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

[PDCWolf]

1 minute ago, HebaruSan said:

Oh, I see, you haven't actually played the For Science! update. That's cool, you don't have to try something if you don't want to, but maybe you stand to gain more from listening than pontificating in that case?

Nice assumption, I did play the update.

[hatterson]

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

If all you want from KSP is launching rockets, then Harvester did everything wrong after 0.7. 

No one said that the only thing we should do is launch rockets but KSP, either KSP 1 or KSP 2 in goal state, isn't a game about building detailed interplanetary logistics networks and the day to day of running a shipping company.

[Fluke]

5 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

$50

I thought we were past this 

[PDCWolf]

2 minutes ago, hatterson said:

No one said that the only thing we should do is launch rockets but KSP, either KSP 1 or KSP 2 in goal state, isn't a game about building detailed interplanetary logistics networks and the day to day of running a shipping company.

That's still the same philosophy with different words. If the game is about launching rockets, we don't need anything else after 0.7. 0.13 if you want Minmus maybe, 0.15 if you want the option of spaceplanes.

1 minute ago, Fluke said:

I thought we were past this 

Nope, it's an argument that'll never die, just like comparing it to the prequel. It's what KSP2 has to live with, and one day hope to surpass. PRICE-SETS-EXPECTATIONS.

Edited December 27, 2023 by PDCWolf

[cocoscacao]

3 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

That's part of the problem, we had a dumb progression mechanism in KSP1, for $7. The fact that we have a dumber progression mechanism that borders on what we do to rats in a lab, for $50 is completely unjustifiable for me.

Just because 20 years ago I knew my friends phone numbers, and now I don't, doesn't make me dumber. Automation isn't bad. I have my issues with this new system, but pointless button clicking isn't one of them. Please don't refer to game's price as an argument, that's a different topic. I'm simply asking... what (how) can a game be improved in this regard. If I'm missing something crucial with this question, feel free to point it out. I just don't see what's the argument here.

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, regex said:

I have never found this kind of information actually useful and practical in the game and I think a big reason for that is that it needs to be very high-definition (because at low-definition the eyeball is a much better judge of landing spot) and paired with a waypoint system. Without that it's just another screen of useless data.

This brings up a really important clarification: by 'map' I don't mean a 2d graphic buried in some menu. You're absolutely right that wouldn't really have the the resolution or in-the-moment utility needed. By map I mean a full 3d overlay on the body's surface thats visible both in map mode and in flight mode, something you could toggle to while in orbit or in the landing sequence that would show you what the precise lay of the land is in front of you. You should also have a visible trajectory line and target mark on the projected landing zone in flight mode to help with landing accurately. After all in the not too distant future we'll be introducing colonies, and part of that supposedly is manually landing multiple starter modules, ideally within a pretty tight cluster. Its also really important for getting close to these cool new discoverables. New players may not be able to land on a dime the way many of us can, but if they can get within a few kilometers and bring a rover they've unlocked a whole new world of gameplay. We should be giving players all the tools in the world to make that achievable. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[hatterson]

3 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

That's still the same philosophy with different words. If the game is about launching rockets, we don't need anything else after 0.7. 0.13 if you want Minmus maybe, 0.15 if you want the option of spaceplanes.

Please detail, or even just conceptualize, what you'd want in a resource system

[Audaylon]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

This is a sequel for a game that's been out for 10 years, and it's clearly failing, for now, to challenge whoever had played the previous game, as if we don't exist .

If you beat KSP 1, you essentially beat KSP 2.   Same physics, mostly the same parts...

You could try to play blind folded, I don't know. 

[hatterson]

2 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

This brings up a really important clarification: by 'map' I don't mean a 2d graphic buried in some menu. You're absolutely right that wouldn't really have the the resolution or in-the-moment utility needed. By map I mean a full 3d overlay on the body's surface thats visible both in map mode and in flight mode, something you could toggle to while in orbit or in the landing sequence that would show you what the precise lay of the land is in front of you. You should also have a visible trajectory line and target mark on the projected landing zone in flight mode to help with landing accurately. After all in the not too distant future we'll be introducing colonies, and part of that supposedly is manually landing multiple starter modules, ideally within pretty tight cluster. Its also really important for getting close to these cool new discoverables. New players may not be able to land on a dime the way many of us can, but if they can get within a few kilometers and bring a rover they've unlocked a whole new world of gameplay. We should be giving players all the tools in the world to make that achievable. 

