Science is pretty much stupid. Just get rid of it.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

It's clear that the folks who hated Science in KSP (because it was too clicky and slowed down their quest to recreate Sandbox Mode (via unlocked everything)) won the argument for how to design Science in KSP2. 

Edit - the only thing it's really doing well at the moment is slowing progression so players need to use small parts and can learn from mistakes.  That aspect is well done.   Having gameplay progression is a good thing. 

But losing the PURPOSE of going out to space and learning about the planets & biomes isn't great.  In fact, I think it diminishes a lot of the work the team has done.

 

The gameplay loop of KSP2 loses the point of what was fun about science in KSP.  Instead of having your Kerbals do something purposefully:

1. Be in the middle of doing something else 
2. Notice the blue light is flashing 
3. Press Science button 
4. Something happens on the ship, but too fast to notice what 
5. Generic list pops up and doesn't tell me what changed from the last time we hit the button or what we learned. 
6. I get enough points so that completing the mission isn't needed it's just something to do. 

The reputation of the original is that it inspired a generation.  Yes, a lot of that had to do with orbital mechanics - but it also helped people learn about atmospheric pressure, temperature, magnetism; a whole host of things that humans do and have done in space.  Often the Purpose for the mission: to send out a probe that can do things in a place so we can learn about the place.  There's a reason we want to send a person to Mars.  There's a reason rovers rove.

 

The gameplay connection to real world science?  Lost. 

 

 

 

(Hyperbole intentional and acknowledged - read my next few posts for the explication) 

Also - 

 

Spoiler

The obvious thing to note is that sandbox mode is not a game. 
 

    We need gamification somehow in KSP2 and the devs chose Science! for the player progression system.  That doesn't bother me as much as it does some folks.  Mostly because I acknowledge the benefit of a player progression system and am largely untroubled by them calling XP science points.  Accomplishment points or achievement points or visiting points - or science points - the specifics don't matter *to me*. 
 

    My specific quibble is that I wanted the science system to expand the educational / immersive opportunity that KSP1 did not quite reach. 
 

    Instead the system implemented seems a step backwards. 
 

    Or as stated in the OP - designed to accommodate only those players who want to progress quickly through the unlock system to get bigger better faster parts to build amazing / wacky crafts. 
 

    And what frustrates me is that THEY have sandbox mode - but I don't have anything that lets me feel like I'm exploring interesting new worlds with interesting biomes and discovering alien artifacts.  
 

    There is no story telling - just box checking. 
 
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/222109-science-is-pretty-much-stupid-just-get-rid-of-it/?do=findComment&comment=4358815

Edited January 13 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[The Aziz]

Play sandbox then, it's right there.

You didn't post what you'd like to see instead though.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

FWIW - I and many others wrote extensively about our hopes for the Science mode in the pre-release threads. 

I know that the main thing the team is excited about is the Colony Building and Resource Extraction phase of the game, but the Science part should be more than a 'Mario got another coin' experience. 

I like the 'new biome' notification (science available) metric - but it should be more informative.  Like telling us when we click where we are and why running science here should matter.  

It's kinda like what's missing is fulfilling the gameplay metric of 'purpose'. 

When the player is asked to do the different things sequentially and purposefully - there is both an immersive aspect and an educational aspect to what they're doing.  Getting the feedback sequentially and in conjunction with the player's actions is also immersive and educational. 

I also miss the wacky text. @Just Jim could have crushed this (and sadly, any work he did is being lost in the way Science! presents itself in game. ) 

 

52 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Play sandbox then, it's right there.

You didn't post what you'd like to see instead though.

Had to take the dog to the vet. 

My thread title indicates that the current state of the Science! is merely a nod from the folks who did not appreciate the science aspect of KSP to give those who did a 'something' to do in 2.

It's just a Mario Coin Sound - not educational or immersive 

Edited December 26, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[HebaruSan]

1 minute ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Like telling us when we click where we are

I think it shows that on hover.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 minute ago, HebaruSan said:

I think it shows that on hover.

Which is easily missed. 

The player pretty much just pushes the button when the light flashes.   

I've got to spend more time clicking through the mission text (in Mission Control) than it takes to 'do the science' on site. 

It should be the other way around. 

[HebaruSan]

47 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Which is easily missed. 

So which is it, you don't want the science system to notify you while you're "in the middle of doing something else", or you want an info dump every time you cross a biome boundary? I think they're trying to let the player decide how much to engage with the experiments at any given moment, and that feels pretty right so far.

