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

[Vanamonde]

Take the discussion back to KSP2's science system, please. 

[cocoscacao]

17 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

but what other way is there to "level up" or get better if not by locking new pieces behind points?

Partially related to this discussion. You just hit my pet peeve with this one. Yes, all of the RPG games do this. One shiny example on how this could be done better can be found in GTA San Andreas. Shoot frequently with a pistol? Pistol skill increases. Drive a lot? Driving skill increases. Instead of earning arbitrary points, you get better at things that you actually do.

This mechanism, obviously, is not transferable to KSP science in any way that I can think of.

[Superfluous J]

There are 2 more things I've seen... that also don't apply to KSP

Cities:Skylines (and Sim City from what I recall) just gives you the stuff as you get bigger. Reached orbit? Great here are some more engines and tanks. Left Kerbin's SOI? Awesome here's more stuff. The big problem is progression in KSP is not quite as linear as it is in city builders where your population is constantly going up.

Banished just gives you everything, and you can't really utilize or afford most of it until your town is much bigger. This is the equivalent of KSP's sandbox mode, which is just the removal of all (non-physical) limits.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

5 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

There are 2 more things I've seen... that also don't apply to KSP

Cities:Skylines (and Sim City from what I recall) just gives you the stuff as you get bigger. Reached orbit? Great here are some more engines and tanks. Left Kerbin's SOI? Awesome here's more stuff. The big problem is progression in KSP is not quite as linear as it is in city builders where your population is constantly going up.

Banished just gives you everything, and you can't really utilize or afford most of it until your town is much bigger. This is the equivalent of KSP's sandbox mode, which is just the removal of all (non-physical) limits.

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

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

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

Instead the system implemented seems a step backwards. 

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

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

There is no story telling - just box checking. 

[sgt_flyer]

I'm wondering that in addition to the old 'Science' Lore we had in KSP1, if "gating" at least some of the research behind specific science experiments could help ?

Of course, in a way that would encourage to explore more - and still makes sense from a "Research" point of view.

ex : various control surfaces & wings could require experiments to be run while flying in atmosphere, while more vacuum optimized engines could require space experiments.

with maybe having enough reports of the type from x differents locations for later stage science to unlock a node.

[K33N]

It literally saved the game. Take the L. Hopefully the colony mode is like KSP1 career mode and even more people play. 

[Albert VDS]

I don't get the complaint. Sure it's not going to be like KSP1, because why else make KSP2? KSP1 had/has loads of things that people wanted or didn't like. You what happened? It got added by mods.
It's the reason why more than half the player base of KSP1 plays with mods and I don't see why it would be different with KSP2.
If enough people want it then it will be made as a mod.

[WelshSteW]

On 1/12/2024 at 5:59 PM, hatterson said:

The high def pictures would depend heavily on telescope technology, which doesn't need to follow human technology. I understand limiting it, but I think that was more of a game engine/game technology decision as opposed to a true gameplay one.

The dV requirements and sphere of influence is basic mathematics and there's no reason for them to not be available from the start of a campaign.

 

Basic mathematics based on what? The size of the planet? The mass? Ok, but how do we know what those are? We start the game having not sent anything to orbit, having not recorded any science in our own atmosphere. How do we know anything about other planets that would allow us to calculate dV requirements and sphere of influence?

 

Obviously I don't have all the answers, otherwise I'd be a top tier game designer.

 

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, WelshSteW said:

Basic mathematics based on what? The size of the planet? The mass? Ok, but how do we know what those are? We start the game having not sent anything to orbit, having not recorded any science in our own atmosphere.

That’s your assumption. Mine is that this is the Kerbal space program. It’s about sending Kerbals to space. They’ve already done the remote operated probes but now they want their species to go there.

You’ll still need relays and there’s no need to fly manned supply missions, so yes there are probes in the program. But the priority is getting Kerbals to places. But that doesn’t mean they haven’t observed those places before.

 I’m sure there are holes in “my” lore but it plugs a lot of those in the game lore for me, so I’m sticking with it.

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, WelshSteW said:

Basic mathematics based on what? The size of the planet? The mass? Ok, but how do we know what those are? We start the game having not sent anything to orbit, having not recorded any science in our own atmosphere. How do we know anything about other planets that would allow us to calculate dV requirements and sphere of influence?

