"Exploration" needs more depth. It's lacking and here's what I suggest to improve it

[cvusmo]

I've got about 40 hours into 0.2.0.0 which is/isn't a lot depending on how you play etc. I've driven across Duna in rovers from the South Pole to the North pole starting with 0.1.0.0 (that was a horrible time) and since release I've gone to Duna and "explored." I absolutely love Science Mode and felt it was severely lacking in KSP1. Here's a few ideas I've got for the devs and community to consider. 

Below is a series of images from my most recent Duna mission that is still ongoing. I'm using it as it is what inspired me to write this feedback. First a short story from my journey to Duna. 

I had 319 dv to get a capture with Duna. I had an encounter setup to 34km as I was hoping this would work. 

I

I had my little engine left with 154 dv and a dream. Hoping I wouldn't burn up in atmo.

The Kraken was kind! Successfully captured by Duna and on the way to the target!

I was short of the target. But all things considered, I was fortunate to be on the surface of Duna and not orbitting Kerbol.

The moment of truth! Would my contraption work? Would my rover blow up? Would it land properly? Success! The landing pad worked and the jerry rigging I did with decouplers and two gear wheels worked to get the rover off the landing pad!

 

 

That is when the pain set in. I had the exhilarating experience of landing on Duna by the skin of my teeth. I was nervous and thankful to be on the surface of Duna. Now I was set to explore. I've driven a lot on Duna (from South Pole to the North Pole) so I was confident in traversing Duna.

I didn't get the exhilarating experience while driving on Duna. It felt very tedious yet again to be driving on Duna. I had already been to the  destination I was headed in previous versions. What was the point of doing the same thing over, but now it has a science reward? It felt dissatisfying. I felt that science had to be better. I want that wonder and curiosity of I don't know what I could find around the next meteor crater feeling. Below you'll see the route I took with the time it took me. One hour and 29 minutes driving on the surface of Duna "exploring."

 

The Challenge: 

How do we Explore?
What are exploring for?
Why are we even exploring?
What is the question that the science we're gathering trying to answer?

Disclaimer: SOME of these may already be in the works and I may not be aware that things are being worked on or they are things that won't be added. Please add to this and address those issues if something I bring up is something that will be added/never will be added etc.

Let's start with the things that need to improve that are currently in the game as they relate to exploration.

Exploration in its current state is missions being given out by the Mission Control. They're pre-determined locations that the dev's have that reward science points. There's apparently a few "hidden" locations scattered across the Kerbol system. With nothing in game to point players in the direction of these "hidden" locations, and no scientific tools at our disposal to scan areas, it becomes quite tedious and time consuming combing the surface of Mun or Duna for something special.

The problem: there's nothing between point A and point B

1. What is the point of "Exploration" if we never discover things along the way to the big discoveries? 
2. Why collect samples with probes when there's no way to gather the samples and return them other than having the probe return to Kerbin?
3. Kerbonauts have no specialization anymore. There's no pilot, engineer, or scientist. It's pointless picking a crew to do a mission. 

Ideas/Solutions:
1. Modify the Exploration Missions (the ones focused on going to a specific spot on a planet/moon) build upon each other, like clues and the players solve the mystery.
2.  Add small scientific discoveries and a RNG of bonus science. For example, on Duna you're driving a rover and you collect a sample. Have the odds of the sample collected be worth more science points. 
3. 2% Argon in the atmosphere should mean I find trace amounts of argon somewhere and I'm able to collect it with the correct scientific tool. 
4. Add a science module that can be used to scan area's on planets for anything interesting. Kerbal it up and make it not 100% reliable. It may lead to something, and it may lead to a rock. 
5. If players are going to drive across planets in rovers, have things to do while you're driving on the planet. I'm supposed to be exploring Duna and searching for evidence of life or why there's monuments and attempting to learn more science. But all I do is drive on a planet, where no dust accumulates on my solar panels, my rover likes to flip randomly, and every rock I see I can't drill into. 
6. Specialize the Kerbonauts again. Let scientists be able to collect samples from the science jr's again and reset them. That way you can get a probe to orbit Mun/Minmus and on a follow up mission you can have your crew dock with that probe to collect the science it gathered.
7. Science should be the core mechanic that drives resource gathering.
8. Add handheld scientific experiments for Kerbonauts to conduct on the surface of planets/moons

I want to feel like I can discover anything on the surface of any moon/planet that I'm on. Right now, I feel like other than a few landmarks, there is no exploration. It's a delicate balance. 

Getting science points shouldn't just be "hey it unlocks this part in the tech tree, that's the whole purpose of science points. You get the science, and you get parts!"

