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

[LoSBoL]

11 hours ago, Royalswissarmyknife said:

Its already done its damage.

Guess we will have to wait 10 years for something separate from the Kerbal franchise to make a semi-realistic space exploration game that isn't built for the sole purpose of filling your brain with as much dopamine as possible.

I guess you'll keep setting yourself up for disappointment 10 years from now. Because you are right, the 'damage' has been done, and it's been done since KSP 1.0, more then 8 years ago. And it's been going that route since, up till it got noticed by Take Two, which causes even more 'damage' selling it to the masses. KSP went from 'figure everything out yourself', to 'here are some tools which you may need to go to space' since Take Two took over. To ' We are going to guide you to get into space' in KSP2. That's the reality, the highway it's on and one can keep trying get it to take an offramp, but it's been a setup for disappointment for a very long time.

I don't think you will ever get Take Two to get the Kerbal franchise to become what you want it to be, fortunately KSP did show there is a demand for 'Space Program' games, and alternatives are in active development.

Challenges like land 200 ton on Minmus is a learning experience, it by itself challenges you to build and learn, and to be creative, it's just another tool to learn the game. It might not get the seasoned players to run warm for this, for many (newer) players it does create the dopamine in succeeding. Orbital mechanics haven't been dumbed down either, so enough challenges, if you haven't done it all before in KSP.

[Mikki]

I would not make such general remarks about a software that outclasses 99% of all the available videogames in terms of educational value and freedom to play the game as the user wishes.

The amount of violence, crime and social bias in KSP2 sure narrows the target client base, just let those clients decide for themself how to play the game.

There is sandbox mode.  And there is PUB* aswell for multiplayer stress relieve.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Mikki
typo

[LoSBoL]

1 hour ago, Mikki said:

I would not make such general remarks about a software that outclasses 99% of all the available videogames in terms of educational value and freedom to play the game as the user wishes.

The amount of violence, crime and social bias in KSP2 sure narrows the target client base, just let those clients decide for themself how to play the game.

There is sandbox mode.  And there is PUB* aswell for multiplayer stress relieve.

You're right, many people do enjoy and are having fun and in many different play styles since For Science, that's why I put 'damaged' between hooks. I'm pretty sure  the rest of the milestones will have more depth also for seasoned players to have new challenges/new experiences.

I personally am still on the fence about how Science is implemented. I liked that in KSP1 I needed to follow some sort of 'procedure' to get all the science but can understand why people found it tedious.

The 'one button, get all science' leaves me a bit unsatisfied and uninformed. I really liked the X Science mod, which does about the same, but for every experiment available there was a button to do so, and you were kept informed.

At the moment I'm not using the Science button itself, but started right clicking again to actually see what I'm doing. It's just a low number of types of experiments that are available. I'd personally would like to see more or give some more of a procedure you need to follow. What is happening is that the missions to get science are to actually need to leave the Kerbin System, Its what was said to achieve that, and I'm liking that part.

Edited December 29, 2023 by LoSBoL

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

6 hours ago, seanpg71 said:

Have the tech tree be an engineering tree.  You unlock parts automatically over time by using the current ones.  You want bigger tanks?  Fly some rockets with the current ones and apply various stresses.  Maybe have a way to  instrument the vehicle in some fashion if you want to speed up a particular sort of research.  Use your current engines a number of times or fire them engine in a vacuum.  Cycle your batteries.  Build some smaller space stations and do some docking to get the bigger docking parts.  There could be missions to hasten things or ways to focus on a particular tech

I really like this idea! Would make the side quests actually useful

6 hours ago, seanpg71 said:

.

6 hours ago, seanpg71 said:

You wouldn't have to worry about it at kerbin at all

 

Except - you could do some science (small) on Kerbin to test the machines and get baseline results.  Confirm they work as intended kind of thing. 

Lets people who want to slap science on planes explore the planet achieve some small gains for the effort. 

... 

