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

[Hanuman]

55 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

^^^

Yea.. science isn't stoopid. We make fishin' go BRRRRT.

I've seen more traction gained regarding the number of complaints leveraged specifically at the short coming of exploration.

I there's alot of bugs and UI concern along with an entire road map. 

Most *suggestion* style improvements beyond the scope of above mentioned occur from convenience or at the back end.

I saw this awesome badge mod today that adds nothing but fun!! I know once as stability increases the amazing modders will remedy my biggest issues

1.  lack of missions to promote varied playstyle

2.lacl of self generating often repetive datuh collection at the heart of any real science program.

 

 

Onto the veracity of Exploration as a single mode.

I will use the fact that one is a subset of the other (the other being what we seem to desire more of) to support my stance.

There never was any need for two separate game modes. Career was always essential Science Plus.

A few changes to weighting of science and everything else is on top. This could have been acheiced with a box you clicked when starting a new Science Mode game. 

 

One thing that was said which should be posted atop every white board around headquarters 

"There should be no wrong way to play the game"

A single forced interplanetary mission with a prefab craft and assisted maneuvers could correct that need to drive people interplanetary and show how easy it is.  You capture SOI and cut to landing montage.

Then jeb wakes and enters the frame. Walks and out and sees a very simple jumping flea and sighs.

 Mission Control 

Then when you get to Duna you see a spectacle from Jebs Dream

Alas  I have too much time and daydream often

I’ll have to give it to you and concede that funds and Career would work as toggle options if that comes along with the expectation of randomly generated or repeatable mission offerings.  You’ll need a non invasive way of generating income.

I think your prefab craft works better as you taking control over the flight for Different Space Program 2 who are experiencing Comms issues.  Then the next logical step is a followup optional mission to rescue said crew at the landing site of the first.   Use Duna and rip off (pay tribute to) The Martian.   A clip of a Kerbal farming snacks in vending machines is mandatory.   Better than a Jeb dream sequence I think.

I do agree with you completely that there should be no wrong way to play this.  One of if not THE single most magical thing about the first game is how it manages to do exactly that.    No matter the specific parts that people enjoyed it welcomed everyone to jump in at their own ability level and have at it.

 

Edited February 4 by Hanuman

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Oooh I like that.  What I suggested would never really sail... too reminiscent of the old RPG where your first fight is the end boss then you reboot to zero.

Your idea would be super cool. Love the Fledgling takeover. 

 

Could even Interplanetary probe mission that loses control could work with the com-net suggestion or any other number of approaches.

Those are the kind of things I really hope make mod content one day. 

@Hanuman do you play with any mods? WMCC

Is pretty fun and a rewarding experience more in line with KSP1 but adds a steep difficulty gradient in some aspect with Tech unlock.

I admit it's winning me over more and more bc I know the community will bring those things eventually even if the dev do not.

Thank gawd for the modders.

Yea. When you said thay earlier "no wrong way" and how people are mis-infering that it's too hard. All thay clicked a light and I knew how to better articulate when people respond to me similiarly.

Edited February 4 by Fizzlebop Smith

[PDCWolf]

On 2/1/2024 at 1:00 PM, Meecrob said:

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.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. It took 8 months of wobble being the top voted bug for it to be even considered (it is a bug, a glorified one that people refuse to acknowledge because it lets them brag about building around it as if adding struts and right-clicking to add autostruts required intellect).

On 2/1/2024 at 1:51 PM, Oak7603 said:

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.

The game forces you to go out. You will not complete the tech tree in only the Kerbin system. I do agree that such a push is better than being able to do it with just the 3 initial bodies, but that's forcing the player's hand, a harsh design choice made out of need for people to actually play the game, since KSP2 is clearly gonna be a semi-linear storytelling "experience" that'll require some lackadaisical base-building on the side to allow you to reach interstellar and progress.

This design vision is almost surely the root cause of the many design disagreements plaguing KSP2 between what players expected ("improved codebase", "new physics engine", "rebuilt systems") and what the devs are getting us, which is barely a remix of KSP1 with some very bad-opinionated inclusions. Players expected an iteration of a space simulator sandbox, but we're getting the equivalent of what were some random writers hijacking the Halo name to make a forgettable live-action as an excuse to show us their not-even-halo fan fiction tier story.

When you compare stock KSP1 to stock KSP2, you also have to compare the pricing, the faster updates on KSP1, the size of the dev team, and not having the biggest publisher in gaming behind the dev team. KSP2's current offering is insufficient for the resources it seems to have and the price tag. Specially almost a year after releasing.

Since you mention mods, I'm not touching the KSP2 modding scene with a ten foot pole, specially since it ends up in bepinex and, god forbid, the thunderstore and similar spyware disguised as modding aids. Official moddability is gonna take so long nobody is gonna be interested in the game anymore and I do invite you to print this statement and quote me on it some years down the line.

On 2/1/2024 at 2:57 PM, Spicat said:

It's not.

I will just transfer an official response to this:

Anyway, I don't want to create a debate over this specifically. I was mainly talking about the fact that "votes don't work", which is not at all the case.

Fonts have their own hard parameters: Resolution, kerning, serif or no serif, and so on. If you find a font that matches the parameters, it's literally a drop-in replacement. As for the rights, that's a bit more complicated, but even in cases of emergency (I.E. YOUR PLAYERS BEING UNABLE TO READ) then you can opt for one of the tens of thousands of OPL/PD/GPL fonts, or any other free culture license. Either way, doing all of that for a paid, designer font with the same parameters would still not take almost a year. The only way for these statements to make sense is if they started considering the font situation barely after for science, even though it's been a recurring complaint since release along with the rest of the UI/UX being garbage.

I'm sure there are more and even better solutions than looking for a matching drop-in replacement. Hope that's where we end. As of right now, to me this font drama is just another heavily opinionated "we're the professionals and you're gonna listen to us" issue, like the camera controls, the navball, and so on.