I think a reasonably accurate landing projection, including simplified atmospheric drag, is a must for colonies. Showing it on the flight screen might not quite be at the level of must, but it's pretty close as well.

That could certainly be something that science could "unlock" where you have to take an environmental survey to let your scientists/engineers properly simulate that.

Edited December 27, 2023 by hatterson

[HvP]

5 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

just give me a concrete example (or an outline) on how that system would work

The R&D center shows you something like five or six columns of science categories. Let's say they are: Geology, Environmental; Orbital; Chemistry; Materials

When you do a surface sample on Minmus it gives you 10 points of "geology" and 10 points of "chemistry" and 10 points of "environmental." When you do a crew report in orbit over Kerbin's mountains it gives you 10 points of "orbital" and 10 points of "geology." Every launch gives you 10 points in the "materials" category - the same with reentry. Flying and landing a plane gives you points in "environmental" and "materials" based on a percentage of the time you spent flying.

KSP's science and R&D already does this, but there's just a few more pools of different "types" of science. That's all. Now when you go to unlock a node on the tech tree it simply requires that you have met the required threshold for each of these categories in combinations that are relevant for that tech.

[PDCWolf]

 

5 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Just because 20 years ago I knew my friends phone numbers, and now I don't, doesn't make me dumber. Automation isn't bad. I have my issues with this new system, but pointless button clicking isn't one of them. Please don't refer to game's price as an argument, that's a different topic. I'm simply asking... what (how) can a game be improved in this regard. If I'm missing something crucial with this question, feel free to point it out. I just don't see what's the argument here.

The price argument will never die, no matter how much people moan about it. Price. Sets. Expectations. 

I've already mentioned my ideas for a tech tree in this thread, and anyone else who has, for the TT or science itself, also gets dismissed as "too complex for new players" or "too tedious", so why bother? There's clearly no discussion to be had, just an irreconcilable rupture between two positions,

2 minutes ago, hatterson said:

Please detail, or even just conceptualize, what you'd want in a resource system

Look at the solid booster problem. A resource system should bring things like that into question. Maybe recurrent missions can use cheap RCS and RP1 rockets that you can produce anywhere to save a buck and pump them out fast. Maybe more dedicated missions would benefit from more expensive and harder to build ion thrusters and Hydrolox rockets. Maybe I should have an option to invest more into recoverable rockets that are slower to build and more expensive, but I only need a limited number of, versus cheap, expendable rockets I can build in days. I should be able to pick between in-situ refining versus shipping raw product first, 

I want options, variety, choices that matter or that let me play my way. Did I take the time to learn? reward me for it, don't punch me down to the level of a new player because you can't bother to throw intelligent people a bone. KSP2 is seemingly gonna be yet another linear, consequence-less snoozefest but without the novelty of being the first one. That's a recipe for disaster and for the game to be forgotten as soon as it hits 1.0 (even though it's already been forgotten, first milestone update got only a quarter of the release players back, but people hate player numbers here because they get reality checked). No risk is being taken anywhere, thus no reward will be received, and that's when the franchise dies because investors will see it wasn't the same golden egg geese the first game was. Even roadmap features are just a safe bet from the most popular mods, and we can only hope they don't get the science skinnerbox treatment.

The first game was successful because it was all risk, on an untapped genre. It had its problems, but it was new and challenging. You won't get anywhere repeating the same formula. In fact, KSP2 hasn't gotten anywhere. Sure, reviews are on the upturn, but sales didn't budge during Christmas. This is something I'm very surprised what's assumed to be one of the smartest, most mature communities in gaming is failing to understand.

 

[HebaruSan]

5 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

harder to build ion thrusters

What would this mean? Does the game ship with a robotic arm wrestling simulator prop that I have to beat in order to assemble the rocket?

Edited December 27, 2023 by HebaruSan

[asmi]

8 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Price. Sets. Expectations. 

Your expectations is your problem, not that of game developer's.

[PDCWolf]

6 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

What would this mean? Does the game ship with a robotic arm wrestling simulator prop that I have to beat in order to assemble the rocket?

I was thinking of resource cost, or even going as far as time to build stuff.

