Science in KSP2

[Gotmachine]

You (and a lot of people in this thread) are assuming that there still will be a KSP1-like tech tree, KSP1-like science points, KSP1-like experiment parts...

All we know is that the whole progression system is completely different, and somehow based on "achievements", which can come from doing science, going places, reaching specific milestones...
There was a few hints that concepts like funds or a tech tree tied to science points acquired by performing experiments don't exist anymore.

This leave a lot of room for interpretation on the actual gameplay mechanics involved, but thinking about it by taking KSP 1 mechanics as point of reference is a bit pointless.

Personally, I expect things to be a lot more basic than in KSP 1.

From the developer POV, the progression system is the least important aspect of KSP. Nobody is gonna buy that game for its progression gameplay mechanics.
They are clearly counting on the interstellar/colonies stuff wow factor, as well as graphics and multiplayer. So this is where the development resources are.
The likely only design goal of the progression system is to give new players directions, and to cost the least possible to develop.

Likely a single "progression points" variable that increase passively when you go somewhere new, or perform something for the first time, and probably a single "technology tier" system  that passively unlock new parts when you you have accumulated X progression points.
I doubt we will have any significant "experiment system". I would be very surprised if its anything more complicated than "be somewhere" > "click on a perform experiment button" > "have an antenna or return the data" > "get progression points".
Arguably, the only real KSP 1 issue with that system is a UI one.

Frankly, I expect the so called "Adventure Mode" to be a slightly "part availability gated" sandbox. I doubt there will even be any form of "costs" for doing stuff like launching a new vessel or hiring kerbals for example.

[t_v]

1 hour ago, Gotmachine said:

From the developer POV, the progression system is the least important aspect of KSP. Nobody is gonna buy that game for its progression gameplay mechanics.
They are clearly counting on the interstellar/colonies stuff wow factor, as well as graphics and multiplayer. So this is where the development resources are.
The likely only design goal of the progression system is to give new players directions, and to cost the least possible to develop.

I understand where you are coming from, but for me personally, I appreciate the progression system. I’ve played around in sandbox and I guess there is some merit to designing better and better craft, but I find myself going back to science mode and even sometimes career mode because I like having to design with different tech levels and include the experiment payload in my craft. (I’m discounting orbital mechanics because once you learn them they don’t add much)

The reason I think the devs will put resources  into the progression system is because a good replay experience will help with selling future DLCs, and will attract players to the game. As such, I think a discussion on what would be the most engaging and well thought out progression system is a worthwhile one.
Also, before you debate whether or not the devs are working on progression, a lot of the systems that have been announced feed directly into it and an entire game mode (adventure mode) is based on progression, and should therefore be well designed and therefore the devs are working on progression. 

[Pthigrivi]

4 hours ago, Gotmachine said:

You (and a lot of people in this thread) are assuming that there still will be a KSP1-like tech tree, KSP1-like science points, KSP1-like experiment parts...

Not at all! They suggested in the last video episode that there would be biomes and experiments and we could use them to buy parts, but as @shdwlrd pointed out it wasn't terribly conclusive. I do personally suspect those pieces will exist, but I also hope that they'll be treated differently. What we're trying to do in this thread is dissect some of the ways KSP1 falls short and think up ways that KSP2 could do it better.  It may be moot because Intercept has it all sewn up or we have poor assumptions, but as a theoretical exercise I think it's still fun.
 

4 hours ago, Gotmachine said:

From the developer POV, the progression system is the least important aspect of KSP. Nobody is gonna buy that game for its progression gameplay mechanics.

On this front I couldn't disagree more. Mechanics make or break games. They're what make them fun or not fun. KSP1 was able to essentially float itself as a sandbox game, the core dynamics of building rocket parts and managing fuel and going to other planets being so good that they outweighed a lot of the clunkiness in career mode. KSP2 wont have that luxury, as so much of the game exists outside KSOI and on building up colonies and developing advanced engines and visiting other star systems. I think its absolutely critical that fundamental mechanics for colony building, resource prospecting and extraction, and tech development are tight as a drum to make that really work and take the next big step from where KSP1 left off. Science is a big part of that. And yeah! I could be as simple as gated technologies based on reaching milestones. But how would you prevent that from being too linear? How would you give players choice over how they developed, to move smoothly from Methalox to an H2 economy or leapfrog up to Orion style engines or He3, depending on what resources they found and how they could maximize their resources? 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[Gotmachine]

6 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

how would you prevent that from being too linear? How would you give players choice over how they developed, to move smoothly from Methalox to an H2 economy or leapfrog up to Orion style engines or He3, depending on what resources they found and how they could maximize their resources? 