 

[Hanuman]

On 2/3/2024 at 9:41 PM, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Oooh I like that.  What I suggested would never really sail... too reminiscent of the old RPG where your first fight is the end boss then you reboot to zero.

Your idea would be super cool. Love the Fledgling takeover. 

 

Could even Interplanetary probe mission that loses control could work with the com-net suggestion or any other number of approaches.

Those are the kind of things I really hope make mod content one day. 

@Hanuman do you play with any mods? WMCC

Is pretty fun and a rewarding experience more in line with KSP1 but adds a steep difficulty gradient in some aspect with Tech unlock.

I admit it's winning me over more and more bc I know the community will bring those things eventually even if the dev do not.

Thank gawd for the modders.

Yea. When you said thay earlier "no wrong way" and how people are mis-infering that it's too hard. All thay clicked a light and I knew how to better articulate when people respond to me similiarly.

I don’t play with any mods in KSP2 yet.  I won’t really even consider it for a long time yet.  I don’t want to give the devs the excuse to be lazy and defer to just using mods as an answer, if I’m just going to be up front about it.  The game is under development and in construction.  I don’t want to end up missing something awesome or important from stock, that should be there.  To me, the game isn’t really ready for funsies playing yet. I mean, one of my core takes in this thread is that the tech tree is whack.   I don’t accept just going “oh well, mod it” as an answer.   It’s lazy.   Fix the issues, instead.  Even if the intention is to leave a lot to modders after, the base game should still be as made to be as good as can be.

 

[PDCWolf]

On 2/6/2024 at 4:37 AM, Hanuman said:

I don’t play with any mods in KSP2 yet.  I won’t really even consider it for a long time yet.  I don’t want to give the devs the excuse to be lazy and defer to just using mods as an answer, if I’m just going to be up front about it.  The game is under development and in construction.  I don’t want to end up missing something awesome or important from stock, that should be there.  To me, the game isn’t really ready for funsies playing yet. I mean, one of my core takes in this thread is that the tech tree is whack.   I don’t accept just going “oh well, mod it” as an answer.   It’s lazy.   Fix the issues, instead.  Even if the intention is to leave a lot to modders after, the base game should still be as made to be as good as can be.

 

Should've read literally every single suggestion thread for KSP1.

"Hey the game could use this", followed by an instantaneous "there's a mod for that". Later on and even to this day they would complain that KSP1 was lackluster and defend KSP2 by refusing to compare it with the KSP1 mods they themselves would suggest.

[Bej Kerman]

17 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Later on and even to this day they would complain that KSP1 was lackluster

I don't see what this has to do with KSP 2. Although I do agree it was lackluster and Squad was doing themselves and everyone else a disservice by helping set that precedent.

[PDCWolf]

20 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I don't see what this has to do with KSP 2. Although I do agree it was lackluster and Squad was doing themselves and everyone else a disservice by helping set that precedent.

It's what happens when you turn the entire forum into a shield for the developers and eat up whatever "developer asymptotes" bull they spew as an excuse for doing stuff that's effectively not developing the game. On top of that add shutting down every suggestion with "there's a mod for that" and it's no wonder the game ended up where it is.

The only people that did not see this forum making it impossible to criticize the devs was... this forum.

[MechBFP]

Once again someone conflates criticism with rudeness.

[EngineeringWaffle]

I just wanna chime in and say I think there are key things OP got and is getting right that seem to be going over a lot of people's heads.

1) Running experiments was gameplay in KSP1.

Perhaps you found it tedious, but mining for diamonds in Minecraft is also tedious. If you want to make the game less tedious you could just automate the whole thing. One button and you win the whole game! It was somewhat tedious, but it also IMO was somewhat challenging to get all the experiments to trigger as you passed over a tiny patch of lowlands. Or getting a kerbal to jump out of the ship to quickly "record his thoughts" while screaming through the upper atmosphere at 3,000 m/s.
 

2) Currencies in this game are super boring and tasks don't relate to rewards

The fun quest rewards in Skyrim aren't the ones that give you $6,000 gold, they are the ones that give you a special item. That you do specifically because it's the way you get a particular bow for a build you wanna do. One of the things I think is missing from KSP is any quest rewards beyond currency (and science is a currency). Go to Duna to discover how to make helium engines, go to the mun to find a new type of rock to make bigger and better landing struts. Go to minmus to unlock some tiny engines.

Now, how do you actually implement this? I don't know. There are a million ways. But it's pretty much just a fact that the science tree they gave us is pretty much the most boring way to do a tech tree, it's basically just a shop. At least in KSP1 there were interesting decisions about which branch you wanted to invest your points in. Here you can just invest in the main branch and then unlock whatever you need.

3) The personality that was present for science is honestly, completely gone.

"You take a sample of water, it appears to dramatically increase the surface humidity of anything it touches."

"You start say something dramatic and poignant about the plight of Kerbal-kind in this grand universe, only to be cut off by random radio chatter that the situation is normal"

"Yep, it's dirt"

This is what we got every time we shook up a mystery goo canister, or extended our magnetic boom, or examined our totally-not-store-bought thermometer.  Now we get a report pop up with text in it too small for anyone to read, but a UI that's so large it obscures your whole screen and about 10 notifications saying we have already done that experiment because I happen to have backups of my science equipment.

4) Science gathering is no longer strategic and has no relevance to ship design

In KSP1 you actually had to plan your trip and what science you were going to do. you could bring one science junior and a lab and run the experiment tons of times, or you could bring just the one science junior but you'd have to make it count. And if you wanted to do multiple mystery goo readings you had to bring multiple canisters. And so your first ship to the mun would just have one mystery goo canister, but the next trip you'd bring a few and a science junior and then the next trip you'd bring a processing lab and set it up on wheels with one science junior and try to get a bunch of biomes.

