Are you happy that only 7 science collection devices are planned for 0.2?

[dansiegel30]

In a small way I am disappointed that there is no mapping or devices which seem to be very complex, however I feel that there is an up side to this.  In KSP1, with Kerbalism and RO, you can get 3/4 of the tech tree done without leaving the home body and its Moon(s).  I was all focused on space stations and easy Minmus mining, but in several hundred hours of KSP1, I never sent a Kerbal past Duna.  With fewer science devices, I think you wont be able to farm science just from those bodies anymore, hitting every single biome on those bodies.  It will force ALL players to EXPAND - explore the entire system, eventually with Kerbals.  I believe this goes hand in hand with resources and colonies.  They dont want you putting colonies on the Mun and then just call it a day - I think and hope these advanced resources will be on Duna and the moons of Jool.  Maybe only water to turn into hydrogen will be on Minmus and the Mun, but I hope resources for interstellar are only located around Jool.  And to get there you will need to get science from far beyond Minmus.  

 

However, this comes at a caveat.  In-game resources to do interplanetary travel in stock KSP1 were abysmal - the tools they introduced at the end of KSP1 were pathetic compared to the mods that had been out for years.  I never would have gotten to Duna if it wasn't for youtube tutorials and mods - yes, you can get there without all of that but only if you are a very seasoned player and you already understood orbital mechanics, or watched videos of someone showing you how to do it.  I'm excited to see if they will VASTLY improve interplanetary travel tools and introduce P.A.I.G.E. tutorials on how to use them to get to far away planets.  

 

Mods will certainly add more science devices, expand the tech tree, making the game take longer and feel more realistic.  I'm excited for that too - I just dont want to play a campaign for 100 hours and still be working on the Mun and Minmus - I hope in KSP2 we will be forced to go, boldly, where none of us have gone before.

[Bej Kerman]

18 minutes ago, dansiegel30 said:

In KSP1, with Kerbalism and RO, you can get 3/4 of the tech tree done without leaving the home body and its Moon(s). 

Just like in real life 

19 minutes ago, dansiegel30 said:

I hope resources for interstellar are only located around Jool

Why not the Mun? There's probably an abundance of hydrogen and helium on its surface.

[RayneCloud]

Yes actually, I am. It's a distinct downgrade and lack of feature parity with stock KSP1 that makes it very disappointing all things considered that's true, but my hope is that it's at least a proper stepping stone to seeing that feature parity happen when we move forward. Such as seeing the resource scanners (of which we had 3 in ksp1) and parts that offer the same functionality as  the SENTINEL IRT. I'm happy because it seems like a good enough solid foundation to see that KSP 2 has even more science options than KSP 1 did.

[Stewcooker]

I think 7 is a good starting place.  7 is probably about the bare minimum you could have and have a relatively "complete" science experience. Starting at the lower end of what could be, allows them to add more science parts down the line based on player feedback and use cases that emerge naturally due to people playing the game, instead of brainstorming sessions in a closed room. Nothing wrong with brainstorming, but lots of good ideas come later after people have been playing the game too. 

So yeah, I don't think 7 is intended to be the only science parts we'll ever get, even before colonies and interstellar. This gives them plenty of room to add interesting science later without the new parts feeling redundant or crammed in.

 

[Cosmic Sailor]

This time however, the team is talking about science actually being fun. If they get that right, then it will still be 100x better than KSP 1. Imagine the diving bell thing actually being used as a diving bell where you have to sink it deep underwater, and the further you go the more science you get. They might not be that exactly, but this time we probably have to do something 

[Casellina X]

The science collection is really incidental for me. I don't particularly care about the devices, click-to-collect, or anything like that. What's more important to me is the mission system. In KSP the Science/Career modes provided the structure I needed to push on to other celestial bodies. Sure, reaching orbit with relative consistency was a big achievement and it felt pretty awesome learning orbital mechanics. However since the tutorials kind of stopped at landing on the Mun, I had very little reason... or imagination, I suppose, to go to Minmus or try and launch a space station. The missions telling me to put a satellite in a specific orbit or reach another body's SOI actually gave me something to work towards. In KSP2 I make attempts to do things here and there, but a Sandbox is only as big as your imagination, and my imagination disappeared years ago.  So I appreciate the system basically saying, "hey doofus, you try making it to Eve yet? Well maybe you should!"