We knew the distances to the other planets in 1769, TWO HUNDRED YEARS before we sent people to the moon. Now, the calculations weren't super exact but they were enough to get the basic idea; no more than a couple percent off. If that's not good enough for you, in 1961 we used RADAR to determine the distance to Venus (and therefore all the rest of the planets) to - basically - exact.

Other than Venus and Mercury, we also knew the masses of all planets in 1769, because we knew how far away they were, and therefore how far out their moons orbited, which is all you need to know to know mass.

There is no mathematical reason that we couldn't have sent interplanetary probes during the Civil War. The problem back then wasn't that we didn't have the information. it's that we didn't have the ability.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

 

[rjbvre]

42 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

We knew the distances to the other planets in 1769, TWO HUNDRED YEARS before we sent people to the moon. Now, the calculations weren't super exact but they were enough to get the basic idea; no more than a couple percent off. If that's not good enough for you, in 1961 we used RADAR to determine the distance to Venus (and therefore all the rest of the planets) to - basically - exact.

Other than Venus and Mercury, we also knew the masses of all planets in 1769, because we knew how far away they were, and therefore how far out their moons orbited, which is all you need to know to know mass.

There is no mathematical reason that we couldn't have sent interplanetary probes during the Civil War. The problem back then wasn't that we didn't have the information. it's that we didn't have the ability.

I agree with the basic idea of your post that it's possible and historical to know the orbits and sometimes the mass of planets fairly accurately without sending a probe there or using a space telescope. 

In 1769 we didn't even know that Uranus or Neptune existed though, nevermind their distance or mass. We hadn't observed Phobos or Deimos yet either so we really only knew the mass of Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn. 3 out of 8 is a far cry from all planets.

[dmsilev]

By the middle of the 19th century, we knew the masses of the planets precisely enough to realize that there was an inconsistency in the observed orbits that couldn’t be explained, most notably in the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Mid to late 19th century astronomers tried to resolve this issue by looking for an additional planet even closer to the Sun, but by the end of that century observations and especially advances in photography had pretty much ruled out that possibility (or at least had set a fairly stringent upper bound on the possible size), and ultimately Einstein's development of General Relativity provided the answer.
 

Point being, we knew a lot about the planets of the Solar System long before reaching the 'can send sounding rocket to edge of atmosphere' tech level of the game's starting point. A KSP2 starting-node rocket is  in the rough ballpark of a V2, so if you want an equivalent to Earth, ask about the level of astronomical knowledge at the early 1940s. 

 

[rjbvre]

35 minutes ago, dmsilev said:

Point being, we knew a lot about the planets of the Solar System long before reaching the 'can send sounding rocket to edge of atmosphere' tech level of the game's starting point. A KSP2 starting-node rocket is  in the rough ballpark of a V2, so if you want an equivalent to Earth, ask about the level of astronomical knowledge at the early 1940s. 

 

Oh absolutely, I'm not arguing that there should be unknown planets or that we shouldn't know their mass and orbits (or other info that can be derived from them) at the start of the game. But even if we say day 1 is equivalent to about 1960, which I find more fitting, we still knew very, very little about most of the planets, and next to nothing about the moons.

I am arguing that revealing additional info through exploration and/or science would be a realistic and fulfilling game mechanic. One that could easily be turned off in settings by those people who don't want it.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

I see so few post regarding the "random" aspect of KSP1.

Using variables, flags or whatever magic the code stingers conjured to create a rich new play through every single time.

The steady progression of Missions in For Science! Is wonderful at instructing newer players.

However, once you have completed (all) those mission profiles, there is little incentive to start a fresh game.

 

In the real world they take autonomous sample with probe lander.  A few fragments of space dust. 

We lack the capabilites to fly living beings interstellar distances & return.

The part that career mode had, that I find most fundamental..

Contracts

once my unmanned probed skipped through a system the first time..

I would get a selection of missions that I could actually "Choose" afterward.  These missions would be randomly generated by the various science available. Ibcould examine my current tech tree & see which may be possible.

So, even though the Jool system may be the exact same every time I play the game... the predecessor used missions in a way that would repeat the big milestone missions but offered a mix of missions that would help 'encourage' the next step of exploration.

Part of exploration is exciting and the original was able to provide that experience with every new playthrough.

Please keep adding cool new experiments for the herbs to do... really wanna take some reading near a black hole.

 

I feel the simplification of the base game is good. You can make the Playable experience more intuitive & easier manage while still keeping For Science! as a spiritual successor of Career.