It is fundamentally linear. Launch a basic rocket, reach orbit, go to the moons, go interplanetary, go interstellar.
Arguably, the 4-5 "technological steps" for doing so are quite linear : first chemical, then chemical++, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion and finally sci-fi exotic stuff.
There isn't really enough there to build a meaningful "tech tree choice" gameplay around that, unless they actually develop a whole in-depth "space program tycoon" sub-game, which at this point we know won't happen.
This is why I doubt there will be any significant depth to the "adventure mode" mechanics.
They gave strong hints that they won't repeat the same mistake as KSP career mode : introducing "tycoon/strategy" like mechanics without having any significant gameplay elements to back them.

Moreover, a "player decisions" gameplay will already exist through colonies/stations building/growth and associated gameplay elements : ISRU, colony growth, offworld vessel construction, resupply lines...
Arguably, this is the progression gameplay, directly involving the core "lego building / piloting vehicules around" element.
Why would they need to add complex abstracted progression concepts on top of that ?
To satisfy the 0.1 % of players that will play the game more than 100 hours ?

6 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Mechanics make or break games. They're what make them fun or not fun.

The fundamentals of KSP are about building rockets, flying them and reaching space and distant worlds in a somewhat physically accurate way.
This is the fun part. They will succeed if they get that right, and this in itself is a huge task.

At some point, some of the KSP 1 devs commented that when analyzing the collected statistics, they discovered that vast majority of people that bought the game didn't ever get past Kerbin orbit.
The "forum population" is NOT representative of the player base. They are the 1% advanced, noisy, nerdy players.

If the KSP 2 devs are doing their job right, focus will be accessibility of the core gameplay elements : building rockets that work and piloting them to their destination so Kerbals can go interplanetary/interstellar and build distant colonies, and making exploration interesting by making beautiful worlds, with more variety and unique features. It would be a much higher payoff to introduce "lore" stuff (kerbal artifacts, alien/kraken stuff...), then create  some sort of "quest/story" gameplay element than building a pointless progression system.

They have given a lot of information on the accessibility/core physics/stuff to explore topics, but they have been quite silent on the "adventure mode" mechanics.
Likely because there isn't much to it, and the "KSP 1 nerds community" has huge misplaced expectations on that front. But I wouldn't be surprised if that is because they have a "lore/story" progression element they want to keep secret until launch.

Advanced progression mechanics are the realm of mods, or DLCs / extensions. Which are an essential part of the economical model of a game like KSP. But it certainly won't be a launch-day feature.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Gotmachine

[Pthigrivi]

@Gotmachine I think in order to understand each other you’re going to have to tell me what you mean by an “advanced progression system” and what the alternative is. You don’t seem to be advocating for sandbox so there’s some kind of progression system there. Would there be batches of parts released on certain conditions? What would those conditions be and how would the batches be organized? It could be very simple, but often simple is good. 

[Gotmachine]

4 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Would there be batches of parts released on certain conditions? What would those conditions be and how would the batches be organized? It could be very simple, but often simple is good. 

We can't do much but speculate.
But based on what they said and what I think would make sense, this is what I mean by a "slightly part availability gated sandbox" :

• A single "progression point" variable, where those points are acquired :
  • Passively, on reaching various milestone (like the "world firsts" KSP 1 system) : distance traveled, speed attained, reaching a body SOI/orbit/landed/biome, using a mechanic (ISRU/in situ construction...) for the first time, colony achievements/bloom events, finding special places/easter eggs, stuff like that.
  • Actively, by transmitting or retrieving part experiment results (same mechanics as for KSP 1 science points). Very few different experiments (~5-6), available from the start.
• A single branch, linear "technology" progression, with maybe ~20 "nodes", each unlocking a large batch of rocket/colony parts. Basically, one node for every major technological milestone : one for each propulsion technology, one for each major colony/station capability, a bunch of extra nodes at the start for not overwhelming new players with tons of options. They unlock passively, when the total acquired "progression points" reach a given amount.

To spice it up a bit, that system could also have an "actively spend progression points" mechanic for :

• Launching rockets from KSC, with the progression point cost based on the rocket mass.
• Launching the special colony/station "core" parts.
• Hiring new kerbals.
• KSC upgrades, for example to increase launch mass limits or DSN range.