Edited December 26, 2023 by HebaruSan

[Vl3d]

@JoeSchmuckatelli what don't you like about the current science implementation in KSP 2, exactly? Put your finger on it.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Vl3d

[MechBFP]

8 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

So which is it, you don't want the science system to notify you while you're "in the middle of doing something else", or you want an info dump every time you cross a biome boundary? I think they're trying to let the player decide how much to engage with the experiments at any given moment, and that feels pretty right so far.

The main issue I have with it right now is that it is annoying and tedious trying to find the experiment I just ran in order to read the flavor text. First I have to open the report tab, then I need to scroll down, then I need to usually click on the text to expand it, and then I need to almost  squint to read it because of the size/font.

That definitely needs to be way more straight forward for the player experience.

[HebaruSan]

2 hours ago, MechBFP said:

The main issue I have with it right now is that it is annoying and tedious trying to find the experiment I just ran in order to read the flavor text. First I have to open the report tab, then I need to scroll down, then I need to usually click on the text to expand it, and then I need to almost  squint to read it because of the size/font.

Agreed, there are many things about the "Research Inventory" window that need to be improved. If they simply put a stop to the accumulation of 0-point crew observations, it would feel less cluttered. Reverse chronlogical sorting would help with the excessive scrolling.

But a button that lights up, with a tooltip-on-hover that shows a bit of info about why it's lit and then can be clicked to go deeper, is a pretty solid design all around, especially in a thread where the nightmare of KSP1 science is being brought up.

Edited December 26, 2023 by HebaruSan

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

@HebaruSan @Vl3d @MechBFP

Y'all are hitting the mark. 

I actually really like science and think that science should be an integral part of KSP2.  But the way Science! has been implemented leaves a lot to be desired. 

The combination of the 'science button' and 'research inventory' window is the UI choice that makes the implementation such a handwaive. 

Nothing exists in a vacuum.  During the pre launch days there were plenty of people who said they hated science because of the 

• Click on crew cabin for crew report 
• EVA Kerbal for EVA report (Board) 
• Click on the thermometer for temperature reading 
• Click on the Mystery Goo container to observe 
• Click on the Science Jr to see what it does.
• Etc. 

The team apparently addressed those folk's concerns. 

I'm saying they were the wrong people to listen to. 

 

I liked having to get out a Kerbal and have to collect the samples and return it to the pod.  It gave me a reason to have a Kerbal in the ship.  I liked hauling out and setting up the remote stations.   

I liked getting an individual pop up with each experiment - and in the prelaunch threads advocated for a much more detailed Science! experience (where each successful experiment 'filled out / unlocked' text and graphic information about every body and biome in a Kerbilopedia) 

To me one of the core strengths of the franchise is the correlation of the game and real world of science  / rocketry.  

Read this from 2013 - and ask yourself whether KSP2 is rising to the challenge 

https://theworld.org/stories/2013-08-01/far-cry-call-duty-kerbal-space-program-inspiring-players-learn-physics-video

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[HebaruSan]

Would NASA ever put a multi-million dollar instrument on a probe without spending $20 to run a wire from it back to the main computer and transmitter? I enjoy flying Kerbals around on EVA, too, but that particular use case always ground my gears.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

5 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

Would NASA ever put a multi-million dollar instrument on a probe without spending $20 to run a wire from it back to the main computer and transmitter? I enjoy flying Kerbals around on EVA, too, but that particular use case always ground my gears.

I'm not married to that particular thing. 

 

It's the 'gist' - mostly it's about purpose. 

There should be a purpose for having a Kerbal on board.  There should be a purpose for each experiment. 

I suggested something like this way back when - and while it's only a suggestion, I think it would be a good thing to get players immersed in the worlds they've created - far more than any discoverable.  

 

 

[Royalswissarmyknife]

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The gameplay connection to real world science?  Lost. 

Good job you just described Ksp-2 in one sentence.

[PDCWolf]

I wish I was more right when I said it was gonna be a copy of KSP1 science. It's a bad copy that adds emphasis to the worst parts about the prequel. It's a skinnerbox for people who feel lost without a semblance of the game patting their back and handing them some fictitious points to unlock artificial limitations that make absolutely zero sense.

