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

[hatterson]

27 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

And why would there be any reason to restart the game? It'll be the same game, with so little variety that there's still no wiggle room to actually make choices, at least until they add something else. On that matter, For Science! doesn't give much hope about the rest being varied, different, involved, immersive, or evolved from what we know.

If you're building craft the way that 99% of KSP players do/will, then actually there's a ton of room for differing paths through the tree. Obviously if you're building mun flyby rockets for your first launch then you're gonna have enough science to just crush the relevant part of the tree but that's not the way that the vast, vast majority of players will interact with the system.

No, the missions and discoverables won't be different, but I'm not sure what a science system could possibly do to alleviate that in a static game universe.

[Vl3d]

27 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

If real agencies could reload a save file instead of burying their staff, space stations wouldn't have toilets.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

34 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

instead of burying their staff, space stations wouldn't have toilets 

Lol 

[PDCWolf]

6 minutes ago, hatterson said:

If you're building craft the way that 99% of KSP players do/will, then actually there's a ton of room for differing paths through the tree. Obviously if you're building mun flyby rockets for your first launch then you're gonna have enough science to just crush the relevant part of the tree but that's not the way that the vast, vast majority of players will interact with the system.

No, the missions and discoverables won't be different, but I'm not sure what a science system could possibly do to alleviate that in a static game universe.

If we had enough part variety to actually support a multi-branched tech tree, it could add a lot to the replayability. Right now we have a lot of nodes that suffer the solid booster problem. Seriously, why do we even have solid rockets as its own node in KSP2? Their whole skit was being way cheaper but that's literally not a thing here.

Imagine if we had different fuel types as branches of the tree, lots more engines in different nodes to create build variety, nodes that reflect reusability vs expendability in part choice, a meaningful choice between RCS and electronic thrusters (again, cost, money), you could play the game in many different ways. Right now we have a tech tree that barely hides a very obvious path forward with the false illusion of branched choice, when in reality you just look at what you need, unlock your beeline to it, and move on to the next tier.

[hatterson]

9 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

If we had enough part variety to actually support a multi-branched tech tree, it could add a lot to the replayability. Right now we have a lot of nodes that suffer the solid booster problem. Seriously, why do we even have solid rockets as its own node in KSP2? Their whole skit was being way cheaper but that's literally not a thing here.

Imagine if we had different fuel types as branches of the tree, lots more engines in different nodes to create build variety, nodes that reflect reusability vs expendability in part choice, a meaningful choice between RCS and electronic thrusters (again, cost, money), you could play the game in many different ways. Right now we have a tech tree that barely hides a very obvious path forward with the false illusion of branched choice, when in reality you just look at what you need, unlock your beeline to it, and move on to the next tier.

One of the primary and stated goals of this tech tree design is not to overwhelm new players with a million different choices they don't understand. Sure you and I can look at RCS thrusters vs reaction wheels and know the use cases for each. Or we could look at a tech tree that has 4 different types of rocket fuels and the engines to go with them and know what it makes sense to pursue for our goals. But new players or frankly 80% of even experienced players? They would just look at it and not understand a difference between hydrazine, RP-1, and liquid methane. Or they'd build an upper stage full of methane and accidentally attach a kerosene engine to it and then be frustrated when it doesn't work.

It feels like you're arguing that the system should have been designed with the experienced/expert players in mind and if new players want to enjoy it well they better git good. That basically goes against what KSP has been from the very beginning, and a design goal of KSP2, which is the fun and wacky rocket simulator that, if you want, you can take way too seriously via mods.

Edited December 27, 2023 by hatterson

[PDCWolf]

3 minutes ago, hatterson said:

One of the primary and stated goals of this tech tree design is not to overwhelm new players with a million different choices they don't understand. Sure you and I can look at RCS thrusters vs reaction wheels and know the use cases for each. Or we could look at a tech tree that has 4 different types of rocket fuels and the engines to go with them and know what it makes sense to pursue for our goals. But new players or frankly 80% of even experienced players? They would just look at it and not understand a difference between hydrazine, RP-1, and liquid methane. Or they'd build an upper stage full of methane and accidentally attach a kerosene engine to it and then be frustrated when it doesn't work.

It feels like you're arguing that the system should have been designed with the experienced/expert players in mind and if new players want to enjoy it well they better git good. That basically goes against what KSP has been from the very beginning, and a design goal of KSP2, which is the fun and wacky rocket simulator that, if you want, you can take way too seriously via mods.

This argument in a vacuum sounds good, but I'll repeat myself here: What can we veteran players or even new players once they learn their way have?