Spending points wouldn't change how the "tech progression" works, it would be purely based on the total points ever acquired.

This avoid the "part availability mismatch" issue of the KSP 1 tech tree where you inevitable end up doing silly designs due to parts being both categorized by size and function.
This also avoid having to balance a per part "tech cost". The only limiting factor is vehicle launch mass, all part sizes are available once the corresponding technology node is unlocked.
In that system, the vast majority of parts would be made available in the first ~5-10 tech nodes, designed to be achieved quite quickly, including all structural/utility/control/aero parts.

[Pthigrivi]

9 hours ago, Gotmachine said:

 

• A single "progression point" variable, where those points are acquired...
• A single branch, linear "technology" progression, with maybe ~20 "nodes", each unlocking a large batch of rocket/colony parts...

Funnily enough thats pretty similar to what I've been hoping for. I don't personally think you need money or reputation and could just use Science to unlock part nodes and upgrade buildings. I also agree keeping things as simple as possible is generally speaking a good thing. Originally I would have suggested as few as 5 experiments, but when we started talking about experiments providing information to players rather than just being point-buttons I realized just how much they could tell us about terrain, resources, wind and atmospheric heating, radiation etc. At the same time even items from my list could be combined into experiment packages that do more than one thing. In certain settings its nice to break them up to balance mass or because you don't need a barometer on the Mun. But thats hairsplitting. 

The one thing I would argue in favor of is a branching tech tree. What it produces is player choice and strategic forks. It's the reason chess is fun and war is not. The rules don't have to be complicated, but they should produce a wide variety of playing styles and the opportunity for players to adapt. Do players want to go with mostly probes first or venture out in crewed vessels? Do they want to ship most vessels into orbit from Kerbin and build an H2 refueling station on Minmus, or rush to build vessels from scratch on the Mun and power them with Orions? Do they then build a nuclear fueled colony on Duna or start using solar powered Xenon engines around Eve and Gilly and then push traight out to colonizing Jool's moons? Those choices might effect the kinds of technologies they need to unlock and what order they need them, so rather than plowing linearly through a bunch of Xenon tech they don't need they could unlock nodes down a parallel nuclear or He3 branch, or invest more in resource harvesting and habitation tech instead of fancy engines they can't yet support. 

All that said I definitely agree KSP1's tech tree needs some major sorting out. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[Gotmachine]

14 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

What it produces is player choice and strategic forks.

Problem is, there isn't much choice to give.

Every "technology" is mandatory at some point. You need parachutes, landing legs, heat shields, fuel tanks, RCS, reaction wheels, thermal control, solar power, batteries, etc...
The only potential strategic choices are choosing between a handful of advanced propulsion systems, plus maybe the "nuclear power or not" choice.
If they really want to give those choices, that would still work with a "single line" progression : when you reach X progression points, you can choose one tech between the 5-6 "advanced techs", and at the next "progression threshold", you can choose another, etc.
But I don't see the need for a "tree" of any kind.

33 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

rather than plowing linearly through a bunch of Xenon tech they don't need they could unlock nodes down a parallel nuclear or He3 branch, or invest more in resource harvesting and habitation tech instead of fancy engines they can't yet support. 

You're missing the point of the "very few tech nodes". Those situations wouldn't happen because there is no such granularity, and because there are very few milestones before unlocking the vast majority of parts and functionalities.
The progression revolving around what the player accomplishes (base/station construction, supply runs, etc) is enough, no need to create arbitrary and hard to balance low granularity "tech gating" on top of that.

53 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Funny enough thats pretty similar to what I've been hoping for

What I describe isn't what I would like. It is what I think we will get.
Personally, I would definitely prefer an in-depth "space program management" sub-game complete with funding, a proper contracts system, time based rocket construction, time base science, individual part unlocks based on time based research, a proper life support system...
But that's definitely not what we are gonna get.
We are gonna get a "guided sandbox" with interstellar fluff, scifi propulsion, colonies, and multiplayer. All things that I absolutely don't care for.

[shdwlrd]

A quick question to everyone. Why whenever science is discussed, the subject turns to the tech tree. They are two different subjects. They may work together, but they are fundamental different. 

Science is an activity that can either give you information, points to spend, or the ability to unlock things in a game.

Tech tree is the placement of parts to be purchased for use.

Edited November 8, 2021 by shdwlrd
Work always interrupting...