So we can have a system that allows a couple of paths to upgrade parts - a fast track for experienced players / those who want a challenge and a parallel slower track for the new.  Science goes to one category, engineering to another - and big jumps grant tier level rewards. 

 

New players who are struggling with concepts get a lot of things to do with current (low level) parts to help them incrementally advance - and for folks like @Superfluous Jwho know what is going on but don't want to be stuck behind some artificial tech wall having to prove to the game that they know what they know to advance - using small parts to get to the Mun / Minmus or beyond unlocks stuff faster.

Would be a cool design choice 

Edited December 29, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Emanuel01]

Some valid points have been raised, here are my proposed solutions:

1. The magic science button should only run new experiments, and the recent ones should pop on the screen similar to what we've seen in KSP 1. (Currently it runs experiments new based on the craft, not the save. And it does a poor job of showing the player which are the recent ones)

2. We should get more than points and funny text of the experiments. They should give relevant information that's integrated with other gameplay systems. To illustrate, it should behave much similar to SCANsat.

3. The situation should be shown all the time, not only while hovering over the button. 

4. The tech tree should be reworked. Currently it forces me to design craft with mismatching separators, docking ports and fairings sizes. If the only difference between two parts is size, they shouldn't be on different nodes. 

          4a. Maybe make entire size categories be treated as a single node on the tech tree.

 

[Vl3d]

5 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

And it's been going that route since, up till it got noticed by Take Two, which causes even more 'damage' selling it to the masses. KSP went from 'figure everything out yourself', to 'here are some tools which you may need to go to space' since Take Two took over. To ' We are going to guide you to get into space' in KSP2. That's the reality, the highway it's on and one can keep trying get it to take an offramp, but it's been a setup for disappointment for a very long time.

Having tutorials and QoL tools is not the problem. We are not elitists, as long as the game is the same difficulty as KSP 1, it's great that new players can learn directly from it instead of just searching the web. But maybe you were trying irony and it's hard to read.

Anyway, the actual problem is that while the gameplay is hardcore, the game has no grin, no edge, no real personality in it's presentation. It's just wrapped in "happy, silly, cute and colorful". It uses the most basic dopamine addiction mechanism on the market. There are some peaks of sarcasm and astronaut / engineer humor, but few and far between.

It's like the devs are making gameplay for fast hardcore professional StarCraft 2 players, but take advice from 4 year olds and wrap it in rainbows and glitter without the specific KSP tongue-in-cheek humor. Squad, why don't you say anything?! There's not enough edge! @nestor Happy holidays!

1 hour ago, Emanuel01 said:

The tech tree should be reworked. Currently it forces me to design craft with mismatching separators, docking ports and fairings sizes. If the only difference between two parts is size, they shouldn't be on different nodes. 

100% agree with this - it's usually a forced size limitation, it's not very fun and doesn't make you particularly creative. It just makes the rockets look weird.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Vl3d

[RayneCloud]

I really have to ask this question every time I see one of these, "This is stupid, get rid of it!" /Feedback/ posts..

How would you do it? Seriously, how would you design it? What do you want? Describe the form of gameplay you want. Describe your design, step for step, let's have it. 

Also, if you're going to talk about science in KSP2 from a point of "realism" , you do realize that we launch probes in to space that just sit in space and follow commands sent to them to just take pictures and gather data from sensors yeah? Ya know, like SOHO, JWST, MRO, LRO, Artemis, MAVEN, Trace Gas Orbiter, etc....

Edited December 29, 2023 by RayneCloud

[cocoscacao]

1 hour ago, Emanuel01 said:

Maybe make entire size categories be treated as a single node on the tech tree.

And put them in a single option with length width sliders... But that boat has sailed away. You'd have to rework far more than just a tech tree.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

35 minutes ago, RayneCloud said:

I really have to ask this question every time I see one of these, "This is stupid, get rid of it!

I've already acknowledged the hyperbole of my title - sheer marketing.  While I agree with you, generally, if you follow my posts through this thread along with several excellent suggestions - there is a recipe. 

