For Science! - My Thoughts (And Yours Too!)

[cocoscacao]

7 hours ago, EvelynThe Dragon said:

But. It's way too rigid. There should be multiple secondary mission choices, and in the main path, forcing visits to the anomalies is not the way to go here.

7 hours ago, EvelynThe Dragon said:

I will play long enough to see how the missions unfold, but some of it is already bordering on tedious.

Agreed. I  just finished first Mun landing mission, and the next one is basically visiting the anomaly on the Mun... So I'm doing the same thing twice. That could have been optional objective.

 

I'm also missing science readouts. They're there but hard to read. I loved KSP 1 silly results.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

7 hours ago, EvelynThe Dragon said:

This release is what we should have had on day 1 of early access

Performance wise - absolutely!  There should actually be fines for calling what we got in Feb an EAccess 'game' and charging people to Alpha. 

 

7 hours ago, EvelynThe Dragon said:

sandbox mode is BORING.

Yup.  You Tubers love it - but otherwise it's not a game. 

 

7 hours ago, EvelynThe Dragon said:

The tech tree is a mess

How would it look if you redraw it?  Ping me if you post a redesign, thx

6 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

also missing science readouts. They're there but hard to read. I loved KSP 1 silly results

Gawd Dang YES! 

Science is pretty much stupid. (in fact I'm gonna post a thread on this) just push a button and a something happens but who knows what and it's inconsequential anyway, just points. 

[EvelynThe Dragon]

On 12/26/2023 at 5:42 AM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

On 12/25/2023 at 9:43 PM, EvelynThe Dragon said:

The tech tree is a mess

How would it look if you redraw it?  Ping me if you post a redesign, thx

I need to give it some thought, but some things, like engine plates and adapters need to move from the rather ridiculous places they live in with the stock tree, to enable builds that use earlier engines. There  are times when the stock engines for a given size are not good enough, and a combination of a cluster of a few smaller ones would be nice. I would also like to see  some logical ordering to parts that are specifically airplane, rover, or lander oriented. I downloaded the tech tree editor mod but haven't played around with it yet. 

I am also seriously disappointed in not having the intermediate size 1.875 Meter parts KSP1 had. The decision to leave those out has really been a bad idea, the size was ideal for certain things.

[Sea_Kerman]

Yeah, a good specific example is the fact that you unlock 2.5m tanks, engines, and pods quite a bit before you get a viable set of support parts to make a lander with it (an engine plate). the Poodle is just too big but you need an engine plate to do what you actually need for a lander: 1-2 Terriers.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Sea_Kerman

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, Sea_Kerman said:

Yeah, a good specific example is the fact that you unlock 2.5m tanks, engines, and pods quite a bit before you get a viable set of support parts to make a lander with it (an engine plate). the Poodle is just too big but you need an engine plate to do what you actually need for a lander: 1-2 Terriers.

I just stuck some I-beams onto the bottom of the fuel tank and put landing legs on those.

But yes, that is not a good solution.

[MerksTheMild]

Its better but playing it just makes me want to boot up KSP1 again...

I miss the scramble of finding the right science part on my ship, or feeling very clever by binding it to an action group.

It still feels like I'm playing knockoff KSP with better lighting effects, but the charm and jankyness feels stripped out.

Also, do Kerbals not have jobs anymore? No more pilot, scientist and engineer? I dislike this.

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, MerksTheMild said:

I miss the scramble of finding the right science part on my ship, or feeling very clever by binding it to an action group.

It still feels like I'm playing knockoff KSP with better lighting effects, but the charm and jankyness feels stripped out.

You're complaining that they improved  the UX? Like having to use the action groups to sidestep a haphazard UI was a good thing? Suit yourself, I guess. But the developers aren't gonna go out of their way to make things worse for the sake of appealing to the "jank = charm" fallacy.

[Pthigrivi]

Im going to write up a really thorough set of recommendations when I get through the tech tree but I'll say out of the gate that both the mission tree and and the tech tree need some work. When I first started playing KSP1 Scott Manley and many other players recommended landing on Minmus first rather than the Mun specifically because the low gravity helped train your landing skills in a more forgiving environment. To my mind this is kind of the entire reason Minmus exists--as a low-gravity training moon. We should definitely see an earlier branch in the mission structure--probably right after orbit the Mun--to start to explore Minmus as well and at least have the option to land there first.

Very minor/early spoilers in this next bit:

Spoiler

The main sequence mission right after landing on the Mun involves a precision landing at the Mun Arch. Its a cool experience for sure, but precision landing took me a LONG time to master as veteran player and making this a requirement this early is kind of crazy to me. We don't even get wheels until halfway through tab 2 in the tech tree so players are going to be pretty locked in here. I'd encourage adding a plane-change tutorial and encouraging new players to orbit and even land on Minmus first if they'd like. Leave the Mun Arch quest until after players have landed on both of kerbins moons. Ive said before we really need an experiment that can scan for discoverables and maybe unlocking that in science tier 2 is what gets the artifact story rolling. 