[Bej Kerman]

18 minutes ago, Casellina X said:

The science collection is really incidental for me. I don't particularly care about the devices, click-to-collect, or anything like that. What's more important to me is the mission system. In KSP the Science/Career modes provided the structure I needed to push on to other celestial bodies. Sure, reaching orbit with relative consistency was a big achievement and it felt pretty awesome learning orbital mechanics. However since the tutorials kind of stopped at landing on the Mun, I had very little reason... or imagination, I suppose, to go to Minmus or try and launch a space station. The missions telling me to put a satellite in a specific orbit or reach another body's SOI actually gave me something to work towards. In KSP2 I make attempts to do things here and there, but a Sandbox is only as big as your imagination, and my imagination disappeared years ago.  So I appreciate the system basically saying, "hey doofus, you try making it to Eve yet? Well maybe you should!"

That's fair, but a lot of us got fed up with arbitrary goalposts ages ago. If contracts exist, they shouldn't be a requirement for doing anything and should merely be a bonus for doing things. You might appreciate that KSP 1 gave you explicit instructions on what to do, but I personally didn't appreciate that being the ONLY way to progress and earn money to launch things in career mode.

Worst case scenario, if you want to do something and the devs decide to stay away from contracts, just pretend you've got a contract to do something then do that.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[Kerbart]

It’s not the parts. It’s how they interact with progression mode. We will find out once 0.2 goes live. Hopefully it will be awesome.

[Strawberry]

Minor clarification, we have seen at minimum 9 science parts in the VAB. This does not neccisarily mean there will be 9 science parts as well as the build we saw it from was wip. For additional context, stock ksp1 only had 9 parts capable of generating science, if we only get 9 parts thats still equal to ksp1’s in terms of science generation (assuming all the parts for ksp2 are for generation of course).

[regex]

They could have one part for all I care, I just want it to come with a fun and logical gameplay loop. I should be able to transmit the majority of science at full value, I shouldn't have to right-click/left-click eight different tiny little experiments to reset them or map them to a hotkey, and I should have to venture to the far ends of Kerbol system to finish the tech tree (at this time, expecting even more stuff after going interstellar). Doing world scans can wait for resources, or maybe not at all, add them with a mod, I don't really see a point to it other than as a curiosity.

[Pthigrivi]

24 minutes ago, regex said:

 Doing world scans can wait for resources, or maybe not at all, add them with a mod, I don't really see a point to it other than as a curiosity.

The main kinds of maps/overlays I'd really like to see are altitude, slope, biome, and anomalies. This kind of information makes landing easier, makes understanding the science system less opaque, and certainly would help with colony site selection down the road. Im sure there are performance issues which is I believe why we had to look at kerbnet through a tiny window, but really you should be be able to see this kind of information in map and flight mode.

[Periple]

Performance shouldn’t be an issue, the little blurry window is a design decision.

[regex]

2 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

The main kinds of maps/overlays I'd really like to see are altitude, slope, biome, and anomalies. This kind of information makes landing easier, makes understanding the science system less opaque, and certainly would help with colony site selection down the road.

Altitude and slope are kind of useless IMO unless we're able to really zoom in and place a waypoint marker or have a MechJeb analogue for landing, I have never been able to leverage that information. I also don't see a need to do a full scan for biome information, you should be able to get enough from a camera on approach. Also, IMO anomalies should be something you really have to search for rather than pick up with a satellite, those are easter egg sort of things.

Just now, Periple said:

Performance shouldn’t be an issue, the little blurry window is a design decision.

A bad design decision at that, like most things in KSP1.

[PDCWolf]

I think "only 7 science parts" is a symptom of a bigger problem, in the same way science is still going to place with parts loaded, and right clicking. Sure, it takes time now and it is done with a single button, but that's just basic QOL. They've copied the flawed science system from 1, and merged it with the flawed contract systems from 1. This means they need pretty much a miracle bundle of good design choices to extract some fun back from what were two very bad things in the prequel.

Further on I ask, will they keep developing FS! after it's launched? will the science aspect of the game get updates as the game moves forward or whatever we get on december plus a couple fixes is what stays?

As always, my angle is whether KSP2 is justified in its existence (if it's not gonna fix the problems from 1), and its price, which "feature parity" is not a justification for me, it should be better, it should be bigger. 

[Strawberry]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

Further on I ask, will they keep developing FS! after it's launched? will the science aspect of the game get updates as the game moves forward or whatever we get on december plus a couple fixes is what stays?

I think theres a lot of potiental for science parts that tie into colonies/heating and i hope we get more when those systems begin coming more online.

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Altitude and slope are kind of useless IMO unless we're able to really zoom in and place a waypoint marker or have a MechJeb analogue for landing, I have never been able to leverage that information. I also don't see a need to do a full scan for biome information, you should be able to get enough from a camera on approach. Also, IMO anomalies should be something you really have to search for rather than pick up with a satellite, those are easter egg sort of things.