(yeah, there is also a fair amount of chaff in 7 pages) 

Folks have pointed out along the way many problems with what I think are excellent suggestions - so I don't think there's a consensus yet 

Just cathartic grousing.  (said because I know that even if the forum came up with the bestest most fantastical plan for Science!, the KSP2 team is building the game they want - and power to them.) 

[PDCWolf]

45 minutes ago, RayneCloud said:

I really have to ask this question every time I see one of these, "This is stupid, get rid of it!" /Feedback/ posts..

How would you do it? Seriously, how would you design it? What do you want? Describe the form of gameplay you want. Describe your design, step for step, let's have it. 

Also, if you're going to talk about science in KSP2 from a point of "realism" , you do realize that we launch probes in to space that just sit in space and follow commands sent to them to just take pictures and gather data from sensors yeah? Ya know, like SOHO, JWST, MRO, LRO, Artemis, MAVEN, Trace Gas Orbiter, etc....

I had to pay already for the privilege of play-testing and emit feedback, why would I also perform the job of a paid position on top of that?

I can design you a science mechanic, come back to it with a presentation, multiple docs, spreadsheets about balance, and whatever you ask, but we've gotta talk money first. If you want stuff for free, there's plenty on the thread.

[Bej Kerman]

21 hours ago, RayneCloud said:

I really have to ask this question every time I see one of these, "This is stupid, get rid of it!" /Feedback/ posts..

No you don't. Suggestions for how science should be done almost always show up - that is, unless you're not reading them.

Moreover, you do not need to be a chef or know how to earn a michelin star to know that something's gone rancid, and it's Intercept's job to recognise that something has gone horribly wrong.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[SolarAdmiral]

5 hours ago, RayneCloud said:

I really have to ask this question every time I see one of these, "This is stupid, get rid of it!" /Feedback/ posts..

Yeah I've seen lots of complaints about science, but none of the suggested 'fixes' I've seen proposed feel like an improvement to me. Most sound much worse than what we have.

 

 

So in reply to the thread title, I put down my vote for Science is good as is. It can be added to, but it's a good base. I'd be extremely hesitant of any large scale changes, as at best wasted dev time, and at worst only making it all worse.

 

I like the system of collecting points in whatever way I wish and spending them on whatever I wish. I like the missions that direct you to the monuments, that give a big bonus of science, but are not required for any stage of the tech tree, allowing you to do them whenever you wish. I like the new balance of the system vs KSP1, where you can move through pretty steadily doing one or two landings on each planet an moon, rather than needing to do dozens of identical landings on the Mun to get all the science. I like how it moves you smoothly through going to the moons, to Duna, to Jool. I like there's a point going to all the moons and planets.

[moeggz]

On 12/29/2023 at 7:41 AM, RayneCloud said:

How would you do it? Seriously, how would you design it?

Science points are great as a tech tree unlocker.

That should not be the only axis and consideration of progression. There should be some limit on how big and how many parts can be used that can expand with the player, say for instance the starting KSC only has access to enough resources to build 100 unit value of x resource worth of parts at a time. How many parts that is will vary with how many resource units each part takes.

As you expand down the tech tree, you can tie more resources back to KSC which allows for more of those parts to be made. Higher tier parts require more rare, and far away, resources that must be delivered back to Kerbin to build. 
 

Newly constructed Vabs the player makes will work similarly, whether they are space docks or surface Vabs. Their benefit is proximity to resources and being able to get out of a friendlier gravity well with perhaps no atmosphere.

However, for those to work your com net (with line of sight considerations) must be tied back to Kerbin.

Exploration mode is so close to an engaging feedback of gameplay, but until some more is known about resources it’s hard to give good feedback on the direction of the game.