[Pthigrivi]

33 minutes ago, Gotmachine said:

What I describe isn't what I would like. It is what I think we will get.

Why so pessimistic? Why cant there be a happy balance between thoughtful, smooth progression mechanics and keeping things simple enough that they don't consume overmuch player time? KSP1 was complicated, and with everything KSP2 is bringing in it seems like giving a simple but robust structure to the game is more important than ever. 

36 minutes ago, Gotmachine said:

If they really want to give those choices, that would still work with a "single line" progression : when you reach X progression points, you can choose one tech between the 5-6 "advanced techs", and at the next "progression threshold", you can choose another, etc.
But I don't see the need for a "tree" of any kind.

But this is till a tree, you're just not displaying on screen that way, which seems confusing. Players are pretty used to looking at tech trees and if its accomplishing the same thing why the fuss? Especially since you don't particularly seem to want it to work that way? Im not set on any particular level of granularity, but there's a world of options between 20 nodes and buying each of a few hundred parts individually. 



 

[Gotmachine]

16 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Why so pessimistic?

I'm not pessimistic, I'm just saying that what KSP 2 is focused on isn't what I personally want to do in a KSP game.
They obviously are making the "lets assure a commercial success" choices, I'm fine with that, but it isn't the "rocket game" I personally would like to play. I don't want things to be simple.
I want game that I can play for hundreds of hours, with complex gameplay elements, and a less emphasis on the "derpy toy/scifi world" aspect, and more emphasis on the "real world rocket/space program simulation" aspect. Which is a much more niche genre.

16 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

But this is till a tree, you're just not displaying on screen that way, which seems confusing.

It isn't. If there aren't any branches, it isn't a tree. If you want a comparison with a commonly used game mechanic, it's like a "Level up ! Choose a new ability to unlock" thing.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Gotmachine

[Pthigrivi]

35 minutes ago, Gotmachine said:

I want game that I can play for hundreds of hours, with complex gameplay elements, and a less emphasis on the "derpy toy/scifi world" aspect, and more emphasis on the "real world rocket/space program simulation" aspect. Which is a much more niche genre.

Well I think we're getting into semantics now, but if there is an unfolding set of technology unlocks, and as they unfold you can chose between a couple or several options, those are branches and what you have is a tree. You can choose to not display it on screen that way, but in a game with as many parts and facets as KSP has it seems like the most intuitive thing would be to show it side-on. 

35 minutes ago, Gotmachine said:

I want game that I can play for hundreds of hours, with complex gameplay elements, and a less emphasis on the "derpy toy/scifi world" aspect, and more emphasis on the "real world rocket/space program simulation" aspect. Which is a much more niche genre.

I guess I don't see any evidence it will simply be "derpy toy/scifi world", especially given all the effort they've been putting in to understanding real-wold physics and exoplanets. They haven't told us much about Adventure mode, either because it's still deep in progress or because it's not as glitzy in a show and tell, or both. We really don't know how things like construction time or science or life support will be handled. I personally feel like each of these components are really important to the game, but shouldn't be any more complicated or time-consuming than they have to be. Maybe Im more optimistic but I think there are clever ways to do both things and still have a game players can invest thousands of hours in. In fact they're more likely to if the mechanics are solid and progression is smooth and rewarding.

We also had broader discussion about some of the non-science aspects here: 

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

A quick question to everyone. Why whenever science is discussed, the subject turns to the tech tree. They are two different subjects. They may work together, but they are fundamental different. 

Science is an activity that can either give you information, points to spend, or the ability to unlock things in a game.

Tech tree is the placement of parts to be purchased for use.

For real though...

I'm just sitting here wishing for that science compendium. I doubt the devs will make it but maybe they've seen the posts and thought it was cool... A guy can dream

 

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

We also had broader discussion about some of the non-science aspects here: 

 

I'll just tack on some of my prior discussions...

Science compendium where research becomes useful guidance for exploration:

Telescope based research where launching telescopes helps discover and plot orbits for newly discovered planets:

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by mcwaffles2003

[shdwlrd]

There's one thing about science I would like to see, the ability to record your readings over time for certain things. The temperature of a certain area over a year. The differences in pressure as you fly around Kerbin. The temperature flux as you orbit a planet. The changes in gravity when orbiting an object. 

It could just be a simple graph displayed in the game or it could be outputed as a simple CSV file. It could be limited to the physics range, or one instrument at a time.