I think a slope map would be nice especially if you were able to zoom in and put a marker, but being able to see it as an overlay while in flight would be great too. Its no biggie to land on the flats on Minmus, but on bodies as heavy or heavier than the Mun it would be really helpful to guide yourself down onto a nice flat landing zone. Some players may find an altitude overlay more intuitive--if there's a big zone where the altitude doesn't change then that area is going to be pretty flat. Maybe especially for new and learning players this would be a big help, not landing weird or tipping over because they didn't realize they were on a 40 degree slope until it was too late. For anomalies I honestly think they're entirely irrelevant to gameplay if you can't find them with a special scanner. You're still going to need to learn to land precisely and/or scout around in a rover, which is in itself a key challenge that KSP1 was missing. Easter eggs are fine but easter eggs aren't meaningful game elements. Its okay if players want to look something up online to play a game, but no game element should require looking up the answer online. 

Edited November 8, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Periple]

I expect they’ll want to go through the roadmap at A priority level before starting to implement B or C priority stuff. So I’d be surprised if Science gets major expansions before they’ve gotten to multiplayer, unless it’s something that explicitly ties into the new milestone (like scanning for resources).

You never know but it’s always a trade-off!

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

Nothing against a theoretical discussion, but why don't we wait to see what we actually get (and when) and how (good or bad) it all ties together?

It might be more than 7 parts, less then 7 and it can all work well together with the other game mechanics or none at all.

Edited November 8, 2023 by GGG-GoodGuyGreg

[PDCWolf]

22 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

I think theres a lot of potiental for science parts that tie into colonies/heating and i hope we get more when those systems begin coming more online.

14 minutes ago, Periple said:

I expect they’ll want to go through the roadmap at A priority level before starting to implement B or C priority stuff. So I’d be surprised if Science gets major expansions before they’ve gotten to multiplayer, unless it’s something that explicitly ties into the new milestone (like scanning for resources).

You never know but it’s always a trade-off!

My question was more geared towards how little feedback they've taken in on what they have already out, much less on what they don't have. Adding more parts is the most basic thing. Really the biggest thing that's not a bug that I remember them taking from feedback is the public bugtracker.

[Scarecrow71]

23 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

That's fair, but a lot of us got fed up with arbitrary goalposts ages ago. If contracts exist, they shouldn't be a requirement for doing anything and should merely be a bonus for doing things. You might appreciate that KSP 1 gave you explicit instructions on what to do, but I personally didn't appreciate that being the ONLY way to progress and earn money to launch things in career mode.

Worst case scenario, if you want to do something and the devs decide to stay away from contracts, just pretend you've got a contract to do something then do that.

Agreed.  I would prefer the contracts/missions to give a sample framework of what needs to be done, but then allow the freedom to either do it OR ignore it altogether.  Kind of like "Hey, you might need to put a satellite or three in orbit of the Mun" and leave it at that instead of "Put this satellite with these pieces on it in this specific orbit".  Give me a base framework to work within, and let me decide the how of getting it done.

[cocoscacao]

On 11/7/2023 at 7:13 PM, dansiegel30 said:

VASTLY improve interplanetary travel tools and introduce P.A.I.G.E. tutorials on how to use them to get to far away planets

Gravity assist... Never understood how to execute them with any useful effects. 

[stephensmat]

Yeah, I agree with everyone who thinks that 'Mapping/Scanning' will come with the Resources Update. Right now, what are we scanning for?

In KSP1, there was all purpose 'Ore', and the only question was how much of it you'd find in any given place. That's not how it's going to work this time around. At least, not when we get to the Resources Update.

0.2 is about Science. Seven parts lets you design ships/missions around getting science points.

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

Nothing against a theoretical discussion, but why don't we wait to see what we actually get (and when) and how (good or bad) it all ties together?

Because we get a pretty good idea what we get based on pretty pictures, Nate’s sweet voice and wild speculation. I’m sure reality will reconcile wonderfully with that. Why wait?

[Wheehaw Kerman]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

My question was more geared towards how little feedback they've taken in on what they have already out, much less on what they don't have. Adding more parts is the most basic thing. Really the biggest thing that's not a bug that I remember them taking from feedback is the public bugtracker.

We don’t really know that they haven’t taken our feedback and built it into the roadmap items yet… 

[PDCWolf]

7 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

We don’t really know that they haven’t taken our feedback and built it into the roadmap items yet… 

You don't need to get into roadmap items. There's been feedback on the UI, playability, QOL, physics and so on since day 1. If something wasn't a very obvious bug, that feedback hasn't been addressed neither positively or negatively.