This, I would also say, helps with the “time warp away your problems” as it’s not a stock pile of resources but a “you have tied to KSC 3 routes that give KSC 50 resource x units per launch  each for a total of 250 (starting 100 plus 3 x 50) resource x units available per launch“ if you want bigger rockets you have to tie in more resource routes, no amount of time warp gets you passed that

Edited December 30, 2023 by moeggz

[moeggz]

And for balance purposes, I’m imagining that the starting resource allotment per launch is enough to get players to the mun/minmus and back. And obviously enough to start the necessary mines to get you further. Experienced players should be able to make it to Duna say, but most players and the “teaching through gameplay” element of it is that it teaches players how to set up resource bases on the mun to help them know how to do it to the further planets.

Put a realism breaking but gameplay expanding cap on how many resource bases a player can have from any one celestial body and players will naturally be guided to explore other celestial bodies, which leads to more science, which leads to more resources, which leads to being able to go to further bodies for newer rarer resources, which gets you science and so on.

Edited December 30, 2023 by moeggz

[moeggz]

This could make for instance SRB useful again by either being free or a greatly reduced resource cost compared to liquid engines.

[kdaviper]

On 12/28/2023 at 2:15 PM, Royalswissarmyknife said:

Its already done its damage.

Guess we will have to wait 10 years for something separate from the Kerbal franchise to make a semi-realistic space exploration game that isn't built for the sole purpose of filling your brain with as much dopamine as possible.

KSP is already a niche franchise without explicitly catering only to hardcore players. Either you need a crack team of mathematicians and cs/se's or you will need for computers to become much more capable,  or wait for other hardcore enthusiasts to take their own time to put into creating mods that will bring the level of realism to your liking. 

The purpose of KSP 2 is to build upon the foundations of the original while also expanding the market through better onboarding and more cohesive and engaging gameplay design. Dopamine release is the reason for any game to exist; what triggers that will be different from person to person.

[Ahres]

On 12/27/2023 at 11:15 AM, Pthigrivi said:

[snip]

I'm reviving this post from Pthigrivi because I really want to know if there's anyone out there that doesn't want science mode to be like this. Hilariously, his post is what most (or all?) players wanted For Science! to be and instead got ignored due to other forum users wanting to keep their arguments going. 

This is exactly what a science/exploration mode should be. We all know it. The KSP veteran players at Intercept know it. Yet we still got stuck with this. I really wish we knew why. We know why Nate and the team had wobbly rockets, even though a rare few were happy with that design choice. I'd like an explanation from the team about why we didn't get a much more fleshed out science mode. This was IG's chance to do KSP right. 

The dev team took science a little bit in the right direction with heavier parts, atmospheric and submersible parts, duration of operation, data and samples, etc. But if the game is about building and flying rockets, and an incorporated science mode is considered a must, then how did we not get a rocket-building game with a science mode that requires polar orbits for scanning or clipping through the atmosphere to gather some knowledge of a target environment before sending a full-fledged krewed lander? The game is absolutely much more fun to play in 0.2 but man... it feels like the opportunity was there, especially after all the threads that showed what we wanted as a player base, and we still didn't get it. Why?

Are we leaving it to modders? Was onboarding a concern? Is a science mode like this still coming?

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, Ahres said:

I'm reviving this post from Pthigrivi because I really want to know if there's anyone out there that doesn't want science mode to be like this. Hilariously, his post is what most (or all?) players wanted For Science! to be and instead got ignored due to other forum users wanting to keep their arguments going. 

This is exactly what a science/exploration mode should be. We all know it. The KSP veteran players at Intercept know it. Yet we still got stuck with this. I really wish we knew why. We know why Nate and the team had wobbly rockets, even though a rare few were happy with that design choice. I'd like an explanation from the team about why we didn't get a much more fleshed out science mode. This was IG's chance to do KSP right. 

The dev team took science a little bit in the right direction with heavier parts, atmospheric and submersible parts, duration of operation, data and samples, etc. But if the game is about building and flying rockets, and an incorporated science mode is considered a must, then how did we not get a rocket-building game with a science mode that requires polar orbits for scanning or clipping through the atmosphere to gather some knowledge of a target environment before sending a full-fledged krewed lander? The game is absolutely much more fun to play in 0.2 but man... it feels like the opportunity was there, especially after all the threads that showed what we wanted as a player base, and we still didn't get it. Why?