2 minutes ago, asmi said:

Your expectations is your problem, not that of game developer's.

That's clearly not the case. Price sets expectations. You ask for $50, and everyone but 10 people in this forum are gonna expect a $50 dollar game's worth of effort.

[hatterson]

11 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

 There's clearly no discussion to be had, just an irreconcilable rupture between two positions,

It feels like your vision for the game is basically space agency simulator with realism overhaul. Which is fine, and I'm sure they'll be mods to support it. But stock KSP, from it's infancy and in its continued life, has way to high a dose of "lol did you see how that rocket did a flip in the lower atmosphere and I still made it to space" to be that game stock.

[asmi]

Just now, PDCWolf said:

That's clearly not the case. Price sets expectations. You ask for $50, and everyone but 10 people in this forum are gonna expect a $50 dollar game's worth of effort.

Nope, your expectation is your problem and yours only. There are plenty of people who don't have a problem with price. If you do - you walk away and don't buy. Simple as that.

[PDCWolf]

3 minutes ago, hatterson said:

It feels like your vision for the game is basically space agency simulator with realism overhaul. Which is fine, and I'm sure they'll be mods to support it. But stock KSP, from it's infancy and in its continued life, has way to high a dose of "lol did you see how that rocket did a flip in the lower atmosphere and I still made it to space" to be that game stock.

And I'm saying that was great for the first game, but getting the exact same-and-cut-down-in-some-places in the sequel, for 10 times the price... ugh...

2 minutes ago, asmi said:

Nope, your expectation is your problem and yours only. There are plenty of people who don't have a problem with price. If you do - you walk away and don't buy. Simple as that.

Sorry man, just gotta get out of the forums and look at real people interacting with the product, or rather, refunding it. The refund rate is enormous according to steam reviews, 75% of people inside the refund window refund the game.

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, HvP said:

The problem is that science should NOT be fungible! There should be branches of science categories that need to be filled up by returning relevant experimental data and which need to be filled in certain combinations before certain tech trees unlock.

For example: Materials science; hydrology; environmental science; aeronautics; geology; orbital mechanics, etc...

Different technologies should require completion of different combinations of each "recipe" before unlocking. The next tier of rocket engines may require X amount in the "materials" and Y amount of "chemistry" to unlock. Resource scanners should require the appropriate amount of "geology", "chemistry" and "orbital mechanics" first.

There is the possibility of also having institutional experience values for the KSC that need to advance as well. Meeting a threshold for so many launches and to what destinations and for how long might over time meet a threshold of engineering experience, or pilot training before certain missions or parts become available.

Different biomes should not give science in all categories and those that it does give should be locally relevant.

Surface samples = geology & environmental science points; atmospheric flight measurements = environmental science & aeronautics points; long duration flights in different biomes can gradually accrue aeronautic, orbital mechanics or materials science points, plus accruing institutional experience.

We should also require continuous control of certain resources before being able to unlock and maintain access to certain technologies. Just having a rover, base or colony in the biome of these resources could trickle in resource points to keep that well stocked, but launches should deplete that stock. More bases means more resources for the relevant tech which means more frequent launches available.

This would be a realistic reason to actually incentivize traveling to different areas with different types of craft and different experiments to gather relevant experience and science.

I don't think this is a bad idea. It might get a little fussy in practice, requiring players to assemble slightly too specific combinations of science flavors to advance the way they like. I imagine they stuck to the single-flavor science model because it gave players maximum flexibility in the kinds of missions they wanted to fly and then what they could buy with the results, allowing them to rapidly pivot from atmospheric missions to deep space or whatever. Its one of those things you'd have to very carefully test to make it work. Even the current simplified version will surely require some rejiggering over time. 

[hatterson]

3 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

And I'm saying that was great for the first game, but getting the exact same-and-cut-down-in-some-places in the sequel, for 10 times the price... ugh...

Sorry man, just gotta get out of the forums and look at real people interacting with the product, or rather, refunding it. The refund rate is enormous according to steam reviews, 75% of people inside the refund window refund the game.

KSP 2 was *never* sold as "super serious space agency and colony simulator" If you were expecting that and are disappointed you didn't/aren't getting it, that's 100% on you.