The very first issue I encountered with it was solid rockets. Whats their point now? Back then they were a much cheaper way to move stuff and save a buck, now not only do you start with liquid rockets, but since there's no economy there's no longer a reason to get solids which is exactly why they're obligatory to get for tier 2, because anyone with 2 neurons able to do synapse would skip over them. You also already start with the T45 unlocked, so you get thrust vectoring from the get to, making the T30 completely useless, and the little wings too, unless you have absolutely no idea what are you doing, or really happen to try something wild for your very first flight.

This is a pattern that's repeated for everything. You want docking? Gotta unlock 3 nodes of useless stuff in the middle. 

As for missions. COME ON. This is for everyone: Start a new save, launch a rocket to orbit (you can do it on your very first launch). Once your rocket is in orbit, head over to the Mission Control building. You haven't completed reach space or reach orbit yet, because for some reason you've gotta read them before they're able to be completed. You have to go in, read the missions, and then go back to your ship to remind the game you've already reached orbit.

As for heating, the amazing new heating system means I can just plunge a rocket tail first into the atmosphere from the Mün and have each part detonate one by one, and by the time the pod is the last thing remaining, we've slowed down enough. Parachutes are irredeemably broken, shouldn't-have-released type broken, they're immune to heat if they're perfectly tucked behind a flaming pod, but they'll randomly disappear afterwards.

If people hadn't been starved of content for 10 months, this launch would've been a laughable disaster. Be glad the fans are so hardcore that they actually wanted to play the game this hard. I have more to say (lots on the UI, dear god), but that'll have to wait till I'm back from work.

[Kerbart]

The part science part where KSP engages the player is real-world physics and that still exists. Seeing thrust, fuel, gravity, mass and many other things interact. Why do you need the rocket equation instead of simply using average fuel mass as an approximation? Can you derive it? There's a lot of classroom mechanics  subjects that can be "verified" with KSP and can be experienced in ways otherwise hard to realize.

The KSP1 science experiments themselves are a lot less useful. Maybe barometer and temperature readings in relation to altitude  but barring some automated continues recording of that, or getting altitude together with the reading, but otherwise? Can I use the seismometer readings in the classroom? Or the magnetometer?

Even the game itself did nothing with the readings of the scientific equipment. Granted that is a direction the game could have taken, in theory. But I invite anyone advocating that how exactly a different temperature reading would tie in with unlocking the tech tree.

There are many things that fall short of what twe want them to be, and certainly the science interface currently has shome shortcomings. But getting rid of the tedium of reading a handful of different instruments, whose readings in the end really don't matter, is not one of them. The distinction between data (can transmit) and samples is reasonable and I'm fine with everything else just being "science."

[regex]

4 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The gameplay loop of KSP2 makes a mockery of what was fun about it in KSP.

Meanwhile in KSP1:

1. Put all science experiments into an action group because right-clicking every experiment in turn is stupid.
2. Hit action group every so often to see if scenario has changed because we're not allowed to have quality of life.
3. Page through all the experiments and make sure we actually want to keep them, reset any that need them.
4. Send a kerbal out to grab all the experiments, right-clicking on each one, or use a heavy separate part to gather all the experiments.
5. Shuffle all this stuff around as desired/needed.

I don't consider that "fun", but you do you. KSP1 is right there, a mature game ready for you to mod and twist to the exact way you want to play, or not.

[Dmitr]

I am generally satisfied with the science, but a few facts upset me. At first very short and not very funny descriptions of the experiments, I really loved when I was told that the magnetometer is going crazy near Jule or that the samples are glowing from radiation. Secondly, the tree of science sometimes seems completely wrong. I unlocked the second level of probes and solar panels without opening the first one. And yes, there really is not enough practical application. I am really looking forward to a separate window for each body with visual and technical information about the atmosphere, magnetosphere, altitude map, temperature, which is based on our measurements.

[Brofessional]

I think the problem is mostly with the user interface and how the experiments are just instant with no clear pop-up about what you've just done.  It does get listed in the reports menu but that thing is messy and difficult to read.

[fragtzack]

5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

 

The gameplay loop of KSP2 makes a mockery of what was fun about it in KSP.

1. Be in the middle of doing something else 
2. Notice the blue light is flashing 
3. Press Science button 
4. Something happens on the ship, but too fast to notice what 
5. Generic list pops up and doesn't tell me what changed from the last time or what we learned. 
6. I get enough points so that completing the mission isn't needed it's just something to do. 