Are we leaving it to modders? Was onboarding a concern? Is a science mode like this still coming?

Given that this project has clearly lived a significant amount of time in development hell, I simply think they don’t have the time or resources to meet those goals anymore, even if that was (or still is) the goal. 

Edited January 2 by MechBFP
Grammar

[regex]

1 hour ago, Ahres said:

I'm reviving this post from Pthigrivi

I went ahead and read it again and I think the only real thing I got out of it was having maps, which have a dubious utility at best unless they're high definition and have other features added to support them. Everything else is like, why? Every time I start up a new game I have go through the same tedious rigamarole of learning how an atmosphere works?

1 hour ago, Ahres said:

This is exactly what a science/exploration mode should be. We all know it.

Well, no, I don't. I look at that gameplay and I wonder how providing the player with useful information isn't just going to end up being gatekeeping for the sake of gatekeeping.

1 hour ago, Ahres said:

then how did we not get a rocket-building game with a science mode that requires polar orbits for scanning

Likely coming with the resources part of the game because we'll need to scan for them. If they have an instant scanning mechanic I'm going to be right there with you with the torches and pitchforks though.

1 hour ago, Ahres said:

clipping through the atmosphere to gather some knowledge of a target environment before sending a full-fledged krewed lander?

It's not in "the spirit" of the game and we should NEVER expect kerbals to have to follow the same paths to space that humans have. Sending kerbals first is and always will be an option because kerbals are the ENTIRE reason this game is as popular as it is, they're the mascot and face of the game. So yes, if you want a rigorous science environment that follows human norms and safety standards you absolutely should have to turn to mods because the devs are never going to do that for you. That should have been apparent from the marketing material.

Edited January 2 by regex

[Strawberry]

Doesnt orbital report fulfill the theoritical niche of doing polar orbits if its current implementation wasnt (admitedly by the devs) lacking? Afterall you need to hit all biomes for it. 

[hatterson]

1 hour ago, Ahres said:

I'm reviving this post from Pthigrivi because I really want to know if there's anyone out there that doesn't want science mode to be like this. Hilariously, his post is what most (or all?) players wanted For Science! to be and instead got ignored due to other forum users wanting to keep their arguments going. 

This is exactly what a science/exploration mode should be. We all know it. The KSP veteran players at Intercept know it. Yet we still got stuck with this. I really wish we knew why. We know why Nate and the team had wobbly rockets, even though a rare few were happy with that design choice. I'd like an explanation from the team about why we didn't get a much more fleshed out science mode. This was IG's chance to do KSP right. 

The dev team took science a little bit in the right direction with heavier parts, atmospheric and submersible parts, duration of operation, data and samples, etc. But if the game is about building and flying rockets, and an incorporated science mode is considered a must, then how did we not get a rocket-building game with a science mode that requires polar orbits for scanning or clipping through the atmosphere to gather some knowledge of a target environment before sending a full-fledged krewed lander? The game is absolutely much more fun to play in 0.2 but man... it feels like the opportunity was there, especially after all the threads that showed what we wanted as a player base, and we still didn't get it. Why?

Are we leaving it to modders? Was onboarding a concern? Is a science mode like this still coming?

I think the biggest reason why is that those things are people slotted for future milestones.

Specifically, things like maps and mapping missions are slated as part of either colonies or resources. I think something like research to take into account atmospheric drag isn't included simply due to the fact that it's a non-trivial problem and resources have been devoted elsewhere.

