How should science work in ksp2?

[Kosmix1]

I think the way you do science should be completely different in the sequel, KSP makes no sense that checking a barometer in space will make it possible to create a new engine and the tech tree is unrealistic.

What do you guys think it should be like in KSP 2?

[mcwaffles2003]

A summation of my views and others on this board I have collected around this subject:

TL;DR: 

In game updating wiki based on findings making science relevant even beyond tech tree completion. Possibly make several science currencies to maintain relevancy of discovery with inventions. Include funding and time in tech tree progression. Include space telescopes and a discovery mechanic to map the celestial bodies and their orbits.

[intelliCom]

This is something I remember discussing at some point before, and mcwaffles might have already said something along these lines. But since I'm too lazy to confirm, I'll just share my thoughts anyways.

The experiments should have at least some portion of relevance to particular parts. For example, the rough terrain of the Mun from a surface sample leads to the development of the first sets of rover wheels. The thick atmosphere of Eve leads to the development of more in the aerodynamic area, and perhaps some further development of other command pods with better pressure resistance...

Better "pressure resistance?" That's an interesting idea. From what I can recall, the real-world Venera 4 was destroyed by atmospheric pressure on Venus. Is it possible that atmospheric pressure could be an important part of choosing parts? It's interesting to think about. Anyway, assuming that it's real, a 2.5m lander can probably has just barely enough strength against air pressure to survive, which means that it definitely wouldn't survive entry into Jool's deeper atmosphere.

I guess with the tech tree, KSP 1 has a set of parts for certain named categories, even when they don't always make sense. Is a thermometer a science instrument, or a safety tool? Many would think of it as a science instrument, but it's in a section named "survivability," as if it would help you to know "oh, the thermometer is giving a reading of 500 celcius," what would you even do in that situation with a thermometer? Perhaps those thermal guages on your spacecraft could only show up by having a thermometer on your craft? Anyways, I digress.

I suggest splitting the tech tree into two halves: "Engineering research" and "Science research." Considering research in real life, engineering and science are both very important to one another, but neither is actually the other. An engineer can design an engine, but without the science to even provide the theory, where could that lead?

Let's say you want to work up to a Metallic Hydrogen engine. You would probably need:

• Science section:
  • A very high "thermal" level, to account for the extreme heat generated by such an engine. 
  • A very high "chemistry" level, since the fuel isn't exactly common
• Engineering section:
  • A moderate "structural" level, so the engine doesn't get blasted apart by its own force
  • A high "flow" level, to ensure the propellant leaves the nozzle as efficiently as possible.

Just spitballing, but I'd like to see other people's ideas for this.

edit: didn't quite finish, and accidentally hit "post"

Edited July 16, 2021 by intelliCom

[mcwaffles2003]

@intelliCom In the second thread I posted I talk abut splitting the tech tree into multiple trees with different science currencies to maintain the relevance between research and engineering discovery. Someone since then expressed something akin to why not have 1 tech tree and each tech can require multiple kinds of relevant science currencies dependent on how those sciences relate to the tech being developed. Some of these different science points could come from experiments as is already the case while others come from actions like running an engine for X amount of time or flying with wings experiencing lift for Y amount of time etc.. Something akin to flight experience or part test time. I imagine each of these could be sub-segmented down to maintain more substantial relevancy and other research types could other then experiments and flight experience can be dreamed up.

A problem with this might be creating too many currencies and overwhelming the player with over nuancing the tree but I think a balance can be found in this. As for the tech tree as a whole I think a tree structure isn't the problem so much as the categorization and the order in which things are researched. I find it a bit surprising SQUAD never tries to balance this in any of their updates (They dont change cost, position, order, etc ever) which just leads me to believe they overall don't care much about career/science modes in general.

[jastrone]

personaly i think it would be cool if it worked somewhat like this: you get different parts after a certain amount of time but you can speed it up by ex investing currency in it or doing mor science experiments(some experiments speeding up engines and others speeding up stuctural etc) or if you use jet engines a lot you will research jet engines faster.

[DeLacy]

I think the part requirements should be revamped and the Science at the most should get split into Engineering research and Scientific research. Also add in Science modules similar to the Mobile processing lab that specialize in different research (crewed by engineers or scientists) and maybe even interchange data from one field to other as necessary. Anything more will feel really tedious imo.

[MKI]

I personally feel like one of KSP's biggest gameplay flaws, and one of the key things that makes me stop playing it for a while, was the grind. The grind to get more science, to get new parts, or funds to build cool stuff is one of the reasons why I rarely finished the career mode from start to finish. At a certain point you are either continuously grinding, or you have all the science and basically unlimited funds. There really wasn't a solid balance between the two, never mind the fact there's a whole solar system to explore! The grind became more of a distraction for the means to the end, where the means are rockets and the end is exploration.

 

This is why I personally think the idea of science/research should be secondary to more ambitious endeavors of building, and exploring where you get "progress" by going places instead of just doing things the game tells you to. KSP 1's main blockers being contracts more or less "telling you" where to go and what to do. I think science+funds should be merged together into RND. Where exploring + building stuff = increased RND capacity to unlock more stuff. 

I don't care why or how the idea works, only that doing what I want gives me RND, and doing more ambitious things gives more. 

 

Having hard blockers on types of engines/tech is probably required as well. Where you can't build interstellar engines without building colonies within the Kerbin system. Again I care less about the why and more about the fact the game wont let you "expand your exploration bubble" without accomplishing some related tasks up to a point. Sure you can throw Kerbals on a seat to fly by Duna on a crazy mission early, but you can't do that and then know enough to get to a percentage of lightspeed the next day. 

 

 

 

 

[mcwaffles2003]

On 7/18/2021 at 3:54 AM, DeLacy said:

Also add in Science modules similar to the Mobile processing lab that specialize in different research (crewed by engineers or scientists) and maybe even interchange data from one field to other as necessary.

I think physical sample recovery should be at more of the forefront and perhaps down the line instead of requiring taking samples to the KSC, instead either require they be taken to a designated lab or allow labs to become alternate drop-off locations other than the KSC.