I imagine there will continue to be improvements along the Way like OP said.. it's just not a priority next to the revolutionary stuff like Colonies and Multiplayer.

 

I get it. I was 10 years late in discovering KSP1. I can wait a little while for 2

[Mike S]

On 1/11/2024 at 9:47 AM, Ahres said:

I was being general...I would suspect that devs tend to ignore the general forums outside the bug report and feature suggestions...as most of the time it is just endless criticism without substance.  Sure, there is a possibility that they might look at this thread.  But given the sheer number of discussions on this game going on at any one time, trying to follow them all can be time consuming.  And if the criticisms are all the same "hate" rhetoric from last February, as is seemingly common in the Steam forums, their time would be better spent at coding instead of taking in empty venting.  Better things to do.  Like build space ships and fly them.  That's just me I guess.  lol

There is a lot to do in the update...it might be all old school to KSP 1 vets for the first dozen missions or so, but the framework is there to expand upon it...and mod it beyond what the developers provide.  Modders already have their custom tech treefor example.  It gives everyone an idea of where the game can go, what it has to offer in terms of the framework we are seeing with this update versus what was there before.  The modding community has made it a bit more tolerable for those who want a bit more.  Career...er, Science playthrough is tossed out for everyone to try and then critique...and send in the bug reports and feature suggestions and so on.  There are a lot fo bugs and issues with this release.  But to get mad, angry...stomping the feet and throwing a temper tantrum style rants and...seriously?  If it was a finished game, I could relate fully to being liquided about that.  But this isn't that.  This is a beta test to the public at large with a game that is definitely not finished and there should be no illusions to that when they state early access...the public that seems impatient and intolerant of the fact that yeah, this is far from a 1.0 release.   And instead of constructive cricisism?  That's why I doubt the coders hang out "here".  But hey, masochism comes in many forms so I cannot be certain of course.

I think they are going to run into trouble when users start to encounter the issue of too many parts impacting frame rates, as is evident with this release...despite the major improvements to performance.  But for all I know, that issues is being worked on, possibly even resolved and put on the warming plate for an update release.  I can only guess there, wishful thinking.  But I can't get angry about that state right now.  Why?  Well, it's on the nose kind of argument here, lol

Now for me, the appropriate place to push for that is in those bug and feature suggestion pages...odds are pretty good however, many others already stepped up to the plate to inform/suggest, as obviously happened to lead to the December update.  As I said, I really do not get the temper tantrums over something that should be pretty straight forward in regards to what EA can look like.   Thus far, the update has proven to be a positive experience worthy of a clap or two, considering what came before.  KSP 1 included.

 

[Infinite Aerospace]

Kerbalism was, and still is the gold standard of how to do science in Kerbal Space Program right, it's the persistent having to remain on station that makes it better.

[byaafacehead]

My 2 cents..

I like how they did science. I definitely think it can be improved.

But for OP's criticism and some of the other ones I saw when skimming through:

There's a dedicated button for science reports where you can see the flavor text once the science is obtained.

The science parts are more unique and differentiated (some take time/electricity, some are awkward sizes). KSP1 had stuff like mystery goo which I think is great but it's better to have that lumped into Science Jr.

I do think having a persistent place to view old science reports would be good, and if the game a some "fog of war" at the start for certain things it might be interesting.

Like slightly off topic but related: planet synopsis could add more useful details like atmosphere height, maybe that could be obtained from science measurements. Though honestly little things like that just make the game more complicated without a big benefit to actual gameplay.

So I think if science experiments could be kept as easy as they are now, but have some more UI to show and highlight what's being measured and make it a little easier to see and review flavor text, that would be great. But largely I think science is done well (aside from obvious bugs, which there are a few annoying ones)

[Meecrob]

On 1/23/2024 at 5:28 PM, byaafacehead said:

There's a dedicated button for science reports where you can see the flavor text once the science is obtained.

That is precisely the problem.

On 1/23/2024 at 5:28 PM, byaafacehead said:

The science parts are more unique and differentiated (some take time/electricity, some are awkward sizes). KSP1 had stuff like mystery goo which I think is great but it's better to have that lumped into Science Jr.

You must be mistaken, there are less science parts in KSP2 compared to KSP1. The latter also made you run each experiment as opposed to having a "science hotkey" plus removing most experiments and putting a couple behind a timer.