As far as requiring an environmental survey before knowing things about  the atmosphere or a planet, part of me thinks that's an intentional design choice to allow more streamlined missions. As a veteran player, I absolutely can understand and buy into the idea that I first need to send an automated probe to Duna before sending a manned mission, even if that means waiting literal years between missions for transfer windows to line up. I'm not sure that newer players will have that same type of understanding or buy in. I might be totally wrong with that, but it feels like that's the direction that many of the decision makers are taking with the game. Provide a more streamlined (if less realistic) experience that's more targeted at newer players and have tweakable options or rely on mods to ramp up the difficulty for veterans/more advanced players.

Regarding the Kerbolopedia, I agree it's an excellent idea but, at this time, it would primarily be fun in game background/flavor text. I can't imagine that the long term plan for the game would be to have the player *have* to read a literal in game encyclopedic to do the missions, that's the antithesis of what stock KSP has always been. So as much fun as it would be to fill in that information and have background articles on all the anomalies, I think the reason it's not in the game now is because it doesn't have gameplay value. It might provide cool motivation for some players to go to a certain biome (either to be a completionist or get more background story), but as something that wouldn't actually be a core part of gameplay, it's understandable why it would be lower on the priority list.

Based on everything I've seen and read about this release and the future roadmap, I think an important thing to keep in mind is that the version of science mode released in 0.2 is absolutely not expected to be the final version of science/career mode that is in the finished game. It will expand significantly in depth (more star systems) and breadth (colonies, resources, etc.). The idea does not appear to be that in KSP 2 1.0 you'd have sandbox mode, science mode, colonies mode, etc. but rather sandbox mode and career mode. Maybe two types of career modes or maybe just one with configurable settings. Current science mode is not meant to be the final version of science collection, but rather the bones of how science collection and points will work in the final career mode.

[PDCWolf]

2 hours ago, Ahres said:

I'm reviving this post from Pthigrivi because I really want to know if there's anyone out there that doesn't want science mode to be like this. Hilariously, his post is what most (or all?) players wanted For Science! to be and instead got ignored due to other forum users wanting to keep their arguments going. 

This is exactly what a science/exploration mode should be. We all know it. The KSP veteran players at Intercept know it. Yet we still got stuck with this. I really wish we knew why. We know why Nate and the team had wobbly rockets, even though a rare few were happy with that design choice. I'd like an explanation from the team about why we didn't get a much more fleshed out science mode. This was IG's chance to do KSP right. 

The dev team took science a little bit in the right direction with heavier parts, atmospheric and submersible parts, duration of operation, data and samples, etc. But if the game is about building and flying rockets, and an incorporated science mode is considered a must, then how did we not get a rocket-building game with a science mode that requires polar orbits for scanning or clipping through the atmosphere to gather some knowledge of a target environment before sending a full-fledged krewed lander? The game is absolutely much more fun to play in 0.2 but man... it feels like the opportunity was there, especially after all the threads that showed what we wanted as a player base, and we still didn't get it. Why?

Are we leaving it to modders? Was onboarding a concern? Is a science mode like this still coming?

I agree with a lot of the rewards proposed, but I still fail to agree with the tech tree (not suitable for the shamefully low variety of parts for a given role), and with the "examine a crater and get fuel tanks in return". Now, that later sentence needs to be clarified a bit further in saying I don't agree with the perception that I need to take my Kerbals near the sun to discover Xenon propulsion (or other proposed "applied science" type stuff).

My problem with science is foundational and multi-axial. Science in itself fails to get the player exited about it. Right now people are coping hard because it's been 10 months of famine where we got grid fins and a couple engines and that's it, but as soon as people start completing the tech tree once, it's gonna be a drag to re-complete it whenever new stuff drops. Why? Because it's a good solution applied in a place where it shouldn't, and made completely brainless too. There's no challenge, no nuance, no variation and no replayability to it, and folks will realize, seemingly later rather than sooner. Lastly, science is uninvolved with the rest of the game because the rest of the game is very lackluster in variety, mechanics, and overall depth, thus why I say "foundational" when I mention my problems with this feature.