Maybe it could be expanded to show production numbers for isru, energy use over time, population growth. Probably a better idea for a mod, but worth mentioning.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

A quick question to everyone. Why whenever science is discussed, the subject turns to the tech tree. They are two different subjects. They may work together, but they are fundamental different. 

Science is an activity that can either give you information, points to spend, or the ability to unlock things in a game.

Tech tree is the placement of parts to be purchased for use.

This, I wanted to reply to the other discussion going on about progression in general (which for what we now is already more complex than anything in KSP1 even if there's no tech tree or money) but science needs to be treated on its own.

 

From a purely gameplay perspective it would be fantastic to have the experiments collect "data" instead of science points that you need to convert into useful science resources in labs, you start out only with one lab at the KSC and then as you progress and build your off-Kerbin civilization having stations, surface outposts and then research centers at colonies becomes more and more important if you want to convert the stream of data and samples from your exploration into useable tech and knowledge.

 

[Pthigrivi]

@Master39 How do you feel about LS? I only ask because it plays into a lot of folks' interest in time-based experiments and research/ data processing time.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

@Master39 How do you feel about LS? I only ask because it plays into a lot of folks' interest in time-based experiments and research/ data processing time.

I'm open to the idea if it isn't just a "Kerbal fuel" to keep the crew from Dying, there's a ton of gameplay loops you can tie to it.

I will say that it doesn't have to be a fuel/resource time-based gameplay loop either, crew requirements and rotations, habitability and environmental challenges can be present and be considered a LS system even without having a set of different snak canisters among the part list.

In some article or interview I remember Nate saying something about a "light LS but not anything like what player are used to with KSP1 mods" or something like that, I read that as a possible hint to what I was saying, a LS system that isn't designed around any kind of Kerbal-fuel.

 

My idea about science however is not tied around it taking time to process but more around making labs, bases and stations useful, it could totally be a multiplier on the conversion rate, although that would make multiple labs useless.

[theJesuit]

On 11/3/2021 at 5:32 AM, Tw1 said:

it felt like fetch quests,

There is a lot to read in this debate already, but as someone who ahs created and tried to balance TechTrees v. science collection and manipulated science returns for Kerbalism Simplex I feel that I could contribute something.

I think this is great in KSP1.   It gives a point - the only 'end game' thing we have that is a visual completion task is the TechTree.  KSP1 would have been more awesome if there was a 'tree' that filled out when we flag and footprinted on every accessible surface.

On 11/3/2021 at 5:32 AM, Tw1 said:

science for the sake of science

The real issue with having to go somewhere to get science to unlock better tech is that this isn't how the real world works.

We currently invent (unlock a tech) to be able to get somewhere - and do science for science sake.  The helicopter on Mars for example was a lot of tech developed (sure with understanding of Martian atmosphere), but it was all developed on Earth.  Even the recent flying in lighter summer pressures was developed on Earth.

Possibly the closest that gets to 'real science' applied to part unlocking is the part testing contracts - as disgusting as they are, which aren't really related to the science tree unlocking as you can spend the points on a decoupler being staged on the ground to a new probe core, or solar panels.

A better 'science' system would be based on monthly money you spend on R&D and licensing of the technology.  Make it more about the contract and testing, and the money you get money from contracts, or world firsts.  The tech tree will unlock a node or a tier every x years, but you can speed this up or slow it down by allocating more or less money to it.  You have to complete contracts to earn money per month to keep up with the unlocking.  

KINDOF the way in which KCT does it, kind of Monthly Budgets.

Then it is less about the grind of going to every biome to deploy every experiment.   Sure you can time warp, as that is the point of time warp, but this can be mitigated by having to go places and test parts through a contract system:

Contracts could then be offered to say company X wants to research Mun quakes for future colony building or lander leg safety.  They offer a contract to 'deploy seismographs /accelerometers  in three different biomes.   

Once  you do this then you unlock certain parts, or tech tree nodes.

Another example might be The contracts could use their flavour text to say, actually we can build a bigger and more efficient radiator, but before we do so, we want to test our current radiator on Duna.   Deploy a current one there with a temperature sensor so that we can design a better part and once that is done, research funding can be spent on that node.  Yes, this becomes fetch tests, but it is also optional in parts and give purpose.

This way the science couldn't be done on a single launch. 

Ultimately there should be a flags and footprints visual tick box/ tree for 'completeness' as well.

 

[SciMan]

On 11/8/2021 at 3:52 AM, Gotmachine said:

Why would they need to add complex abstracted progression concepts on top of that ?