Science points should also be more dynamic. "Events" happen on planets and if you can observe it you get more science for it. Maybe later on you add a dust storm on Duna that can be observed with atmospheric science. That is large scale and requires a lot of dev time. On a smaller scale, players should have procedurally generated science nodes/resources that spawn when they land on a surface of the Mun. For example, if player lands on Mun in X Mare, within 1000m of the players landing zone, there is up to x amount of special science to be found. Things that aren't tied to the landmarks and easter eggs. Just things that exist  specific to these requirements:

1. The Planet/Moon
2. The Biome it's in

Please feel free to add to the solutions and bring up any problems you see as well. 

[The Aziz]

Once more milestones kick in, there will be more reasons for exploration, and the exploration itself will be more interesting.

You're gonna have to scout the land to find the best spot for your colonies. In parallel, you'll be looking for resource nodes to install the extractors.

Once CBT is implemented, and collidable scatter with it, you won't just hit W and leave it there for few hours. See that boulder field over there? Good luck getting through it. Either do it very slowly, or go around.

[Kerbart]

This post doesn't surprise me. Science mode was limited in KSP1 and Exploration is basically that, with a few sightseeing missions. But For Science is far better than the bug-ridden EA 0.1 release, so we're overjoyed with it for now... until that wears off. I expect this to get more traction over the weeks.

There have been some decent discussions on the forum about the character of Science in the game. In KSP2, Science is not the goal, it's the means to an end (the research tree), so it's generic science and not specific measurements that lead to a goal. Maybe that'll change with resources. But for now, specific science with specific results is not in the character of the game.

Lack of features is... hard. Consider Minmus. It's tiny. I mean, Rhode Island tiny. And yet that's already 4524 square kilometers (or 1747 square miles if freedom fantasy units are your thing). Unless there's going to be some kind of procedural generation of features, it's always going to be barren. Unless they go the Astroneer route with literally fantastical landscapes littered with abandoned artifacts. Also keep in mind that by Astroneer standards, Minmus is gargantuan celestial body). So that's just going to be hard, given the semi-realistic nature of planets and moons in the game.

 

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Once CBT is implemented, and collidable scatter with it, you won't just hit W and leave it there for few hours. See that boulder field over there? Good luck getting through it. Either do it very slowly, or go around.

By that logic, Desert Bus is interesting because you have to avoid running off the road every now and then.

[Snips]

Yeah, I'm absolutly with you. In KSP1, science was the drive that brought me through the whole game. Starting the first simple missions with a thermometer, and than go further and further with even more scientific instruments. First building a relay network (teaching resonant orbits), then mapping the bodys I want to land (SCAN Sat, of course) to find places with the less slope or an interesting anomaly to visit. Placing scientific intruments on the surface (hoping the ASLEP parts from Breaking Ground will come later) and gain more science. That said here's what I love to see:

- Make the experiment durations drastically longer. You don't send a probe to another planet and the science is done in 6 minutes. A magnetometer scan or an atmospheric analysis need time to complete, and I'm talking about weeks or month, not minutes. Not to mention different results in different seasons (summer, winter, etc., as long as the body has an inclined axis).

- As in reality, the more samples you collect the more science you will get. No scientist will say: "OK, I have one result, let's asume it is valid for the whole planet or biome." So let's perform the experiments in the same biome a couple of times to be sure the results are valid. And reward this with science points.

- With the 0.2 update we have some new buildings. I want to see another one, where the science I collected is presented and explained. What are the results of the sample I took at a former river on duna (former life)? What is eves atmosphere made of (maybe CO2, N, SO2) and what is the conclusion of this experiment? In this building you can see the experiments you allready did and where you haven't been right now. As long as there is money to fly to the ULA in denver to build a vulcan rocket in KSP2 there sould be some money to pay some guys to write those explanations.

- I (sadly) know, the devs want to go away from single science tools to combined tools, but nowhere is explained what those tools realy do. My hope is on awsome guys like @DMagic or @jplrepo to fill this hole with more dedicated scientific tools.

Those are just my two cents, feel free to agree or disagree.

[EchoLima]

On 12/23/2023 at 8:15 AM, Kerbart said:

Lack of features is... hard. Consider Minmus. It's tiny. I mean, Rhode Island tiny. And yet that's already 4524 square kilometers (or 1747 square miles if freedom fantasy units are your thing). Unless there's going to be some kind of procedural generation of features, it's always going to be barren.