It meant you changed your ship design depending on what you were doing. KSP2 you put one of every sciency thing you have on your ship and launch it.

 

Now, if you don't like the science gathering aspect of the game, or if you just want to explore the sandbox while unlocking parts slowly, maybe none of this matters to you. And that's okay But still, I think we can admit that KSP2 science doesn't exactly have the same amount of personality it used to, and it doesn't create terribly interesting gameplay decisions. How that problem could be solved is an open question, and it's probably going to take more than 5 minutes to solve, so anything that is proposed here will probably have at least one major flaw or drawback. But just because there isn't an obvious solution doesn't invalidate the criticism.

 

Also, while writing this I've realized: I have not seen a single silly kerbal thing the whole time I've played KSP2 . I haven't read any science reports, I haven't seen any particularly funny part descriptions. Really nothing. Which is kinda sad.

[kdaviper]

6 hours ago, EngineeringWaffle said:

I just wanna chime in and say I think there are key things OP got and is getting right that seem to be going over a lot of people's heads.

1) Running experiments was gameplay in KSP1.

Perhaps you found it tedious, but mining for diamonds in Minecraft is also tedious. If you want to make the game less tedious you could just automate the whole thing. One button and you win the whole game! It was somewhat tedious, but it also IMO was somewhat challenging to get all the experiments to trigger as you passed over a tiny patch of lowlands. Or getting a kerbal to jump out of the ship to quickly "record his thoughts" while screaming through the upper atmosphere at 3,000 m/s.
 

2) Currencies in this game are super boring and tasks don't relate to rewards

The fun quest rewards in Skyrim aren't the ones that give you $6,000 gold, they are the ones that give you a special item. That you do specifically because it's the way you get a particular bow for a build you wanna do. One of the things I think is missing from KSP is any quest rewards beyond currency (and science is a currency). Go to Duna to discover how to make helium engines, go to the mun to find a new type of rock to make bigger and better landing struts. Go to minmus to unlock some tiny engines.

Now, how do you actually implement this? I don't know. There are a million ways. But it's pretty much just a fact that the science tree they gave us is pretty much the most boring way to do a tech tree, it's basically just a shop. At least in KSP1 there were interesting decisions about which branch you wanted to invest your points in. Here you can just invest in the main branch and then unlock whatever you need.

3) The personality that was present for science is honestly, completely gone.

"You take a sample of water, it appears to dramatically increase the surface humidity of anything it touches."

"You start say something dramatic and poignant about the plight of Kerbal-kind in this grand universe, only to be cut off by random radio chatter that the situation is normal"

"Yep, it's dirt"

This is what we got every time we shook up a mystery goo canister, or extended our magnetic boom, or examined our totally-not-store-bought thermometer.  Now we get a report pop up with text in it too small for anyone to read, but a UI that's so large it obscures your whole screen and about 10 notifications saying we have already done that experiment because I happen to have backups of my science equipment.

4) Science gathering is no longer strategic and has no relevance to ship design

In KSP1 you actually had to plan your trip and what science you were going to do. you could bring one science junior and a lab and run the experiment tons of times, or you could bring just the one science junior but you'd have to make it count. And if you wanted to do multiple mystery goo readings you had to bring multiple canisters. And so your first ship to the mun would just have one mystery goo canister, but the next trip you'd bring a few and a science junior and then the next trip you'd bring a processing lab and set it up on wheels with one science junior and try to get a bunch of biomes.

It meant you changed your ship design depending on what you were doing. KSP2 you put one of every sciency thing you have on your ship and launch it.

 

Now, if you don't like the science gathering aspect of the game, or if you just want to explore the sandbox while unlocking parts slowly, maybe none of this matters to you. And that's okay But still, I think we can admit that KSP2 science doesn't exactly have the same amount of personality it used to, and it doesn't create terribly interesting gameplay decisions. How that problem could be solved is an open question, and it's probably going to take more than 5 minutes to solve, so anything that is proposed here will probably have at least one major flaw or drawback. But just because there isn't an obvious solution doesn't invalidate the criticism.

 

Also, while writing this I've realized: I have not seen a single silly kerbal thing the whole time I've played KSP2 . I haven't read any science reports, I haven't seen any particularly funny part descriptions. Really nothing. Which is kinda sad.

So all that has happened is they have removed the task of adding all your science bits to an action group and added an indicator light. Also if that doesn't suit your play style you have the option of manually activating the experiments one by one.

Also out of curiosity how far in the tech tree are you? I feel like I had to leave a lot of parts unlocked until I had what I needed in KSP 2. In 1 all you have to do is send a lab to minimus and maybe the mun or duna and farm the biomes there to get the whole tree unlocked. 

In ksp2, certain experiments take time.  The orbital lab especially takes 6 minutes to gather its data. And it drains EC the entire time it's running, regardless if it's collecting from the selected biome. 

There are also some considerations to the masses of the experiments and placement on your craft, as they aren't as easily counterbalanced as they were in ksp1.

I also suspect that science will be useful once colonies and resource collection arrive as you will need to locate resources in order to plan your colony locations. 

[EngineeringWaffle]

7 hours ago, kdaviper said:

So all that has happened is they have removed the task of adding all your science bits to an action group and added an indicator light.

I mean, I think one thing that is key is that KSP1 is not necessarily the gold standard. I think KSP1 did a better job of gamifying it and adding personality. But I also think you could do a lot better.

7 hours ago, kdaviper said:

Also if that doesn't suit your play style you have the option of manually activating the experiments one by one.

I mean, yeah. And if they made minecraft diamonds 100x more common, you could just manually throw out 99/100 diamonds. And if KSP had a heat shield that weighed nothing and fully protected your craft you could just not use it. The logic "you could always just play the game as if X mechanic weren't an option" can be used to justify all kinds of terrible decisions. And the reason why I think going through and doing experiments manually is interesting is that it adds some challenge to timing, it adds something to ship design (you can't bury your science modules deep in your ship), and it adds personality in the form of the messages you get. If these same elements of timing challenge, design challenge, and personality can be added to the science system by some other means I would welcome that change, I'm not married to the KSP1 system. I just think that attention needs to be paid to their removal and not every QOL feature is actually beneficial to the gameplay experience.