 

I agree, KSP1  career game play loop design is way better. I preferred the KSP1 implementations of science, where player needs to manually trigger each science action, not just a magic button that does all science automatically.  That auto-magic perform all  science button  in KSP2 is lame.

In addition, there is no constraints (money) on ship building or new parts.   Maybe in next release these constraints will come, but seems doubtful because what I remember hearing is that resources are for "colonizing" and not normal ship building/fuels. Hope I am wrong.

The missions and mission storyline in KSP2 are better then KSP1, but the actual exploration game play loop is quite lacking and JoeS  hit the nail on the head, except no mention of missing building/fuel constraints.

Maybe it would help if KSP2 team would clarify that:

1. Exploration Mode will continue to see polish and refinements.

2. Directly address the concerns with lack ship building/fuel constraints. (There is many complaints about this on Steam forums and Redit)

 

 Also, JoeS. makes good point about "The people who hated science in KSP1".  Unfortunately it seems, those science haters are designing KSP2 now.

 

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, fragtzack said:

That auto-magic perform all  science button  in KSP2 is lame.

Yeah, it's lame because losing the manual work of... checks script pressing a button... reveals how dull and pointless the science points were in KSP 1. Your entire argument against science in KSP 2 is an argument against science in KSP 1.

[HebaruSan]

People can feel nostalgia for anything, I guess.

Nearly every player action in the KSP1 science system fell under the category of "no brainers." You chose whether or not to perform each experiment, but with few exceptions*, it was a phony choice because you would never not perform it if there were points to be gained. The only real choices were 1) what you build and 2) how/where you fly it. KSP2 science keeps those real choices and eliminates or minimizes the fake ones.

* Non-repeatable experiments (goo) provided one of the only actual choices, since you might plan ahead to perform them in a later, better location. But this distinction was reduced early on by resetting them with science labs, and even moreso when scientist Kerbals gained the ability to reset them.

Edited December 26, 2023 by HebaruSan

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Meanwhile in KSP1:

1. Put all science experiments into an action group because right-clicking every experiment in turn is stupid.
2. Hit action group every so often to see if scenario has changed because we're not allowed to have quality of life.
3. Page through all the experiments and make sure we actually want to keep them, reset any that need them.
4. Send a kerbal out to grab all the experiments, right-clicking on each one, or use a heavy separate part to gather all the experiments.
5. Shuffle all this stuff around as desired/needed.

I don't consider that "fun", but you do you. KSP1 is right there, a mature game ready for you to mod and twist to the exact way you want to play, or not.

I personally love the QOL. I dislike that the QOL is implemented over what's essentially the same system, keeping all its flaws and shortcomings. Science in KSP1 was bad. Reducing the variety of requiring scientists to get more out of experiments, to EVA your kerbals to get EVA reports in precarious situations (high atmosphere EVA report during re-entry anyone?) and so on.

 

[hatterson]

I think a few easy improvements could be done to the process that would help a lot. These may not all work, but here's some suggestions:

1. Add a "don't flash button/don't collect if experiment has already been done/returned" option, default it to on. It's annoying to have the window flashing at me immediately upon launching a new vessel when I've already launched dozens of crewed vessels.
2. Add a "hide results worth 0 science" filter to the research inventory window
3. Add either a text or dropdown filter to the research inventory window to find things (edit: I just now noticed the filter thing on the top right, so I suppose it's there but it's not super clear)
4. Display the time the experiment was captured
5. Allow sorting by science value, time captured, type, data size, etc. and default by last captured to make it easier to see what just happened.
6. Separate data vs samples in the window
7. Add more silly text and make it more obvious. I assume the text itself if on the long term roadmap, but in general it should be easier to see it, especially when you're just starting. It's really easy to miss that each experiment has some text about it

[Royalswissarmyknife]

2 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

high atmosphere

I really wish they kept high atmosphere. It would have been made so much better with the new atmospheric experiment making you create planes that can fly really high up for long-ish periods of time like the U2.

[regex]

10 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

keeping all its flaws and shortcomings

I don't see it. We could definitely use some sort of way to see biomes, that's always been a really dumb "feature" of KSP, but otherwise just having science occur automatically is so much better than the previous game, especially not having that artificially limiting concept of kerbal "classes" (I could get behind it more if they'd gotten rid of the pilot class). I get to focus on flying and seeing the sights, not trying to right click every little thing on my craft because I forgot to set up an action group and then going to collect it while heading towards the ground, it's miles better than "right-click receive reward".