[hatterson]

11 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

This argument in a vacuum sounds good, but I'll repeat myself here: What can we veteran players or even new players once they learn their way have?

1.) 100% completion of in game missions

2.) Building colonies and resources management

3.) Sandbox mode

4.) Mods

Obviously 2 and 4 are very limited or non-existent right now, but that's what the roadmap is for. Obviously if the team just said "OK, games done, we'll fix up some bugs and call it good" they'd get (rightly) destroyed for even making a new game that adds nothing to the previous game, but that's not the plan.

This update adds the initial bones of the science system that will underly some of the future updates. It also provides a reason, albeit a little thin and contrived, to do certain missions. It also gives you some crazy missions that force you to build some totally unnecessary craft to accomplish. No one ever needs to land a 200 ton thing on Minmus to accomplish current goals. There's absolutely no reason to land more than a single Kerbal on Eve, never mind 10 at once, Space Stations have zero use, etc. but you're prompted to do these things to show you that they can be fun to try even after you're learned your way through the base system.

If that's not the motivation you're looking for, then frankly this update isn't really for you, and it seems like you're waiting for a different update and complaining that this one isn't it.

Edited December 27, 2023 by hatterson

[HebaruSan]

I feel like it's 1985 and someone is asking me why Mario can't get married and start a family in-game. What do you mean the game just ends after you kill the final boss? How are experienced players supposed to get anything out of this after they master all 8 worlds??

Games have areas of focus and are not always intended to be infinite in duration.

Edited December 27, 2023 by HebaruSan

[PDCWolf]

Just now, hatterson said:

1.) 100% completion of in game missions

2.) Building colonies and resources management

3.) Sandbox mode

4.) Mods

Obviously 2 and 4 are very limited or non-existent right now, but that's what the roadmap is for. Obviously if the team just said "OK, games done, we'll fix up some bugs and call it good" they'd get (rightly) destroyed for even making a new game that adds nothing to the previous game, but that's not the plan.

This update adds the initial bones of the science system that will underly some of the future updates. It also provides a reason, albeit a little thin and contrived, to do certain missions. It also gives you some crazy missions that force you to build some totally unnecessary craft to accomplish. No one ever needs to land a 200 ton thing on Minmus to accomplish current goals. There's absolutely no reason to land more than a single Kerbal on Eve, never mind 10 at once, Space Stations have zero use, etc. but you're prompted to do these things to show you that they can be fun to try even after you're learned your way through the base system.

If that's not the motivation you're looking for, then frankly this update isn't really for you, and it seems like you're waiting for a different update and complaining that this one isn't it.

Missions are guided gameplay for new players, in fact, if you actually do go through the job of building an overkill first or second launch to get further than the missions say, you'll quickly realize the missions aren't even designed for people to overachieve anywhere. Once you get out of that, they're pretty much Skyrim radiant missions. Why do I even need to land 200 tons on wherever? What if I've unlocked the tech tree already? What more "show that I can" is there left? It's absolutely pointless, the whole of it. I've already got an entire previous game where I've done most of that stuff, which is even more valid considering this game didn't change anything of the basics.

As for colonies, the AMA answers given until now point to another feature not built for veterans, with magical resource transfers, the magic heat system and what not.

Sandbox offers literally nothing different to KSP1.

Mods are not what I paid $50 for.

1 minute ago, HebaruSan said:

I feel like it's 1985 and someone is asking me why Mario can't get married and start a family in-game. You mean the game just ends after you kill the final boss?? How are experienced players supposed to get anything out of this after they master all 8 worlds?

Games have areas of focus and are not always intended to be infinite in duration.

Nice fallacy. The sequels to the mario games all had evolved systems that required a bit more skill, new enemies, new platforming challenges, then it went 3D, and spawned a lot of spinoffs. And I can say that without even liking Mario.

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 .

[cocoscacao]

25 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

What can we veteran players or even new players once they learn their way have?

What @hatterson said... but, really... How can science fix that? How can any further roadmap update fix that? Suppose v1 is here now, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. You already know how to make a colony, go to a different star system, mine everything everywhere, and use Kerbal fart to propel it out of Eve's atmo... What's left? You either enjoy doing it or not.

EDIT

Maybe multiplayer will be a thing you'll enjoy. Rover race against other players at the bottom of the Dres canyon

Edited December 27, 2023 by cocoscacao

[HebaruSan]

8 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Nice fallacy.

It's called an "analogy".

8 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

The sequels to the mario games

You may be interested to know that "Super Mario Bros." itself was a sequel of sorts:

Hence citing it as an example of a sequel to which fans might share such reactions.