[Bej Kerman]

7 hours ago, EngineeringWaffle said:

I mean, yeah. And if they made minecraft diamonds 100x more common, you could just manually throw out 99/100 diamonds. And if KSP had a heat shield that weighed nothing and fully protected your craft you could just not use it.

Those are massive gameplay changes and therefore bad analogies. Reducing the tedium of clicking 5 experiments to 1 button does not change the 5 experiments besides not wasting the players' time - it's functionally the same. If you hate this change though, do you hate the positive QOL change or do you hate the shallow nature of the gameplay loop that the QOL adjustment makes impossible to ignore?

[EngineeringWaffle]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Those are massive gameplay changes and therefore bad analogies. Reducing the tedium of clicking 5 experiments to 1 button does not change the 5 experiments besides not wasting the players' time - it's functionally the same. If you hate this change though, do you hate the positive QOL change or do you hate the shallow nature of the gameplay loop that the QOL adjustment makes impossible to ignore?

Let me put it this way: The KSP1 implementation gets a 3/10 on challenge, a 2/10 on increasing depth of spacecraft design, and an 7/10 on adding personality. The current KSP2 system gets a 1/10 on challenge, a 1/10 on increasing depth of spacecraft design, and a 2/10 on adding personality.

I think that one can do way way better than the KSP1 system. I think it could be made way way deeper. I think it could be given much more personality. Just a couple of examples

1. We could have experiments that we actually do. Rather than just running a machine, we could have an experiment that is "Crash the inertial sensor into the surface of a celestial body and then collect the black box recording." Or "collect a sample of a dark rock that is scattered around the munar highlands" and then you have to build a rover to actually find one of the rocks. Or "determine the effect of prolonged exposure to a rocket engine on the Duna Icecaps." Let's actually do some stuff!
2. We could have experiments that are actually heavy or big or otherwise impact vessel design. Like an atmospheric sensor that completes faster the more air you get into it. Like an air intake on a jet. Or a seismic sensor that is delicate, but also needs to rest directly on the ground, so you need to pull off a super smooth landing. Or a radiation sensor that is absolutely huge and consumes tons of power, but not very heavy. Just awkward to build a ship around and actually launch.
3. I'm not sure how to add more personality, but more voice lines, animations, and experiment results would definitely be a start.

I don't hate QOL. And I actually get that the KSP1 system wasn't the best itteration of a science system. But with KSP1 I could see the vision for the process to be deeper. I could see how every aspect oozed personality and begged for more tailored interaction. But also that it was limited by the dev hours required to pull off something more ambitious. I see KSP2 as giving up, just making it a button that increases your points.

 

Edited February 28 by EngineeringWaffle

[SolarAdmiral]

On 2/27/2024 at 1:56 AM, EngineeringWaffle said:

The fun quest rewards in Skyrim aren't the ones that give you $6,000 gold, they are the ones that give you a special item. That you do specifically because it's the way you get a particular bow for a build you wanna do. One of the things I think is missing from KSP is any quest rewards beyond currency (and science is a currency). Go to Duna to discover how to make helium engines, go to the mun to find a new type of rock to make bigger and better landing struts. Go to minmus to unlock some tiny engines.

I for one, would like to voice my opinion, that I really really don't want to see this kind of thing in KSP. My favourite part of playing campaigns is playing them in totally different ways every time. I'll play a standard kerbal campaign. Then one using only probes to go ahead of manned missions. Then one only using planes. This type of thing would absolutely kill that.

1 - Without the flexibility of the science points, you wouldn't be able to lean one way or the other, pick what you want and need at the time. In all those different playthroughs, I'll unlock things in vastly different ways.  Instead, it would have to be balanced for one generic style of playthrough every single time.

2 - It would kill my interest in replaying the campaign, having to do the exact same missions every single time to unlock the parts, probably in the exact same order every time.

I 100% much prefer the existing system to that proposal.

 

And, it isn't even realistic. Real rocket science is done on Earth, in an office or lab, completely disconnected from the science done by probes and crews out in space. NASA didn't need to land on the moon to figure out how to build landing legs, or go to an asteroid to figure out how to build a hydrogen engine.

Science points, can be thought of by representing investment. In exchange for doing science out in space to learn about space, we are rewarded with points to represent funded teams of scientists and engineers working in offices and labs to unlock parts.

 

This is all for the current level of tech stuff. I'd would be willing to give something like that a chance for the far future techs. But not for stuff like landing legs and poodle engines.

 

 

And I'd absolutely disagree with the 'rating' assigned to KSP 1 vs KSP 2. KSP 2's science play is absolutely better than it was in KSP 1. Despite loving playing through KSP 1 campaigns, they almost always petered out almost as soon as completing the Mun. Because in the end it was a boring grind. How did a playthrough of KSP 1 usually go? Spend half an hour driving around the KSC to gather science. Flying several dozen missions to orbit and back to pick up 'stranded' kerbals for enough money to upgrade the buildings. Flying a dozen identical Mun landings to get all the biomes. Babysitting orbital labs for months or years to slowly trickle out the science. Because in order to build a half decent looking Duna mission or further, you basically needed the whole tree unlocked. And by the time you finished the Mun and Minmus and were ready to go to Duna, there was no point, because there was nothing left to unlock.