Scale is only an issue if everything is created by hand. Games like Minecraft and NMS are much larger (infinitely so), but they use procedural elements so that there's always something to interact with within eyesight of the player.  Instead of a couple locations having added value, every location inherently does. The addition of discoverable and all was nice but what KSP2 really needs is procedural scientific targets wherever you go - whether its rocks that kerbals can pick up, points of interest for a camera to image, or a variety of soil types that can each be scanned.

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, EchoLima said:

Instead of a couple locations having added value, every location inherently does

And therefore none of them do.

At least in NMS that's the way it is for me.

[EchoLima]

54 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

And therefore none of them do.

At least in NMS that's the way it is for me.

I tend to agree gameplay-wise, but I was referring more to resource/item distribution mechanics.

Wherever you land, there will be ore and elements and everything else you're looking for nearby - not so close you can magically gather it all with the press of a button, but enough of it that there's always some within walking distance.

Breaking Ground was on the right track here in terms of science gathering, imo, but objects were generally not visible enough to pick out from a distance or common enough to stumble upon. I want to be able to walk up to any decently large ground scatter and sample it. Walk a little on the Mun and come across some distinctly orange soil. That kind of thing.

[Vl3d]

On 12/23/2023 at 12:54 PM, cvusmo said:

What are exploring for?
Why are we even exploring?
What is the question that the science we're gathering trying to answer?

1. You go there to get the thing to unlock new parts.

2. To look at barren wasteland.

3. What science? You press a button and hear a kling.

On 12/23/2023 at 12:54 PM, cvusmo said:

I want to feel like I can discover anything on the surface of any moon/planet that I'm on.

Ah yes, the dream.. we were so young..

Edited December 27, 2023 by Vl3d

[Vl3d]

On 12/23/2023 at 1:24 PM, The Aziz said:

Once more milestones kick in, there will be more reasons for exploration, and the exploration itself will be more interesting.

You're gonna have to scout the land to find the best spot for your colonies. In parallel, you'll be looking for resource nodes to install the extractors.

Once CBT is implemented, and collidable scatter with it, you won't just hit W and leave it there for few hours. See that boulder field over there? Good luck getting through it. Either do it very slowly, or go around.

I've heard about this game, it's called Kerbal Geologist Program, right? Ah yes, the great excitement of finding an oddly shaped rock. Makes me want to go explore right now!

[Kerbart]

8 hours ago, EchoLima said:

Scale is only an issue if everything is created by hand. Games like Minecraft and NMS are much larger (infinitely so), but they use procedural elements so that there's always something to interact with within eyesight of the player.  Instead of a couple locations having added value, every location inherently does. The addition of discoverable and all was nice but what KSP2 really needs is procedural scientific targets wherever you go - whether its rocks that kerbals can pick up, points of interest for a camera to image, or a variety of soil types that can each be scanned.

And I mention that in my post, but that mysteriously didn’t make it in the quote. What exactly, do you envision to be scattered all over the place but unique enough that we don’t get that and here’s another [xyz] feeling? With Astroneer you ransack those wrecks for scrap, but aside from that they’re repetitive and boring.

[Superfluous J]

There's only one solution:

Spoiler

ChatGPT.

 

[Vl3d]

30 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

There's only one solution:

  Hide contents

ChatGPT.

 

Would be very useful even for the writing.

[HebaruSan]

What do people think the real Moon landings were like? What do people think a day in the office is like for the Curiosity team?

Endless expanses of dead, dry nothing. It's not cool because there's something shiny there to look at. It's cool because it's another world.

[The Aziz]

4 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I've heard about this game, it's called Kerbal Geologist Program, right? Ah yes, the great excitement of finding an oddly shaped rock. Makes me want to go explore right now!

And you entirely missed my point.

[Vl3d]

3 hours ago, The Aziz said:

And you entirely missed my point.

No, I did not. The celestial bodies need more interesting creative content besides biomes, oddly shaped rocks and resources.

4 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

Endless expanses of dead, dry nothing. It's not cool because there's something shiny there to look at. It's cool because it's another world.

I've heard the "beautiful desolation" argument N times before. KSP is a game and it should be content rich and fun. The OP want to drive around with a rover on Duna and find something interesting every 10 minutes. What do you have against that? If you don't like exploring, do not. But OP and myself play the game for that feeling of finding something unique beyond the horizon.

[HebaruSan]

5 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

KSP is a game and it should be content rich and fun.

Agreed, and I think it is.

5 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

The OP want to drive around with a rover on Duna and find something interesting every 10 minutes.

Good luck with that on a large, lifeless planet.

5 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

What do you have against that? If you don't like exploring, do not.