[hatterson]

15 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Missions are guided gameplay for new players, in fact, if you actually do go through the job of building an overkill first or second launch to get further than the missions say, you'll quickly realize the missions aren't even designed for people to overachieve anywhere. Once you get out of that, they're pretty much Skyrim radiant missions. Why do I even need to land 200 tons on wherever? What if I've unlocked the tech tree already? What more "show that I can" is there left? It's absolutely pointless, the whole of it. I've already got an entire previous game where I've done most of that stuff, which is even more valid considering this game didn't change anything of the basics.

What's the point of doing *anything* in KSP (1 or 2) once you've done it once? Because doing rocket things is fun. It can be challenging to land 200 tons on Minmus and that alone can be a motivation. If that's not a motivation for you because you've already done it in KSP 1, then I'm not really sure what else to say except that you'll likely be happier just waiting until interstellar stuff comes out so there's something that isn't in KSP 1.

15 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

As for colonies, the AMA answers given until now point to another feature not built for veterans, with magical resource transfers, the magic heat system and what not.

Simplified and not tedious are a lot different than magical. There is absolutely nothing positive about a game forcing you to fly an identical mun -> LKO supply mission that you've flown 30 times already just so it's not "magical" Saying to a player "prove you can do this and then we'll automate the monotony of it" is actually an excellent choice for 99.9% of players. If you really want that back, I'm certain someone will make a "resources can only transfer when the player manually flies them around" mod

19 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Maybe multiplayer will be a thing you'll enjoy. Rover race against other players at the bottom of the Dres canyon

Yea but once I've done one race against other players at the bottom of the Dres canyon what motivation is the game giving me to do more races or race in different places???? 

[cocoscacao]

20 minutes ago, hatterson said:

Yea but once I've done one race against other players at the bottom of the Dres canyon what motivation is the game giving me to do more races or race in different places???? 

Hot chicks cleaning dust off my rover ride?

Edited December 27, 2023 by cocoscacao

[HvP]

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.

Edited December 27, 2023 by HvP

[PDCWolf]

34 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

What @hatterson said... but, really... How can science fix that? How can any further roadmap update fix that? Suppose v1 is here now, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. You already know how to make a colony, go to a different star system, mine everything everywhere, and use Kerbal fart to propel it out of Eve's atmo... What's left? You either enjoy doing it or not.

EDIT

Maybe multiplayer will be a thing you'll enjoy. Rover race against other players at the bottom of the Dres canyon

That was part of the point of getting a sequel for me, getting to do new stuff, having new toys to play with, having an iteration on the good stuff from KSP1 and a good amount of new stuff from a different developer.

Sadly didn't get either yet, as whatever is there hasn't really been iterated a lot, other things have gone backwards, and there's still nothing new or that different from the prequel.

27 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

It's called an "analogy".

You may be interested to know that "Super Mario Bros." itself was a sequel of sorts:

Hence citing it as an example of a sequel to which fans might share such reactions.

It's a false equivalence, in fact, specially since even from Mario Bros to Super Mario Bros they added the stomp mechanic, sidescrolling levels that follow at least a loose narrative, and so on. You're comparing things that are in fact not equal.

15 minutes ago, hatterson said:

What's the point of doing *anything* in KSP (1 or 2) once you've done it once? Because doing rocket things is fun. It can be challenging to land 200 tons on Minmus and that alone can be a motivation. If that's not a motivation for you because you've already done it in KSP 1, then I'm not really sure what else to say except that you'll likely be happier just waiting until interstellar stuff comes out so there's something that isn't in KSP 1.

Simplified and not tedious are a lot different than magical. There is absolutely nothing positive about a game forcing you to fly an identical mun -> LKO supply mission that you've flown 30 times already just so it's not "magical" Saying to a player "prove you can do this and then we'll automate the monotony of it" is actually an excellent choice for 99.9% of players. If you really want that back, I'm certain someone will make a "resources can only transfer when the player manually flies them around" mod

Yea but once I've done one race against other players at the bottom of the Dres canyon what motivation is the game giving me to do more races or race in different places???? 

KSP1 is forgivable, as everything we did in KSP1 was for the first time because there was no successful, well made prequel. Why must I pay $50 to do it again in a very similar (and in some cases devolved) manner? 

Deep and involved don't imply tedious, that's another fallacy this forum loves. From The Depths has you design your own engines, guns and ammunitions for your vehicles, meanwhile other games give you pre-packaged guns and lego one piece engines. Does that make FTD tedious? Not at all, it means I get huge granularity when making my vehicles and I can tailor every component to my will, giving it a huge edge over other engineering games. Stormworks also exploits that fact. On the other hand, you had Robocraft devolve from players exploiting designs to create flying, hovering, fast or tanky vehicles to everything being prepackaged "for new players to not be overwhelmed", and the game absolutely died because lack of options stifles creativity.