Whereas KSP 2, I've been loving playing Science mode. It's actually fun playing through, where visiting all the planets and moons is rewarding. Where nothing is dragged out, allowing a few visits to every body before moving on to a new one. Where you can build a half decent mission to the next body or planet after a couple missions to the previous one. Instead of flying dozens of dozens of the same identical mission with the same identical probe or craft to grind up money and science to finally get what you need.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

hate the positive QOL change

Um... You are saying that the group of players who hated science in KSP could bind all the science to an action group to 'reduce tedium'.  Meanwhile the player who enjoyed science could run the experiments, get the Kerbal out to do stuff and read the wacky results.  All players had options. 

So the KSP2 'QOL improvement' is only for the first group of players - you're confirming my thesis. 

All science is pregrouped in an action button on the UI - and to further take need to think away from the player - the button flashes whenever you can get free points.  Fun. 

The rest of us who enjoy playing the game as a game (and maybe learning something about the biomes) aren't really served.  N'est cie pa's? 

 

Edited February 28 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[EngineeringWaffle]

4 hours ago, SolarAdmiral said:

I for one, would like to voice my opinion, that I really really don't want to see this kind of thing in KSP. My favourite part of playing campaigns is playing them in totally different ways every time. I'll play a standard kerbal campaign. Then one using only probes to go ahead of manned missions. Then one only using planes. This type of thing would absolutely kill that.

So I want to be clear that I am not advocate for KSP devs to take my half thought through idea and implement it verbatim. I totally agree that if you had to unlock all parts by going to different destinations it would kill the games openness. At the same time, the only difference between Duna highlands and Duna midlands is that one is called the highlands and the other is called the midlands. And 3 missions to duna is the same as one mission to a more difficult destination.

What I'm advocating for is some variation in reward and some kind of non-fungible rewards for select missions.

Some examples:

Perhaps most missions give you science that gives you the basic parts. But if you analyze all the different atmospheres on Duna, you get a special methalox hybrid jet engine that can work in low-oxygen atmospheres. Perhaps on Eve you could discover new explosive bolts you can use for very powerful decouplers. Maybe the arch on Minimus could unlock spiked rover wheels that keep rovers more firmly on the ground. Or if you make it to the pole of dres, you unlock a harpoon you can fire at really small bodies to reel yourself in and anchor yourself to the ground. Almost have the unlocks be like enchanted items. Not necessary for progression, but interesting to create cool and different builds.

Another more surface level example is skins. I know, I know, but if completing a difficult challenge unlocks a cool paint job for your boosters, that could be a fun flex to unlock.

Or, you could even do it where you can "skip" the tech tree and discover single parts early by visiting certain destinations. So if you survey the atmosphere of Duna before unlocking plane stuff, you unlock a couple of the plane parts. If you make it to Juno you can unlock the big hydrogen engines, but you don't get the big tanks until you unlock the tech tree node.

There are a million ways, but the key thing is just that having science be only a currency is, IMO, very shallow. And what you are saying about wanting to play the game differently every time, I totally agree. I think the biggest barrier to that is probably that most stuff is mostly the same. Big tanks, little tanks, medium tanks. They are all just tanks. Big engines, medium engines, little engines. They are all just engines. Helium vs methanox vs ion is actually interesting. But there are few things like that in the game. I think putting powerful and weird parts that have tradeoffs behind different and difficult objectives could add a lot of spice. And then depending on what kind of play through you wanted to do, you might choose to visit different planets first.

 

4 hours ago, SolarAdmiral said:

And, it isn't even realistic. Real rocket science is done on Earth, in an office or lab, completely disconnected from the science done by probes and crews out in space. NASA didn't need to land on the moon to figure out how to build landing legs, or go to an asteroid to figure out how to build a hydrogen engine.

Honestly, a lot of people on here justify why their thing should be in the game with it being realistic. This is not a realistic game. But even then, they kinda did. Science conducted on the moon taught us what we would need to build, for example, a moon base. And doing those unmanned missions in the beginning taught us what the space environment was like and what you would need to survive it. It was only by launching and experimenting with the Saturn IV that we learned enough to make the Saturn V.  The data gathered in space certainly comes back to earth where we actually develop the tech, but it certainly informs *how* it gets developed.

 

4 hours ago, SolarAdmiral said:

Whereas KSP 2, I've been loving playing Science mode. It's actually fun playing through, where visiting all the planets and moons is rewarding. Where nothing is dragged out, allowing a few visits to every body before moving on to a new one.

The thing I do think they nailed with KSP 2 is just not providing any science for doing the same experiment twice. And not really rewarding the Mun enough to be worth grinding it. I hadn't really noticed tbh, I kinda forgot until you mentioned it just how much time I did spend grinding out science on the Mun, but you are totally right.

 

At the end of the day, I just want to see more depth and personality in the science system. I think they could do so much more than they currently do with it.

[kdaviper]

6 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Um... You are saying that the group of players who hated science in KSP could bind all the science to an action group to 'reduce tedium'.  Meanwhile the player who enjoyed science could run the experiments, get the Kerbal out to do stuff and read the wacky results.  All players had options. 

So the KSP2 'QOL improvement' is only for the first group of players - you're confirming my thesis. 

All science is pregrouped in an action button on the UI - and to further take need to think away from the player - the button flashes whenever you can get free points.  Fun. 

The rest of us who enjoy playing the game as a game (and maybe learning something about the biomes) aren't really served.  N'est cie pa's? 

 

And here you exclude a subset of players who enjoyed science and yet... Bound their instruments to an action group to maximize the efficiency of collecting science.  Actually I don't believe there has been shown any correlation between disliking science and utilizing the action groups to do the collection. 

Personally when I think of rewarding gameplay, I envision some kind of challenge and the triumph of overcoming it. I never found finding my experiments very challenging in ksp1 even though I only started binding them to action groups in the last hundred or so hours of gameplay.

The reports in ksp1 were cheeky, but did they really provide any useful information? Besides the orbital scanner and IR telescope I would say not.

Ksp2 will be able to utilize science collection in future updates to possibly provide all kinds of useful information related to colony construction and resource acquisition. At least this is how I imagine science will tie into other facets of the game.