Please don't falsely characterize my interests, attitudes, or prefereces. It only results in needless bickering. Thanks.

5 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

But OP and myself play the game for that feeling of finding something unique beyond the horizon.

You're only missing one word; there's "something unique beyond the next horizon."

[hatterson]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

No, I did not. The celestial bodies need more interesting creative content besides biomes, oddly shaped rocks and resources.

Out of curiosity, what exactly do you want on the various planets?

If you have DSP size planets then it's really easy to have unique things all over the planet because you only need 4-5 to fill it up. If you want to do the same on KSP sized planets you'd have to have hundreds or even thousands of landmarks to have interesting things come up frequently.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 12/23/2023 at 5:54 AM, cvusmo said:

1. What is the point of "Exploration" if we never discover things along the way to the big discoveries? 
2. Why collect samples with probes when there's no way to gather the samples and return them other than having the probe return to Kerbin?
3. Kerbonauts have no specialization anymore. There's no pilot, engineer, or scientist. It's pointless picking a crew to do a mission.

I agree.

On 12/26/2023 at 9:24 AM, Snips said:

Yeah, I'm absolutly with you. In KSP1, science was the drive that brought me through the whole game. Starting the first simple missions with a thermometer, and than go further and further with even more scientific instruments. First building a relay network (teaching resonant orbits), then mapping the bodys I want to land (SCAN Sat, of course) to find places with the less slope or an interesting anomaly to visit. Placing scientific intruments on the surface (hoping the ASLEP parts from Breaking Ground will come later) and gain more science. That said here's what I love to see:

- Make the experiment durations drastically longer. You don't send a probe to another planet and the science is done in 6 minutes. A magnetometer scan or an atmospheric analysis need time to complete, and I'm talking about weeks or month, not minutes. Not to mention different results in different seasons (summer, winter, etc., as long as the body has an inclined axis).

- As in reality, the more samples you collect the more science you will get. No scientist will say: "OK, I have one result, let's asume it is valid for the whole planet or biome." So let's perform the experiments in the same biome a couple of times to be sure the results are valid. And reward this with science points.

- With the 0.2 update we have some new buildings. I want to see another one, where the science I collected is presented and explained. What are the results of the sample I took at a former river on duna (former life)? What is eves atmosphere made of (maybe CO2, N, SO2) and what is the conclusion of this experiment? In this building you can see the experiments you allready did and where you haven't been right now. As long as there is money to fly to the ULA in denver to build a vulcan rocket in KSP2 there sould be some money to pay some guys to write those explanations.

Very much agree.

On 12/23/2023 at 6:24 AM, The Aziz said:

Once more milestones kick in, there will be more reasons for exploration, and the exploration itself will be more interesting.

You're gonna have to scout the land to find the best spot for your colonies. In parallel, you'll be looking for resource nodes to install the extractors.

Frankly, I think I need to channel Aziz more than I do.  Sanguinity is not my strong suit.

But he's right.

The devs have their collective eye focused on Colonies and Resource Management.  To them, a ScanSat is part and parcel of RM - so it's not needed, now (or too early to implement)... but it will likely be a part of that update when that update lands.  Maybe all of our frustrations with Science! will be moot after further Milestones.

Adding to this - @Nertea explained somewhere that CommNet isn't going to be implemented unless they can do it right - and to do it right they'd have to do up some kind of GUI that presents players with information that makes sense.  I gather that doing that at this time would take away from the development track they're working on.

So while there's players like us who want CommNet and ScanSats and reasons to do Polar missions, scatter satellites and do all the fun things of KSP in KSP2... Science! isn't an endstate, just the first step along the Milestones toward presenting the game that they  want to create for us to enjoy.

[Spicat]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

No, I did not. The celestial bodies need more interesting creative content besides biomes, oddly shaped rocks and resources.

Isn't that just discoverable? 

[Vl3d]

4 hours ago, Spicat said:

Isn't that just discoverable? 

If the discoverable is related to a rock and it's passive / doesn't do anything, then no.

[Kerbart]

6 hours ago, hatterson said:

If you have DSP size planets then it's really easy to have unique things all over the planet because you only need 4-5 to fill it up. If you want to do the same on KSP sized planets you'd have to have hundreds or even thousands of landmarks to have interesting things come up frequently.