To satisfy the 0.1 % of players that will play the game more than 100 hours ?

Well, you seem to either not know or have forgotten two basic facts. One about the KSP forums, and one about specifically the game KSP 2.

1. You seem to have either not known or not remembered that this forum is mostly populated by either people looking for help with their issues, or (and this is likely the great majority of people with many many posts) EXACTLY that so-called "0.1% of players that will play the game more than 100 hours". So the discussion happens naturally and that point seems to fall flatter than the plains of Minmus.

2. KSP 2 specifically, will be designed from the start with support for modding the game in mind. You know how Minecraft is so popular, but hardly anyone plays it "pure vanilla"? Yes, some play it "vanilla but with a texture pack on top", however to me that doesn't count as "vanilla" anymore because you added something, namely the texture pack itself counts as a mod even if it's from Mojang.
That is why in my opinion the intent to support mods from day 1 is something that will catapult KSP 2 into the category of games that people never really "stop playing". Yes, a player might take a break from it for 6 months or so but they'll be back, picking different mods to play with to see how that changes the game.
Factorio is another fantastic example of this kind of phenomenon, I purchased Factorio thinking "Hey, maybe I'll play this for a couple hundred hours", that's money well spent I guess." Fast forward 4 years and I now have 3900 HOURS spent playing that game, most of that time playing with many mods installed (which Factorio makes an easy process thanks to it's built-in mod manager and version compatibility checking system similar to CKAN, but built into the game natively).
That experience told me that I like factory building games, so when Satisfactory was announced at E3, I knew immediately that I would be purchasing it. I'm unsure of how many hours exactly I have in Satisfactory, but I'm sure it's over 1000 and likely closer to 1500 hours. And that's without any mods for Satisfactory, because they haven't officially introduced modding support yet and I don't want to corrupt any of my saves.
Then Dyson Sphere Program came out, combining elements of KSP (space travel) and Factorio and Satisfactory (factory building games), and right now I play that game at least a couple hours every day, with Steam telling me that I have 975 hours in it as of this post.

Additionally, to essentially say "it's not going to happen that way because XYZ game development reasons/not enough funding" doesn't really matter to us, because we came into this discussion intending to speculate, not intending to exactly nail down "how it's actually going to be".
Besides, this discussion could serve as a firm foundation to build a mod that incorporates the features we're discussing, if the game does turn out to not behave the way we're predicting. Mod support from day 1, remember?

[Pthigrivi]

So I took a stab at a better tech-tree system. This one would use Boom events to unlock each tech-tier, after which you could spend Science to unlock the nodes within that tier. I started with 5 main tech lanes: propulsion, exploration, structure, electronics, + aerodynamics, which would open up and expand as more exotic engines and technologies became available. I've also just given the experiment parts as Boom rewards. This would take you through your first interplanetary missions and unlock most of the parts in KSP1. It's too hard to guess what would come after. 

Start - (Command Pod, small chute, basic fin, Flea, small hardpoint, Swivel, small 1.25m tanks, thermometer, barometer, surface sample)
Initially available tech nodes > 

Basic Rocketry - (Hammer, Terrier, Large 1.25m tanks)
Survivability - (1.25m heat shield + service bay, radial chutes)
Stability - (Basic decouplers, Strut connector, launch clamp)
Electronics - (Stayputnik, small PV + batteries, Communotrons)
Aerodynamics - (Winglets, nosecones, 1.25m fairing)

First orbit unlocks > Terrain + Biome Scanner, Dosimeter 

General rocketry - (Reliant, Thumper, Ext. Fuel Duct.)
Space Exploration - (Mk1 Lander can, ladders, lights, LT-1 struts, command seat, foldable wheel)
General Construction - (Adapters, couplers, girders)
Probe Tech - (Basic probecores, Rovemate, medium PV + batteries, S2 Wheel, HG-5)
Basic Aviation - (First tier plane parts)