Perhaps then the solution to your current woes will be to include a toggle for the "gather science" button. That, and replacing the obvious placeholder text with something actually useful or at the least something entertaining. 

[SolarAdmiral]

  

1 hour ago, EngineeringWaffle said:

So I want to be clear that I am not advocate for KSP devs to take my half thought through idea and implement it verbatim. I totally agree that if you had to unlock all parts by going to different destinations it would kill the games openness. At the same time, the only difference between Duna highlands and Duna midlands is that one is called the highlands and the other is called the midlands. And 3 missions to duna is the same as one mission to a more difficult destination.

What I'm advocating for is some variation in reward and some kind of non-fungible rewards for select missions.

...

The thing I do think they nailed with KSP 2 is just not providing any science for doing the same experiment twice. And not really rewarding the Mun enough to be worth grinding it. I hadn't really noticed tbh, I kinda forgot until you mentioned it just how much time I did spend grinding out science on the Mun, but you are totally right.

 

At the end of the day, I just want to see more depth and personality in the science system. I think they could do so much more than they currently do with it.

That's more fair. But honestly I still really just don't get the overall complaint here and in this thread myself. I think science points as a currency are overall the best way to implement it. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two science unlocking systems implemented in a game.

One, science points. And look, science points work. All sorts of games use science points.  Everything from colony builders, to grand strategy. Factorio, Dyson Sphere, Oxygen not Included, Timberborn, Stellaris, Terra Invicta, Civilization. If you consider xp just science points under a different name, we can include any RPG too. The system is ideal for anything that is non-linear. It allows so much flexibility. Do what you want to get the points. Spend the points on what you want. It's resource management. There's limited science points available in each level of destination/resource spent to make it. Gather enough to unlock what you really need to get further in your own style. It lets the player build their own path through the tech. It's the whole point of having a tech tree. The problem with something more detailed and in depth, it takes way more dev time to develop. And it starts to become more linear.

The only other real option for Tech in games, is gather these specific resources/hidden boxes and put them into a machine. And honestly, that's pretty much just science points with a step removed, more linear, less flexible. It works for some games, Subnautica, Satisfactory. But they're much smaller, able to be handcrafted. Not really something that could be applied to KSP as well.

My whole concern revolves around the fact that so many folks are complaining about currency science points. Yet, I still haven't heard a solution that improves it. I don't want the devs to throw out the perfectly serviceable science system, dump thousands upon thousands of manhours into developing something new, only for it to be tedious, repetitive, linear, boring.

So I guess my question is what is the alternative to Science points everyone thinks is such a great idea? We've already ruled out going to a specific moon or planet to unlock a specific engine or part. What other progression systems exist in games? Legend of Zelda style puzzle temples to unlock nuclear engines? Snowrunner style go drag a rocket stuck in the mud out? Hacking or lockpicking minigames?

I'd like to appreciate just how much better balanced the new KSP2 science system is. I've been finding the exact balance of how many points each location awards, what you can get and when, has been very satisfying. And wrapping up the contracts into giving science rewards is very welcome from my perspective.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't mind some things added to the science system. But I think all it needs to round it out are three or four more varied and fun experiments. (Please Devs, bring back the Grand Slam from KSP1.)

I might even be up for parts to be locked behind destinations. But as I said before, only for future parts yet to be added. The new near future techs and engines, I'd be fine if they decided wanted to be dependent on certain things. Not anything already in the game. Certainly nothing in teir 1, 2 or even 3. But even for the far future engines, I'm not really sold on the idea. I'd much rather it all just be points. And I'd be interested to see what kind of point generating experiments get added into colonies.

 

And yes, I'm aware testing in field is a thing. My point is just that unlocking a new landing gear or new engine by visiting a specific moon isn't realistic, and doesn't seem like good or fun game design to me. And IRL developing new rockets relies on flying and testing new rockets on launch, but doesn't really care about where they're going or what they're carrying. Lots of NASA's rockets were tested by launching tanks full of water into orbit. And doing it again and again. Also, doesn't sound fun or engaging.

And,  I think everyone has rosy glasses memories of KSP1, but the campaign was such a grind fest. My average campaign was unlock all the science parts, drive around the KSP, unlock a multiseat pod, fly several dozen identical missions to orbit to pick up stranded kerbals to grind out the cash to upgrade, then fly several dozen identical probes to hit every Mun and Minmus biome. Hours upon hours of no thought, no effort, repeat, repeat, repeat.

[MirageNL]

6 hours ago, SolarAdmiral said:

All sorts of games use science points.

Of the games you named I only played Civilization and ONI, but in those games you need to choose a tech beforehand and then invest resources in them over time. It requires you to make a strategic choice, which then pays off later. In KSP you collect a pool of science points, which can then be used to instantly buy the technology you want. KSP just lacks that feeling of actual accomplishment when unlocking new tech. Besides that, gathering science also feels a bit like doing a side-quest instead of being a core part of the gameplay.

I made a suggestion in another science topic to improve the science system:

On 2/24/2024 at 1:07 PM, MirageNL said:

First, science experiments should provide actual information to the player:

• Surface scanners (ground and orbital) should add maps with elevation, biomes, discoverables and resources. Useful for picking landing spots, science gathering and mining.
• Atmospheric scanners should add graphs for pressure/temperature vs. elevation. Useful for planning aerobreaks, flight paths and determining engine performances.
• Space scanners should add graphs for gravity/radiation vs. elevation. Not sure how useful, but maybe at least interesting.

Secondly, have the player unlock certain technology through relevant achievements, instead of just spending generic points. For example: in order to unlock the Rapier engine, it would make sense to have to gather atmospheric data first, as well as having reached a certain altitude and velocity with the Whiplash. Nothing too hard, but it would feel logical and earned that way. Actually researching the tech could then be done with the science points as a form of tech currency. These prerequisites could also be shaped in the form of secondary missions.