I also have some thoughts on minor but important changes to the tech tree and experiment returns to make alternate strategies (early probe and plane missions) more viable so the process feels less linear and more like a real strategic choice. I want to at least clear tab 2 before I make recommendations on tab 1. I'll also say it again we 100% need biome maps to help understand where we've been and where new science can be found. 

Edited January 2 by Pthigrivi

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

We should definitely see an earlier branch in the mission structure--probably right after orbit the Mun--to start to explore Minmus as well and at least have the option to land there first.

Agreed. For learning purposes, it'd be to do everything you can do around Mun except landing, then everything around Minmus up to and including precision landing, then precision landing on Mun.

So I think the process should be:

• You do the Orbit Mun mission, they give a mission to orbit Minmus.
• Orbiting Minmus triggers the signal found at Minmus. Maybe have a mission to land to help triangulate or whatever.
• Doing that mission triggers the precision landing on Minmus mission.
• Doing that triggers the land on Mun mission.
• Doing that triggers the precision landing on Mun.
• From there, the rest can stay the same, at least as far as I've gotten.

[Scarecrow71]

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

triggers the precision landing

Wait.  Precision landing exists?  I gotta tell that to the Kerbonauts.

[Superfluous J]

17 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Wait.  Precision landing exists?  I gotta tell that to the Kerbonauts.

Not sure what you mean but I meant the precision landing contract. As in, land near the monument.

But in any case precision landing very much exists in the game. I've done it many times.

Edited January 2 by Superfluous J

[Pthigrivi]

16 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

Not sure what you mean but I meant the precision landing contract. As in, land near the monument.

Exactly. Precision landing and/or rover traversal absolutely should be key components of the game but that particular contract comes way before you have wheels and much too early in the progression for players to have mastered landing within a km or so of a non-targetable landing zone.

Also just from a design/writing standpoint you should introduce more geological, science-based discoverables first so the Mun Arch reveal feels more special. If you start with alien artifacts first nerdy geology formations feel like a let down (even if they’re actually cooler).

Edited January 2 by Pthigrivi

[Superfluous J]

It is very likely that the current quest lines are sped up for us to more easily test and try out them.

Maybe the eventual plan is to not make the Mun Arch come up right after you land on Mun the first time, but only come up after some progress has been made. Say, upon unlocking a specific tier of the tech tree.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

7 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

It is very likely that the current quest lines are sped up for us to more easily test and try out them.

Maybe the eventual plan is to not make the Mun Arch come up right after you land on Mun the first time, but only come up after some progress has been made. Say, upon unlocking a specific tier of the tech tree.

That’s an encouraging thought - right now the progression seems way too fast and way too focused on the [expletives deleted] ancient aliens stuff.

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

That’s an encouraging thought - right now the progression seems way too fast and way too focused on the [expletives deleted] ancient aliens stuff.

Agreed, it is much too fast. 
 

Also agree with Pthigrivi about precision landing when you can’t even target the thing, that is fairly punishing for new players, and nearly impossible on Duna even for experienced players. 

[Scarecrow71]

10 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Not sure what you mean but I meant the precision landing contract. As in, land near the monument.

But in any case precision landing very much exists in the game. I've done it many times.

Well, it was intended to be a joke about how difficult precision landing is, coupled with how quickly KSP2 thinks people can do it.  But it was not as funny as I thought it would be.

[WelshSteW]

 

I've waited a little while before posting my thoughts, just so I can be fairly sure I've given it a good crack before spouting off.

 

So far I'm LOVING it. I love the science concept even though I'll agree it needs tweaks, I love the missions / contracts and the structure / path it gives you. It's honestly like this is now KSP3. It's a huge step forward. Yes there are still bugs, and yes it's nor absolutely perfect - but so what? The game is still in development, I don't expect it to be perfect. I can play it, and I can have fun.

 

So after many messages where all I did was moan, this one is intended as a massive 'thank you'. Oh, and a 'well done' too.

 

[Elnod]

I was really excited about this upcoming patch (albeit with tempered expectations, considering how the EA release went) and, for me, it has delivered.

Performance is greatly improved (though it will need to get better, still) and I've only really encountered major lag issues when trying to land a 300+ ton vessel on Duna (due to part count). That mission, by the way, should be worth way more science points for what it's asking.

I like the tech tree, it's not perfect but I'm sure it will be rearranged and surely there'll be additional tiers once further updates are released?

What is notably absent though, are robotics, electric motors, and payload bay options for mid to large sized rovers. Are these a planned addition?

Overall, the most important thing this patch brings is a reason to play the game. Particularly for those of us who have played the original KSP for years and the sandbox aspect isn't as much of a draw as exploration, missions and science.

One thing that I would really like to see soon though, is a way to track Science progress. I'm about half way through unlocking T4, missing some from T2 and T3, but I don't know where I should focus my science efforts now as I don't fully recall what I'm missing. Do you think this information is contained in the save file, and perhaps could be extracted with a bit of scripting?