 

On 1/23/2024 at 5:28 PM, byaafacehead said:

So I think if science experiments could be kept as easy as they are now

People want something to do on their missions that is more complex than "click button, science done!"

 

Edited January 27 by Meecrob

[Scarecrow71]

2 hours ago, Meecrob said:

People want something to do on their missions that is more complex than "click button, science done!"

This.  Maybe it is just a product of the games I played growing up, but after having to craft V Jolt with only 3 empty vials and math instructions in Resident Evil, the single button "click me and you are done" just doesn't cut it.

[byaafacehead]

6 hours ago, Meecrob said:

You must be mistaken, there are less science parts in KSP2 compared to KSP1. The latter also made you run each experiment as opposed to having a "science hotkey" plus removing most experiments and putting a couple behind a timer.

There are less science parts, but I am saying the one which exist are more differentiated from a gameplay perspective. For example, the thermometer, mystery goo, pressure sensor all are basically just: go to biome, click run experiment. So those redundant "go and click" style experiment got lumped into Science Jr.

The other experiments have additional constraints, like survey time, power requirements etc., which is better gameplay-wise then a large number of parts which all functionally work in an identical way (that's not fun, just tedious). You press one button to start all of these experiments but you have to think out how to make a craft which can meet those constraints.

Though I would be happy to see more sci parts released for further variety.

[Meecrob]

On 1/27/2024 at 8:40 PM, byaafacehead said:

There are less science parts, but I am saying the one which exist are more differentiated from a gameplay perspective. For example, the thermometer, mystery goo, pressure sensor all are basically just: go to biome, click run experiment. So those redundant "go and click" style experiment got lumped into Science Jr.

The other experiments have additional constraints, like survey time, power requirements etc., which is better gameplay-wise then a large number of parts which all functionally work in an identical way (that's not fun, just tedious). You press one button to start all of these experiments but you have to think out how to make a craft which can meet those constraints.

Though I would be happy to see more sci parts released for further variety.

Look, I get "Science" in KSP1 was not perfect, but since last Feb, when this game dropped, lots of people here told me "yo, bro, its EA"

This implementation of science/exploration is definitely "EA"

As has been said before, they chose the low hanging fruit to fix, not the stuff that makes the game fun to play.

If you can ell me how to focus on a planet with a satellite around it without focusing on the satellite first, and zooming in to the body, I'm all ears!

Edited February 1 by Meecrob

[byaafacehead]

3 hours ago, Meecrob said:

If you can tell me how to focus on a planet with a satellite around it without focusing on the satellite first, and zooming in to the body, I'm all ears!

I mean, that's a definitely gripe I have as well! A lot of the map camera/UI still needs work (don't get me started on maneuver nodes).

Here's the relevant bug tracker for that particular issue, if you want to give it another vote...

Edited February 1 by byaafacehead

[Meecrob]

39 minutes ago, byaafacehead said:

Here's the relevant bug tracker for that particular issue, if you want to give it another vote...

My honest opinion is that votes don't work. The Devs work on things in their own order. Proof is that they could have replaced the text the day after they released, after everyone rightfully said the font sucked...its 11 months later and its the same font...the Devs don't listen.

Before people rag on me...remember what this game costs for it to have:

-Better graphics than KSP1.

-Awesome music

-..?

 

 

I don't mean to be a jerk, but lets face reality. The game is only getting good reviews because it is now sorta close to KSP1. This dev team is barely able to re-create something their parent company bought at this point.

Edited February 1 by Meecrob

[Oak7603]

I'm not sure that is the reality though. I played KSP1 for a long time and yet KSP2, in the relatively short time it has been out has made me do more and go further than I did in KSP1 and I don't think they tried to recreate KSP1 either, they've made a sequel.

As for KSP1 is it the game that people think it is? In my case, so this may not be the same for you, I had a heavily modded KSP1 covering all aspects - graphics, parts, information, QOL fixes etc to make it the 'game that it is'. Stock KSP1 isn't as good as KSP2 IMO (yes there are bugs but these will go just as the bugs in KSP1 reduced over time).

I do have mods on KSP2, one for orbital surveys to map the regions and this could easily end up as part of the game so I may not need that one, one for maneuver controls which will be fixed at some point so I won't need that one, and science arkive which again can easily be implemented and I expect that it will too. The others are dependencies for these. I don't need all the other mods I had to enjoy KSP2 more than I did KSP1. Of course, as with these things, your mileage may vary.