 

14 hours ago, SolarAdmiral said:

Real rocket science is done on Earth

Sure, but actually doing stuff in space is what creates the demand. The achievement prerequisites should accomplish exactly this: perform an action that creates the incentive to research the next step. By the way, I'm not a big fan of the current tech tree structure, so I made a concept of what I think it should look more like. (I also added a few wish-list features.)

This way the player can unlock technology in an order that actually serves his playstyle. The achievement prerequisites make sure you actually do stuff in a cetegory before unlocking the next tech level.

Edited February 29 by MirageNL

[SolarAdmiral]

4 hours ago, MirageNL said:

Of the games you named I only played Civilization and ONI, but in those games you need to choose a tech beforehand and then invest resources in them over time. It requires you to make a strategic choice, which then pays off later.

And KSP is a strategic choice of what you want to spend your limited points on. The choice really is the same. KSP science is limited by locations you go to and experiments you perform. Civ and ONI science are limited by how much you invest in science and time. 

The two major differences with ONI and Civ, as well as some others, is 1) the game pauses when research completes for you to select a new one, or is turn based and 2) the science points are infinite and steadily generated over time. I personally don't think KSP would work with having to select research ahead of time. Science isn't infinite, you have to get to new locations to get new points. With the current system, you can get all the points you can from an area, see the total, and then make sure you unlock what you need to get somewhere new. If it was locked in and the points went to that like Civ or ONI, what happens if you miscalculate in your head, and then don't have enough to get what you need halfway? Science isn't being generated automatically like those games. And for 2, what happens if you get enough points to finish the selected science right as you're about to land a probe, or halfway through a burn, or with only half the science from an experiment? Do you need to pause, go to the R&D, select a new science, or risk wasting more points before you can land and go select a new one?

Having the points and buying tech as you like works just fine for KSP. Timberborn has an identical system. And Factorio and Dyson Sphere allow you to build the science ahead of time, then use it in the labs while you have tech selected. Pre-selecting works for them. Pre-selecting seems problematic for KSP.

 

Your description of using the whiplash, flying to altitude, to unlock the Rapier is the best suggestion for alternate unlocks I've heard so far. But I still wouldn't want it taken too far. I don't want to have to fly in Laythe's atmosphere to unlock the Rapier, or land on the Mun to unlock the Poodle. So it kind of seems like all of those unlock requirements would be in Kerbin Atmo, or Vacuum so Low Kerb Orbit. Seems like requiring a lot of identical missions. Fly a plane with the Wheezley, Fly a plane with the Juno, Fly a plane with the Panther, Fly a Plane with the Whiplash, Fly a plane with the Rapier. So I don't see it as super engaging. Why not just throw together one junk plane, swap the engine out with each new one, fly the pointless flight mission, unlock the next engine, repeat. That's the quickest way through that path to get the Rapier. If this system is implemented alongside science points, it seems just like pointless busywork. If I already have the points for the Rapier, but need to fly all these other flights to unlock a chain of engines. And depending on altitude, each of those flights could take 10, 20 min. So is this just requiring a player to fly for an hour up to an altitude then back to land again and again to unlock the engine they actually want for the mission they're actually wanting to do? 

It seems a lot like the worst missions from KSP1, fly this part to an altitude of 15,000km and a speed of 300m/s. And I hated those, so just never did them. 

 

[MirageNL]

17 hours ago, SolarAdmiral said:

Pre-selecting seems problematic for KSP.

I wasn't saying that KSP needs that, in fact that would be terrible. I was just pointing out the difference and why it causes a lacking experience in KSP.

17 hours ago, SolarAdmiral said:

Science isn't infinite, you have to get to new locations to get new points.

The problem isn't the finite amount of science, it's that you can spend it arbitrarily. Early tech becomes cheap after a while, so at some point I tend to just complete entire tiers without ever needing the parts. Then suddenly I can build spaceplane parts, even if I've never even used wings before.

17 hours ago, SolarAdmiral said:

I don't want to have to fly in Laythe's atmosphere to unlock the Rapier, or land on the Mun to unlock the Poodle.

I totally agree, but unlocking jet engines should be earned by actually flying. Unlocking orbital engines should be done by actually going to space. You've accomplished something, now there's demand for the next step. All available tech is relevant to what you've achieved so far and to what you want to do to take it further.

17 hours ago, SolarAdmiral said:

Seems like requiring a lot of identical missions. Fly a plane with the Wheezley, Fly a plane with the Juno, Fly a plane with the Panther, Fly a Plane with the Whiplash, Fly a plane with the Rapier. So I don't see it as super engaging. Why not just throw together one junk plane, swap the engine out with each new one, fly the pointless flight mission, unlock the next engine, repeat.

Progression should come naturally and so should the achievements. That shouldn't be a chore, it should happen automatically when playing the game. With every step you work with what you have and improve on the previous design. You learn how to go fast with the Panther, then you learn to go higher with the Whiplash, then how to transistion to orbit with the Rapier. No cutting corners: earn it.

17 hours ago, SolarAdmiral said:

It seems a lot like the worst missions from KSP1, fly this part to an altitude of 15,000km and a speed of 300m/s. And I hated those, so just never did them. 

Never did those either, but mostly because getting the required parameters was tedious work.

[EngineeringWaffle]

A lot of the objections being raised seem to be of the format: "if non-fungible science rewards were added in an terrible and tedious way, the result would be terrible and tedious." Obviously adding non-fungible rewards would not be something you would just do completely randomly with no thought, it would need to be just as carefully thought out and carefully constructed as any other system.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

I think you are missing the biggest complain from so many people.. 

There is a finite set of mission parameters that have a linear but non logical progression.

These yield disproportionately more currency than actually performing science.

People want more gameplay and the expectation of gameplay is different. 

So many of the people talking about how great the current state of game is are clearly more in tune with the sandbox approach. 