• A tech tree requires variety, otherwise it's not a tech tree, but a tech stalk. Right now the "branches" are not "stuff you might want but must sacrifice linear progress for", the part variety is so dry every line outside the straight progress is "parts you will need later anyways". The only two ways to play the tech tree currently are either to beeline forward, or to pick up a couple extra nodes along the way so you don't end with big tanks and little decouplers.
• Science is unengaging and risk free. It'll be forgotten as soon as a new shinier thing shows up because it's straight up boring. It's so boring the team was actually ok with hiding it and making it as frictionless as possible. They didn't try anything new, they didn't even try that many changes, from a formula that we all hated. Again, the honeymoon period is slowly fading away and we'll start seeing more of these threads in other parts of the internet, not that we haven't been seeing them anyways.
• Science lacks detail. I don't mean granularity or busywork, I mean the fruits of what's a huge labor for new players (getting to other planets and such), showing anywhere in the game. Sure, they will add achievements later, but that's pretty much a given if you wanna launch on consoles nowadays. However bringing samples back from Moho or Eeloo , for example, will remain as unrewarding and pointless as it already is.

Science should unlock detailed maps, maybe a little museum feature to display your samples (or pictures, if you transmitted science but didn't bring anything back), images/memorials of your first Kerbals on the Mün and such. That's really the easiest part to fix, as it's adding instead of changing. Another thing that's relatively easy to fix is add more parts. I should be having to choose when I unlock anything, for example engines: do I want this or that fuel? do I want engines that can survive a re-entry or make them disposable? Do I want to go for TWR or high efficiency? and so on. Make the tech tree into a damn tree.

As for the tree, my personal choice would be to not display the tree. You'll have to put up with me as I detail a bit more here: I wouldn't have "science points" but "interest points" generated. This "interest" can be interpreted as both public and private eyes looking at your space program, bringing in sponsors, researchers, engineers and such. That's what those points are supposed to represent in abstraction and so will decouple the process of science from the result, meaning we no longer need to hear about "applied science" theories where you need to land on the sun to discover heat and develop heat resistant parts and other dumb stuff anymore. We discover cool stuff and thus more people join or fund our cause. The points representing that are what gets invested.

Finally, do away with the tech tree, and have those points be assignable to the different buildings in R&D, and have parts be unlocked in a semi-linear but also semi-random way. This'd mean you don't have full agency over what you unlock, but still have enough control over where you want to point your space program, and with the inclusion of minimum investment milestones, you can actually control the progress as good as a tech tree whilst the player can't spoil themselves with the full tree in sight. Imagine you try to invest points into a specific department and get a "we can't go further in our research with our current knowledge", so you actually need to go invest into other areas instead of beelining to your favorite part. Also, for player satisfaction, this system would allow you to invest interest points partially, so you don't feel like you pulled a huge mission to still not have enough for an unlock, something the current system fails hard at.

In conclusion: There's a lot of ways to make a fun and engaging science feature. Sadly, they all require that effort actually be put into making new stuff rather than copypasting KSP1 science and changing a couple CFGs and MESH{} parts into each other to make the revolutionary concept of a part that does many things. Even better, they could actually put some effort into making the underlying systems a bit deeper, creating actually deep variety rather than a lot of puddles.

What we have right now is the minimum viable product and I'll eat my pants if adding a couple more tree nodes when colonies and interstellar arrives fixes anything. Resources will make it more interesting, but through extra limitations rather than actual depth.

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, hatterson said:

As far as requiring an environmental survey before knowing things about  the atmosphere or a planet, part of me thinks that's an intentional design choice to allow more streamlined missions. As a veteran player, I absolutely can understand and buy into the idea that I first need to send an automated probe to Duna before sending a manned mission, even if that means waiting literal years between missions for transfer windows to line up. I'm not sure that newer players will have that same type of understanding or buy in. I might be totally wrong with that, but it feels like that's the direction that many of the decision makers are taking with the game. Provide a more streamlined (if less realistic) experience that's more targeted at newer players and have tweakable options or rely on mods to ramp up the difficulty for veterans/more advanced players.