Exactly, and this has been brought up in other threads as well. My fantasy is sadly limited here, but in fairness, so is that of the KSP dev team which makes my assessment hopefully remotely adequate:

• Those hundreds, thousands or perhaps even dozens of discoverables are hand made. Each and everyone is beautiful,  unique and provides unique ways to interact with. Covering Duna alone will probably take 3 years of development. But what a sight to behold!
• The discoverables are procedural generated things you'd expect on a lifeless planet (we do want the game to be fairly realistic). That means... rocks. And rocks. And rocks. But also: more rocks. Some can be picked up. Others can be drilled. Maybe photographed. Not for Science points though, or you could complete the science team on the surface of any problem provided you're going to grind, and that's something For Science is not intended for.
• Instead of rocks, discoverables can be artifacts. Even if they're 30 km apart (20 miles in Freedom Units) there's going to be dozens of them even on Minmus. I doubt anyone wants that

What can be done to make exploration mode more exciting?

There's a missed chance here, sadly. And it's hiding in plain sight in the Monument missions: the monuments are located by radio signals

• Initially there's only a radio beacon direction finder. You'll have to land multiple probes to triangulate the monument
• In subsequent tiers, the beacon finder can be DME (Distance Measuring Equipment) enable. making it easier to triangulate
• Eventually, an orbital scanner can be used. Maybe two or three models each with an increased range—you won't find the location until you fly over it, within range. Bring on the polar orbit scanners!
• Multiple monuments can exist on a planet, some with signals so weak they cannot be detected from orbit. And at random locations so you can't just walk up to them based on what's in the Wiki because that's not where they are planted. Monuments can be weird alien stuff we have now. Or Unobtanium deposits. Water wells and other colony related stuff.

If I can come up with this in 30 minutes, anyone can, to a point where I'm practically forced to believe this is what the devs have in mind after brooding on the game for multiple years. It's within the realm of the current infrastructure of the game. It leads to an exciting hunt. It requires exploring, doing instrument readings and doing something with those readings. What's not to like?

[Superfluous J]

I cannot see a single reason why the discoverables need to always be in the same place.

Use a random number generator and a seed, and place them in different spots on each world.

I love the idea above from @Kerbart of needing to triangulate them. I like the concept that your discoverable detector (please don't name it that even though that's what it is) has an appreciable error, say 10-20%, so it reports it can detect the nearest monument is between 90-110km away (or whatever). Couple this with an ability to draw all the discoverable-likely areas on your map, and it can become quite a puzzle. It's even harder than matching up the circles when you realize that "the closest monument" might be different for 2 different landed detectors.

[Vl3d]

9 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Initially there's only a radio beacon direction finder. You'll have to land multiple probes to triangulate the monument

I do not agree with this. There's A LOT of stuff to do in the game, I don't want to waste my time landing 3 probes for every major discoverable and doing triangulation. The fact that missions point out their exact location is fine - the thing that's missing is a progression system for surveying celestial bodies (map "fog", telescopes, scanners), so that you have to discover the CBs, terrain, orbital, gravitational and atmospheric parameters first.

10 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Even if they're 30 km apart (20 miles in Freedom Units) there's going to be dozens of them even on Minmus. I doubt anyone wants that.

I want that and I'm sure a lot of other players want that. I want both diverse procedurally generated scatter (some of which could be scanned with crew observation and soil sample), but I also want to see something in the distance and be very curious about it and drive there to actually interact with a dynamic object.

If all the discoverable does is exist - so you can just plant a flag on it - then you can just look at it by zooming out and dragging the camera close to it. There, done. A big missed opportunity to stimulate the players curiosity and sense of exploration.

It's basically 2024, damn it. Why is it such a big ask for a modern game to have celestial bodies with a lot of interactive creative content to explore?! I want a reason to drive to the next hill top and go inside the next crater. Why is this such a problem?

Yes, most players will not discover 90% of the content. Other players will focus on a single CB that they love. Some will search the oceans, others will focus on driving rovers, others will explore debris rings, comets and asteroids. But that's what makes the experience unique for everyone! There should be something interesting to discover everywhere, constantly.

[Kerbart]

17 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

It's basically 2024, damn it. Why is it such a big ask for a modern game to have celestial bodies with a lot of interactive creative content to explore?! I want a reason to drive to the next hill top and go inside the next crater. Why is this such a problem?

On the left side we have people complaining that the tech tree is not realistic, the game should offer full access to all orbital data without mods, etc, etc "because of reality"

On the right side we have people who want FTL drives and planets filled to the brim with (alien) artifacts, etc "because of gameplay"

Neither side is right or wrong but all the devs can do in that regard is provide some balance. We have rovers on Mars and the Moon. We've been to the moon. It's a very desolate place and the current renditions of those planets in KSP are spot on. What exactly should we interact with, without robbing the game of its character of accuracy? I don't expect an answer to it, but that is why it's such a problem.