[Pthigrivi]

49 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Look at the solid booster problem. A resource system should bring things like that into question. Maybe recurrent missions can use cheap RCS and RP1 rockets that you can produce anywhere to save a buck and pump them out fast. Maybe more dedicated missions would benefit from more expensive and harder to build ion thrusters and Hydrolox rockets. Maybe I should have an option to invest more into recoverable rockets that are slower to build and more expensive, but I only need a limited number of, versus cheap, expendable rockets I can build in days. I should be able to pick between in-situ refining versus shipping raw product first, 

I actually agree with this, and it has a lot to do with some very tricky balancing when it comes to the number of available resources, their rarity both via offworld extraction and potentially at KSC itself, and specific part costs. One big question mark that's persisted for me since they debuted the roadmap was why resources come next to last rather than before colonies and interstellar, but Im kinda starting to see why: it's the hardest part. I still think it could have come after colonies but before interstellar but that causes some problems too. At the very least you need to know colonies are working first because colonies are probably your primary source of resource processing. Regardless there are some fundamental questions about how specific and complex do you get when it comes to raw resources and resource chains. Im honestly flabbergasted at the number of raw resources Starfield has as a part of its crafting system when that's not even the game's main focus (Starfield also runs afoul of other really basic logistics-based problems which were totally avoidable) KSP should really learn from those mistakes and establish a fully considered and balanced flow between whats available, how hard it is to extract, transport, and process, and how that translates into individual part costs. The question you're asking though about the 'solid booster problem' is a good one, and relates both to how resources work at KSC and how 'affordability' works generally in a game that has time-warp. I've said many times that at some point the devs are going to need to confront the problem of time-based mechanics. There's a bit of dabbling here in science, but I haven't yet gotten the sense that they're taking this problem head on. My feeling is that once they realize this problem is actually unavoidable they'll be able to tap into its opportunities rather than just fearing its results. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[hatterson]

Just now, Pthigrivi said:

I actually agree with this, and it has a lot to do with some very tricky balancing when it comes to the number of available resources, their rarity both via offworld extraction and potentially at KSC itself, and specific part costs. One big question mark that's persisted for me since they debuted the roadmap was why resources come next to last rather than before colonies and interstellar, but Im kinda starting to see why: it's the hardest part. I still think it could have come after colonies but before interstellar but that causes some problems too. At the very least you need to know colonies are working first because colonies are probably your primary source of resource processing. Regardless there are some fundamental questions about how specific and complex do you get when it comes to raw resources and resource chains. Im honestly flabbergasted at the number of raw resources Starfield has as a part of its crafting system when that's not even the game's main focus (Starfield also runs afoul of other really basic logistics-based problems which were totally avoidable but they can probably fix with patches) The question you're asking though about the 'solid booster problem' is a good one, and relates both to how resources work at KSC and how 'affordability' works generally in a game that has time-warp. I've said many times that at some point the devs are going to need to confront the problem of time-based mechanics. There's a bit of dabbling here in science, but I haven't yet gotten the sense that they're taking this problem head on. 

You hit on it a bit later in the post, but in general resources would make no sense ahead of colonies as they would have no purpose. Science has a standalone purpose and progression mode. Even if that mode isn't super in depth in terms of how to collect science points and a lot of it is hand wavy, the science you're collecting has a purpose, to advance the tech tree. It undoubtedly will be advanced further as more things come out, but even as a stand alone update it provides something. Sure some may not like what it's provided/how it's implemented, but it is something.

If you have resources before colonies, you just have numbers going up with literally no purpose. You need to have colonies (not necessarily full colonies, but something to either consume or process the resources) to have any reason to collect them. As far as resource collection being after interstellar, honestly I think a big reason might just be because interstellar is far cooler/a bigger reveal. Resource collection and management is (can be) a really cool logistical mini-game. Interstellar is something totally brand new and far more exciting for the large majority of players.

[HebaruSan]

4 minutes ago, hatterson said:

If you have resources before colonies, you just have numbers going up with literally no purpose.

Well, sort of. Remember that in KSP1, ISRU was a way to refill LiquidFuel, Oxidizer, and Monopropellant tanks. That would still have some value even without colonies.

[PDCWolf]

7 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

The question you're asking though about the 'solid booster problem' is a good one, and relates both to how resources work at KSC and how 'affordability' works generally in a game that has time-warp. I've said many times that at some point the devs are going to need to confront the problem of time-based mechanics. There's a bit of dabbling here in science, but I haven't yet gotten the sense that they're taking this problem head on. 