Landing on either Mun or Minmus > Infrared + Resource Scanner, Core Samples

Heavy Rocketry - (Skipper, Poodle, Kickback, 2.5m tanks)
Propulsion Systems - (Thud, Twitch, Spark, External tanks, Sepratron)
Advanced Flight Control - (RCS, reaction wheels, 1.25m clampotron, MK1-3, MK2 Lander can)
Advanced Exploration - (Science Lab, Hitchhiker, 2.5m service bay + heat shield, Mk25 + MK-16-XL chute, LT-2 landing struts, LES)
Heavy Construction - (2.5m decoupler, stack separator, nosecones, adapters, + fairing)
Micro Engineering - (.625m reaction wheel, heat shield, decoupler, stack separator, clampotron, + small girders + LT-05 struts) 
Advanced Probes - (Probodyne QBE, HECS2, OKTO2)
Communications - (DTS-M1, RA-2, HG-55, RA-15)
Advanced Aerodynamics - (Medium wings, elevons, fuselage, crew cabin, landing gear)
Air-Breathing Engines - (Wheesley, Panther, nacelles, air intakes)

Crewed landings + returns from Mun + Minmus unlock 1st R+D upgrade > Radiation + Atmospheric Scanners, Atmospheric Analyzer

Advanced Fuel Systems - (Mainsail, Twin Boar, Vector, Large RCS tanks, C7 + fuel laden adapters)
Precision Propulsion - (Spider, Ant, Puff, Vernor, .625m tanks)
Station Tech - (Shielded, In-line + Clampotron SR, Cupola, First station parts, LS)
Surface Exploration - (TR-2L, Medium rover parts, storage parts)
Specialized Construction - (2.5m couplers, I-beams, panels, girders)
High Powered Electronics - (Gigantor, Variants, Z-1k, Fuel Cells, PB-NUK)
Deep Space Probes - (RC-001S, 88-88, RA-100)
Supersonic Flight - (Whiplash, advanced intakes, Mk2 parts)
Heavy Aerodynamics - (Goliath, large plane wings, Mk3 parts)

First Interplanetary landing > Anomaly Detector, Robot Arm

Very Large Rockets - (Rhino, Mammoth, 3.5m + 5m tanks)
Nuclear Propulsion - (LV-N, Stubby 1.25m variant, LH2 tanks)
Ion Propulsion - (Dawn, 1.25m variant, small + medium xenon tanks)
Large Stations - (3.5m modules + station parts)
Colonization - (First surface colony parts, upgraded science lab)
ISRU - (First small drills + converters)
Advanced Alloys - (3.5m Fairing, decoupler, adapters + engine plates, large trusses)
Nuclear Reactors - (.625m + 1.25m Nuclear reactors, Uranium tanks)
Specialized Electronics - (RC-LO1, Z-4k, Large PV arrays)
Radiators - (First radiators + thermal control)
Spaceplanes - (Rapier, Aerospike, Spaceplane wings)

Edited November 18, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[SciMan]

Ok, just one small problem: You give the player the 4-ton, 1000 kn thrust, VECTOR engine at the game's start?

I think not! Clearly that's an error, which engine were you thinking of? The LV-T45 perhaps, which is the first liquid fueled rocket engine you unlock in Stock KSP 1?

To be honest, I'd make it even simpler than that. I'd have you unlock the Spark (or more correctly, it's radially-attached sibling, which I forget the name of at the moment).
Reason being is that you'd think they're supposed to start off with a SMALL rocket engine that works good in the atmosphere, and that fits the bill quite nicely (it has enough thrust that a pair with a small fuel tank can make a mk1 pod do a soft-landing or orbit circularization comfortably enough, and basically all the other options are either too high thrust for a "starting" engine (LV-T30, LV-T45) or only work well in vacuum, which we're not quite at yet (LV-909)

That's why I think the Spark (and its radially attached sibling) should probably be the best candidates for the very first liquid fueled rocket engine you unlock in KSP 2.

EDIT: I remembered the name of the radially-attached sibling of the Spark, I think it's the 24-77 "Twitch".

Edited November 15, 2021 by SciMan

[Pthigrivi]

Oh haha yeah I meant the swivel.  Thats a good point about starting engines. Maybe I’ll play around with that. Tbh I’d actually love to see them go through and rejigger a lot of the parts for consistency and evenly fill some gaps. There are a lot of holes and weird stats that could be fixed. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[SOXBLOX]

I think I'd most like to see something like how the real world actually works. Space agencies dump precious funding and time into researching a given technology. They can only do so much research in a given time however, so an agency has to prioritize important technologies. Agencies must allocate research capacities, funding, and time.

Leaps in technology don't come in big bundles of unrelated developments, like tech nodes in KSP1. Instead, they're highly subdivided. For example, in x year y engine might be upgraded, or a new part or set of related parts might be developed.

