when you hit a milestone/boom event.
• buying parts with money

You separate these as if they're different things, but all of those are 'like KSP 1'.

 

I just want a tech tree that actually makes sense - a fully decked out pressurized space-worthy command pod is 'invented' before a thermometer, a wheel, a ladder, or even a basic steel plate?? Basic structural parts should exist from the very start. Progress from rolling equipment, to flight, to orbit, then whatever we need to go beyond. Learn to walk before you leap.

The rest of the mechanics can remain much as they are, I don't feel strongly one way or another.

[jastrone]

2 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

actually makes sense

it makes sense in game design. probes are harder to controll than the command pods so first timers would struggle getting something to orbit because it spins out all the time. and unlocking new science experiments as you progress makes it worth revisiting places. i could go on and on about this but you probably get it now. and btw we didnt have rovers until the moon landing so id say that one actualy makes sense in irl proggression

[Guest]

I would hope that science/research is completely reimagined. As it currently stands it's barely better than busywork. There needs to be more to it than what we have now: proper gameplay systems that create space for various kinds of emergent gameplay and interesting, varied fun.

I would start by looking at various 4X games for inspiration, then find ways of tying those kinds of systems into something that motivates you to go out, explore, and do experiments.

[pandaman]

31 minutes ago, jastrone said:

well it wouldnt be much of an adventure if you already had everything unlocked. there must be something blocking you from reaching the goal. thecnological progresion fills that need perfectly

I disagree,  I play Sandbox exclusively.  Each to their own, but as much as I like the idea of them I just can't get on with career/science modes as they are now.

I have loads of adventures, It's just that 'unlocking tech' isn't one of them.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, pandaman said:

I have loads of adventures, It's just that 'unlocking tech' isn't one of them.

I expect that in KSP2 progress will be constrained by resource availability and colony level. That means that any difference between adventure and sandbox mode will be much smaller than in KSP1, assuming that adventure mode has some mechanics for unlocking the tech tree and sandbox doesn't.

[swjr-swis]

10 minutes ago, jastrone said:

probes are harder to controll than the command pods so first timers would struggle getting something to orbit because it spins out all the time.

I beg to differ. The command pod is much heavier, bulkier, and draggier than any of the first probe cores. They are sold with the same (or more!) SAS capabilities as untrained kerbals. They can be fit inside a 1.25m bay, including a set of early science instruments and batteries, making a more efficient control module than a manned one. 'Spinning out' is a problem with CoM/CoL and drag, not what control method is used. And it just makes sense that we first try shooting up unmanned stuff before risking valuable and limited kerbals' lives... even in a game.

 

17 minutes ago, jastrone said:

and btw we didnt have rovers until the moon landing

Actually, there is record (and photographic evidence, which I can't reproduce here; see the link) of radio-controlled land vehicles as early as october 1921.

Not surprisingly, and much like ladders and I-beams, we learned to use wheels long before we went to space.

 

 

[pandaman]

27 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

I expect that in KSP2 progress will be constrained by resource availability and colony level. That means that any difference between adventure and sandbox mode will be much smaller than in KSP1, assuming that adventure mode has some mechanics for unlocking the tech tree and sandbox doesn't.

I am certainly interested in seeing how it works, and looking forward to trying it out.

I just hope it holds my interest more than the KSP1 science and career options.  But hopefully sandbox will be there in some form anyway.

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, pandaman said:

I am certainly interested in seeing how it works, and looking forward to trying it out.

I just hope it holds my interest more than the KSP1 science and career options.  But hopefully sandbox will be there in some form anyway.

And I personally hate sandbox mode as there is no challenge with no progression for me, as I can simply make 2 or 3 do-almost-everything ships with everything unlocked and call it a day.

One thing you will notice with all the best “KSP challenges” that get posted on this forum is they have big (or silly) restrictions, as that is where the fun is, trying to design and/or fly something under those special restrictions. 
 

Edited May 10, 2021 by MechBFP

[Guest]

I used to play almost exclusively careers with a variety of self-imposed constraints, but lately I've been playing more in the sandbox, just having fun designing things. I like both. I'd be pretty happy if KSP2 has a mode where the tech tree is fully unlocked and KSC fully upgraded, and with cheats that let me magic stuff wherever, to scratch that itch. 

Even better would be a "simulation facility" in Adventure Mode that let you build stuff and magic it wherever for free, with no game time passing, but only the tech you actually have unlocked. So I could prototype and practice freely, and when done, take the blueprints and launch the missions "for real." Kind of like a sandbox within the adventure mode.

[Guest]

I just hope they don't bring anything from KSP1 in the progression design and think something new from scratch.