And it was ignored for 3 pages even though it clearly delineates a fundamental flaw. That's how "discussions" in this forum go. 

Starfield does allow you to go the trading route, completely ignoring outpost construction and getting the resources you need for crafting from vendors. It prohibits you from all the outpost automation, but you can still get it either way, so building an outpost becomes a meaningful choice. Do you want the whole trouble of building an outpost for the automation of late-game crafting recipes, or do you just trade back and forth and craft everything by hand?

27 minutes ago, hatterson said:

KSP 2 was *never* sold as "super serious space agency and colony simulator" If you were expecting that and are disappointed you didn't/aren't getting it, that's 100% on you.

Nothing of what I proposed is super serious, that's the problem. You're really aiming very low for calling something serious or tedious or involved. What's been suggested is the tip of the iceberg.

If you want serious: I'd love to deal with competitors, deadlines, shipping chains, fabrication times, real logistics, piracy and hostility from said competitors against my logistics network, having to race to be the first at milestones, or getting the good colony placements, sabotage, competing to hire kerbals, getting hired to undo my competitors' mistakes, war, combat, expanding the KSC for more volume of operations, outsourcing away parts of or entire colonies so I don't have to admin them, having to gain the monopoly over worlds or star systems, and so on. 

That, would mean the game, at some point, lets me sit back to design and launch vessels and craft capable of all of that, with realistic constraints in mind, for a purpose (or many), to have an impact in the world, whatever story can be implemented around that, and to have tons of replayability, rather than "you can't use this tank because you haven't been to the mun and clicking when the flashing light shows yet". I'd pay tons more than $50 for that, I'm glad it was $3 in my region for what the game seems like it's going to be currently, and I still feel ripped off at the lowest points.

Yes, KSP2 was never sold as any of that, you're absolutely right there, but aren't you even a bit sad that after involving the biggest publisher in gaming, and a team of alleged professionals, you're getting the same game you already had, sold back to you again, for god knows how long until maybe some future feature has a hope of catering to you? Or are you really just happy to play the same lackluster, purposeless game again?

[Brofessional]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

After all in the not too distant future we'll be introducing colonies, and part of that supposedly is manually landing multiple starter modules, ideally within a pretty tight cluster. Its also really important for getting close to these cool new discoverables.

That's something I noticed about the existing missions, the game  goes straight from landing in any mare on the Mun to landing within a specific 1km circle. 

It's easy for us veterans but that's a pretty big jump in difficulty for beginners. At that stage most new players probably haven't even really performed radial or normal burns, and suddenly asking them to do it with high precision is a bit of a stretch.  Of course they do have to learn those maneuvers at some point, and they are not forced to go straight into the next main mission, but I think it would help to have some missions in between that ease them into using normal/radial burns. Like a mission to land anywhere on the Mun's north pole or something.

Hopefully the addition of colonies and resources will fill the gaps when they are added.

[Pthigrivi]

2 minutes ago, hatterson said:

If you have resources before colonies, you just have numbers going up with literally no purpose. You need to have colonies (not necessarily full colonies, but something to either consume or process the resources) to have any reason to collect them. As far as resource collection being after interstellar, honestly I think a big reason might just be because interstellar is far cooler/a bigger reveal. Resource collection and management is (can be) a really cool logistical mini-game. Interstellar is something totally brand new and far more exciting for the large majority of players.

I agree absolutely with your first point, and I can see also how letting players play with interstellar drives and build up constraint-free interstellar vessels will give the devs a sense of what goal transport mass and fuel quantities are needed to cross that threshold, but precisely because all of those free-parts, free-colonies, free-interstellar settlements and vessels will be essentially driven by luxury and cosmetics rather than efficiency its not going to give good mark-to-market values for those endeavors. I'll also put out there that if we don't have proper transfer window and flight planning tools the devs aren't going to see a substantial portion of the the player base going interplanetary let alone contemplating interstellar flight. Its the same as adding all these dope discoverables and not giving players the in-game tools to find them. In some ways incorporating resources after colonies but before interstellar might sound at face value less sexy but actually gives players way more actual gameplay to bite into earlier.