Oh and I think this is an important point: I wouldn't want the game to make players send a probe first, just create some added incentives so investing earlier in probe parts in the tech tree became a more viable and attractive option. Right now progression and experiment rewards are really leaning much more heavily on crewed missions which ends up making the process feel a bit rote and linear. If there were a couple other more viable paths it would create more diverse gameplay strategies. Its not about forcing players to play one way or another, but offering up some well-balanced options. 

[Mickel]

2 hours ago, regex said:

Every time I start up a new game I have go through the same tedious rigamarole of learning how an atmosphere works?

Yes.

Every time you start a game of Civilisation you have to go through the tedious rigamarole of beating down the barbarians and researching pottery.  Every time you start W&R you need to go through the tedious rigamarole of building a store to feed the people.  In Syndicate, you have to go through the tedious rigamarole of researching all the kit from scratch.  The list goes on and on.

That's what 'starting' a game means.  You might 'know' all this stuff.  Your new Kerbals don't.

If this thing goes where it's intended by 1.0 (whatever that might be), perhaps you won't find the need to start over that often.

That said, perhaps it becomes a selectable difficulty (or call it tedium if you like) setting so you can opt out.  Some players like that progression.  Others don't.

Edited January 2 by Mickel
New thoughts.

[Kerbart]

31 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

(...) My problem with science is foundational and multi-axial. Science in itself fails to get the player exited about it. Right now people are coping hard because it's been 10 months of famine where we got grid fins and a couple engines and that's it, but as soon as people start completing the tech tree once, it's gonna be a drag to re-complete it whenever new stuff drops. Why? Because it's a good solution applied in a place where it shouldn't, and made completely brainless too. There's no challenge, no nuance, no variation and no replayability to it, and folks will realize, seemingly later rather than sooner. Lastly, science is uninvolved with the rest of the game because the rest of the game is very lackluster in variety, mechanics, and overall depth, thus why I say "foundational" when I mention my problems with this feature.

• Spoiler

  • A tech tree requires variety, otherwise it's not a tech tree, but a tech stalk. Right now the "branches" are not "stuff you might want but must sacrifice linear progress for", the part variety is so dry every line outside the straight progress is "parts you will need later anyways". The only two ways to play the tech tree currently are either to beeline forward, or to pick up a couple extra nodes along the way so you don't end with big tanks and little decouplers.
  • Science is unengaging and risk free. It'll be forgotten as soon as a new shinier thing shows up because it's straight up boring. It's so boring the team was actually ok with hiding it and making it as frictionless as possible. They didn't try anything new, they didn't even try that many changes, from a formula that we all hated. Again, the honeymoon period is slowly fading away and we'll start seeing more of these threads in other parts of the internet, not that we haven't been seeing them anyways.
  • Science lacks detail. I don't mean granularity or busywork, I mean the fruits of what's a huge labor for new players (getting to other planets and such), showing anywhere in the game. Sure, they will add achievements later, but that's pretty much a given if you wanna launch on consoles nowadays. However bringing samples back from Moho or Eeloo , for example, will remain as unrewarding and pointless as it already is.

(...)

Those are actually good points. I agree that after ten months of Sandbox,  the For Science release is like water to a person lost in the desert. Tech tree pretty much demands unlocking everything, the game would be more interesting if the player is forced to make exclusive options (say Apollo/Soyuz/SpaceX crew capsule styles, even if they’re technically interchangeable).

It’s still the “go place, click science, unlock unrelated tech” mechanism. Missions that unlock specific tech with specific tasks would have been nice.

It's not super easy to fix that though. If your science instrument readings determine what you can unlock, you’ll still get the “go to crater X to unlock Y” mechanism. It’s just a bitless obvious but after unlocking half a dozen nodes it’ll be really obvious. Unless those readings are no predetermined. But then the game can become an exercise in frustration as non of your experiments is giving you that one reading you need to unlock docking ports.