Assuming their vision from the AMAs hasn't changed, this means you'll design a resource transport vehicle, only to never see it again. You'll land a magic VAB building to then build stuff off it magically instead of landing and connecting like in KSP1 (where colonies had no purpose, let me remind you).

Lastly, I'd like for people to stop pre-emptively insulting the intelligence of "new players", this is something the industry as a whole is very guilty of and why games have overall declined in content, outward complexity and obviously reception.

[Periple]

8 minutes 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.

No!

[cocoscacao]

3 minutes ago, HvP said:

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

Okay... That sounds good on paper, but... ain't realistic either. Smart ones throughout history (partially) figured out orbital mechanics waaaaay before industrial revolution... let alone space race. Even if you shun realism aside, actually designing such system would be a lot (and really, a lot) more complex without any significant benefits.

I'm all in for exotic fuels to be extracted/synthesized on other bodies, after scanning and exploring the ground for rich sources... But that's a different roadmap update... 

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

Sadly didn't get either yet, as whatever is there hasn't really been iterated a lot, other things have gone backwards, and there's still nothing new or that different from the prequel.

Is emphasis here on yet? Sci update never meant to bring anything new. Just a dumb progression mechanism. I'm still waiting for colonies. This is just something that remotely resembles KSP 1 in it's final state, and gives me juuust enough things to enjoy it somewhat.

[hatterson]

9 minutes 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.

It feels like an interesting system, but it seems too much for a casual player. Too high a barrier to entry. Seems like an excellent idea for a mod though.

 

3 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Deep and involved don't imply tedious, that's another fallacy this forum loves.

Deep and involved is fundamentally different than brainlessly repetitive. I'm not sure what you want in a resource system in a game like KSP that is deep and involved but not mindless and tedious in execution.

[HvP]

1 minute ago, cocoscacao said:

Smart ones throughout history (partially) figured out orbital mechanics waaaaay before industrial revolution

And they couldn't do anything with it until other smart people figured out the chemistry of rocket fuel, and other smart people figured out the engineering of materials, etc. Besides, I'm not saying that these categories in particular are the perfect options, just that science should reflect the multidisciplinary requirements of space travel.

4 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

actually designing such system would be a lot (and really, a lot) more complex without any significant benefits

I believe that benefit, in my opinion, is to make science collection an integral and challenging part of gameplay. And not all science is created equal.

[hatterson]

6 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Lastly, I'd like for people to stop pre-emptively insulting the intelligence of "new players", this is something the industry as a whole is very guilty of and why games have overall declined in content, outward complexity and obviously reception.

I'm not insulting their intelligence, I'm being realistic about the amount of effort and tedium that the majority of players want to go through to play a fun and silly rocket launch game.

[cocoscacao]

1 minute ago, HvP said:

And they couldn't do anything with it until other smart people figured out the chemistry of rocket fuel, and other smart people figured out the engineering of materials

Fit that kind of thing into a game that's about launching things into space. What do you do before launching a first basic rocket? Run around a lab?

[HvP]

Just now, cocoscacao said:

Fit that kind of thing into a game that's about launching things into space. What do you do before launching a first basic rocket? Run around a lab?

Are you arguing against the very idea of collecting science to progress the tech tree? Because you could make the very same argument against that in its present form.

[PDCWolf]

10 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Is emphasis here on yet? Sci update never meant to bring anything new. Just a dumb progression mechanism. I'm still waiting for colonies. This is just something that remotely resembles KSP 1 in it's final state, and gives me juuust enough things to enjoy it somewhat.

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.

5 minutes ago, hatterson said:

It feels like an interesting system, but it seems too much for a casual player. Too high a barrier to entry. Seems like an excellent idea for a mod though.

 

Deep and involved is fundamentally different than brainlessly repetitive. I'm not sure what you want in a resource system in a game like KSP that is deep and involved but not mindless and tedious in execution.

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

[cocoscacao]

2 minutes ago, HvP said:

Are you arguing against the very idea of collecting science to progress the tech tree?

I'm saying that such system would be hideously complex to implement. You can't cram human knowledge progression into a single game. You don't have to believe me, just give me a concrete example (or an outline) on how that system would work, and I'll point out the edge cases.

[HebaruSan]

15 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

even from Mario Bros to Super Mario Bros they added the stomp mechanic, sidescrolling levels that follow at least a loose narrative, and so on.

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?