Apart from being terrible in game design terms, having science like in KSP1 would be a complete waste of the base-station system (which could do much more than be used just for permanent colonies and launch centres) and everything career does will already be there in the form of minable resources potentially replacing money and bases and stations being useful making the "make-believe" contract system obsolete.

As for the tech tree I'd like something that doesn't end before landing on Minmus with some technical requirement and/or test missions to unlock new tech. 

[Dientus]

10 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

I would start by looking at various 4X games for inspiration, then find ways of tying those kinds of systems into something that motivates you to go out, explore, and do experiments.

I like that angle.

In general, I am for some tech tree style progression, but agree strongly with @Master39  that is shouldn't be completely unlocked so early in a standard game. But I believe that science should play some part in progression

[An Amongus Sussy Player]

Buying any part would be the best so you can get the daedalus in the first mun-mus (basically first mun and minmus mission) mission lol

[InfernoSD]

I think the research lab in KSP1 is one of the worst ideas put in to that game. Any situation in which you progress simply by holding down the time warp button is not fun or interesting. For that reason I hope first-time discoveries are the only research you can do, but I suspect we will get a mix of both again.

Maybe one way to handle unlocks would be to require several discoveries on a specific planet. For example, taking ground samples in three separate biomes could unlock a new fuel type for manufacture there. It would be a good way to encourage the use of rovers and complex missions in general. If you haven't unlocked something yet, members of KSC could give you hints in that direction.

In any case, I would be in favor of putting small dumb minigames in for each unique research part or activity.

[Starman4308]

14 minutes ago, InfernoSD said:

I think the research lab in KSP1 is one of the worst ideas put in to that game. Any situation in which you progress simply by holding down the time warp button is not fun or interesting. For that reason I hope first-time discoveries are the only research you can do, but I suspect we will get a mix of both again.

Ironically, "it takes time to complete research" is my favorite part of Kerbalism. Granted, this is usually part of an RP-1 campaign with construction time, so you have to timewarp anyways.

What I didn't like about the research lab was how much additional science it generated, trivializing the research subgame once you had a decent Mun/Minmus biome farm going.

What I would at least hope for is more complicated mechanics than "press button when in correct biome". The Kerbalism mechanics already partially address this by requiring collection time, specific orbits, power generation and communications bandwidth, but it took until Breaking Ground for stock KSP science to be even slightly interesting.

[shdwlrd]

This has been discussed many times before. I hope after reading the linked threads there would be some new ideas how science could be implemented. 

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by shdwlrd

[Guest]

1 hour ago, InfernoSD said:

In any case, I would be in favor of putting small dumb minigames in for each unique research part or activity.

That could become really tedious upon replays.

[pandaman]

4 hours ago, InfernoSD said:

I think the research lab in KSP1 is one of the worst ideas put in to that game. Any situation in which you progress simply by holding down the time warp button is not fun or interesting. For that reason I hope first-time discoveries are the only research you can do, but I suspect we will get a mix of both again.

I do get your point, but it is perfectly possible to 'do something else' whilst the Lab is doing it's thing.  Just because you can time warp through it doesn't mean you must.

[jastrone]

17 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

radio-controlled land vehicles

but would it work in space? also it looks like it lacks suspension and wheels on the moon are different from street wheels. first of all they cant have normal tires because of the moons pressure and the moon is dusty so you need terrain wheels

[Guest]

5 hours ago, pandaman said:

I do get your point, but it is perfectly possible to 'do something else' whilst the Lab is doing it's thing.  Just because you can time warp through it doesn't mean you must.

It's hard not to timewarp when you're doing interplanetary missions. That will fill up your labs PDQ.

Labs are so bad that I don't use them for research in career modes at all, as they completely wreck progression. I sometimes do include them in my craft but only for make-believe purposes (and to level up kerbals). 

[boolybooly]

I would like to play with test flights and static test firings as a part of component research and for components to actually improve as a result.

Would like research to be far more granular, individual parts for some branches of the tech tree like SRBs and a separate branch which is similarly one at a time research progression for very large engines like Mammoth and Mainsail. Then test firings etc could add gimble cabability to prototype engines and improve it for production models as well as improve ISP and tweak atmo/vac  ISP performance to your requirement, but consume resource of some kind, like research and funds with exponential scaling of cost per improvement. Many types of parts could be improved, like landing legs could have better load bearing / heat tolerance / lower weight but if you raise heat tolerance or load the weight goes up. 

Point being to feel like you are flying something potentially unique which you had a hand in creating.

I also think you should need to achieve milestone goals to unlock the option to research some tech, as if under the control of a directorate, who only approve the need for a particular part if you demonstrate it, eg LV-N NERV is only unlocked if you complete an interplanetary flight of a large distance like to Duna, without it.

2c