Experiments performed in space, as well as milestones and successful completion of missions generally give the program access to more funding, research capacity, or whatever. How this works could depend on what kind of agency the agency is. Is it a government organization or a company?

In general, I think KSP2 needs a much more subdivided tech tree, with all the nodes focussing on very specific iterations. The nodes should be unlocked by throwing time and funds (or the equivalent thereof) at them, through a constrained development pipeline. Experiments shouldn't directly unlock new tech; they should pave the way for more research.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I think you could add other cool mechanics, too. For example, if you launch many crewed flights, your researchers might be able to research crewed spaceflight tech more efficiently.

[magnemoe]

On 11/2/2021 at 5:32 PM, Tw1 said:

Personally, I would rather science to be more passive in a lot of cases.  You shouldn't need to trigger a temperature sensor at a specific moment, just remember to have the thing turned on. My major turn of for the KSP1 science system was how much it felt like fetch quests, rather than actually doing science.
My dream for that game was to have more things which you'd actually get data from, values which change per location, stuff you could plot, etc.

The other problem was how much it was linked to scoring simple points, rather than science for the sake of science. Not against it helping you get somewhere, but I hope it has more emphasis on the building-up-an-understating-of-the-planet side of things this time. I want to see more graphs and charts to complete.

Hopefully this time, using your science to get somewhere might mean learning what areas are easier to travel through in rovers, or what hazards you might encounter, or what resources there might be on the surface. More of that please, less of "This arbitrary amount of points lets you gain one unrelated set of parts".

The issue for me with both science and tech tree was how unauthentic they felt compared to the space travel side of things. They broke the illusion, and made it clear I was just playing a game. I hope it appeals more to the imagination this time.

Agree, do it the first time and its auto as long as you have the equipment. 
Now its some stuff who I say has tires, you want an long term base to make them efficient. Having huge telescopes give information about planets around other stars. 
Gravitation lenses might be an mechanic, send something 600 AU the other direction for an 1000^2 pixel map of an exoplanet, with temperature mapping and atmosphere.
 

[KerikBalm]

On 11/9/2021 at 11:26 PM, Master39 said:

I'm open to the idea if it isn't just a "Kerbal fuel" to keep the crew from Dying, there's a ton of gameplay loops you can tie to it.

I will say that it doesn't have to be a fuel/resource time-based gameplay loop either, crew requirements and rotations, habitability and environmental challenges can be present and be considered a LS system even without having a set of different snak canisters among the part list.

In some article or interview I remember Nate saying something about a "light LS but not anything like what player are used to with KSP1 mods" or something like that, I read that as a possible hint to what I was saying, a LS system that isn't designed around any kind of Kerbal-fuel.

When I used LS mods (TAC-LS), I found myself always wanting recyclers, adding/modding in greenhouses, tweaking the recycler efficiency, to the point that my large ships and stations were basically self-sufficient, and the only thing the LS did was add mass and partcount. Part count meant worse performance, meant worse gameplay.

However, my smaller craft like landers and such did not have recyclers, just a small radially mounted all-in-one LS containers, and waste containers so that the waste could be recycled upon reaching the ground base or orbiting station/mothership. One small container added so much time it became trivial, but just using the LS on a pod did make it a bit exciting.

Still just having that "timer ticking" did alter the feel of play. Space felt... colder, more forboding, the orbiting stations and motherships felt more like little homes where I could relax as the timer stops, the surface colonies (one suitable bodies) that produced excess life support resources felt more important.

Yet, honestly, I get the same basic experience by just insisting that I carry 1 hitchhiker per 2 kerbals for long missions, and include a rotating centrifugre or two for long missions away from Kerbin.

And anyway, there's a sense of forboding on any craft that has a limited dV budget, and reaching an orbiting ful depot or landing next to a mining colony that can refuel it gives a similar experience.

I would be fine with just some generic habitat requirements for long journeys, without something like TAC-LS

 

As far as science: I could see it being unlocked by constructing larger and more advanced facilities or accessing/stockpiling more resources (like He3) that aren't really available on Kerbin. You would need to build up the infrastructure to get better tech (like in an RTS such as starcraft where you need to build one building to unlock another to unlock another, and to build/research X, you need buildings A, B and C constructed).

Biomes and science experiments would factor into this by being little "boom events" that "get your colonists procreating" or just "motivate them" to work/innovate instead of being lazy and just sitting around - thus allowing you to expand the colony (in addition to needing the physical resources to do so).

Anyway, that's how I would do it.