Nothing wrong with that. We are not saying that the current content is not good. It's just a far cry short of what the Career player expected from KSP2.

That's fine being EA and all.. but they have repeatedly skirted the topic of how they will make it more like career.

The dev talk about adding more static missions so you can have even more of the same old missions to do over and over.

There was a dynamic aspect to KSP1 and the vast majority of people saying that mode sucked or was severely lacking... didn't even spend the bulk of their time playing that mode bc they enjoyed sandbox more.

That's so awesome. I'm happy KSP2 is currently kn a state that is meeting your expectations.

Meanwhile for science has been achieved. They are moving on to colonies. Then the next part of the road map.

To sell the game they advertised the part I love the most as the 2nd road map stop... and blew the stop sign all together.

I now feel like my concerns aren't even relevant bc.

 

1. Discord and Forum will ban you for voicing options of this nature more than a handful of times, even if about separate topics.

2. The devs have said the nailed for science and the sandbox community agrees.

 

By by procedurally generated missions and quirky dialogues boxes.

2 of the 4 things that kept me vested in the franchise. 

On 2/28/2024 at 9:06 PM, SolarAdmiral said:

  

That's more fair. But honestly I still really just don't get the overall complaint here and in this thread myself. I think science points as a currency are overall the best way to implement it. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two science unlocking systems implemented in a game.

One, science points. And look, science points work. All sorts of games use science points.  Everything from colony builders, to grand strategy. Factorio, Dyson Sphere, Oxygen not Included, Timberborn, Stellaris, Terra Invicta, Civilization. If you consider xp just science points under a different name, we can include any RPG too. The system is ideal for anything that is non-linear. It allows so much flexibility. Do what you want to get the points. Spend the points on what you want. It's resource management. There's limited science points available in each level of destination/resource spent to make it. Gather enough to unlock what you really need to get further in your own style. It lets the player build their own path through the tech. It's the whole point of having a tech tree. The problem with something more detailed and in depth, it takes way more dev time to develop. And it starts to become more linear.

The only other real option for Tech in games, is gather these specific resources/hidden boxes and put them into a machine. And honestly, that's pretty much just science points with a step removed, more linear, less flexible. It works for some games, Subnautica, Satisfactory. But they're much smaller, able to be handcrafted. Not really something that could be applied to KSP as well.

My whole concern revolves around the fact that so many folks are complaining about currency science points. Yet, I still haven't heard a solution that improves it. I don't want the devs to throw out the perfectly serviceable science system, dump thousands upon thousands of manhours into developing something new, only for it to be tedious, repetitive, linear, boring.

So I guess my question is what is the alternative to Science points everyone thinks is such a great idea? We've already ruled out going to a specific moon or planet to unlock a specific engine or part. What other progression systems exist in games? Legend of Zelda style puzzle temples to unlock nuclear engines? Snowrunner style go drag a rocket stuck in the mud out? Hacking or lockpicking minigames?

I'd like to appreciate just how much better balanced the new KSP2 science system is. I've been finding the exact balance of how many points each location awards, what you can get and when, has been very satisfying. And wrapping up the contracts into giving science rewards is very welcome from my perspective.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't mind some things added to the science system. But I think all it needs to round it out are three or four more varied and fun experiments. (Please Devs, bring back the Grand Slam from KSP1.)

I might even be up for parts to be locked behind destinations. But as I said before, only for future parts yet to be added. The new near future techs and engines, I'd be fine if they decided wanted to be dependent on certain things. Not anything already in the game. Certainly nothing in teir 1, 2 or even 3. But even for the far future engines, I'm not really sold on the idea. I'd much rather it all just be points. And I'd be interested to see what kind of point generating experiments get added into colonies.

 

And yes, I'm aware testing in field is a thing. My point is just that unlocking a new landing gear or new engine by visiting a specific moon isn't realistic, and doesn't seem like good or fun game design to me. And IRL developing new rockets relies on flying and testing new rockets on launch, but doesn't really care about where they're going or what they're carrying. Lots of NASA's rockets were tested by launching tanks full of water into orbit. And doing it again and again. Also, doesn't sound fun or engaging.

And,  I think everyone has rosy glasses memories of KSP1, but the campaign was such a grind fest. My average campaign was unlock all the science parts, drive around the KSP, unlock a multiseat pod, fly several dozen identical missions to orbit to pick up stranded kerbals to grind out the cash to upgrade, then fly several dozen identical probes to hit every Mun and Minmus biome. Hours upon hours of no thought, no effort, repeat, repeat, repeat.

 

[cocoscacao]

1 hour ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

So many of the people talking about how great the current state of game is are clearly more in tune with the sandbox approach. 

No. I always played science, and science only.

1 hour ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Nothing wrong with that. We are not saying that the current content is not good. It's just a far cry short of what the Career player expected from KSP2.

Both KSP 1 and 2 are still boring for me atm. I'm waiting colonies. That'll be a clue where they are heading, gameplay wise. Just a clue. Until exploration (resource gathering) lands, and everything is wired up... I doubt we'll get a full picture.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

2 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

No. I always played science, and science only.

Both KSP 1 and 2 are still boring for me atm. I'm waiting colonies. That'll be a clue where they are heading, gameplay wise. Just a clue. Until exploration (resource gathering) lands, and everything is wired up... I doubt we'll get a full picture.

No? No to what. You find the game boring, and therefore  can in no way be one of the people i am refering to.
I mean, if neither game is fun... surely you are not leaving a ton of comment as some form of lip service?

If you were not one of the multitudes extoling the many virtues of this nearly perfect game, you dont really apply.

Same with the second quoted point. Why reference a specific part of my comment and reply to it when my comment is in way needed to substantiate. your separate and unrelated opinion?
Im not attempting to be antagonistic, just a little confused.

Are you agreeing, disagreeing?

I too find it incredibly boring in its current state

Edited March 2 by Fizzlebop Smith