I like Science, but I've run dry

[Meecrob]

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Asked on this forum and none knew this 

Edit: laugh at me, I misread your post and replied like an idiot.

 

Edited February 1, 2024 by Meecrob

[Meecrob]

On 1/29/2024 at 11:04 PM, Hanuman said:

 I think it’s the secret to what made KSP unique.

100% agree! You can't curate a real KSP experience...the player has to find what they like. Missions definitely have their place, but all the decent youtube videos are of players doing stuff a bit beyond any mission requirements.

[magnemoe]

59 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

Nobody knew what? To aim for a giant crater as opposed to the midlands?

 

That was the advice I got, if terrain looks different its probably another biome. And has not been at the huge crater yet but has an mun lander underway. 
And the polar ice on Minmus is the borders to the planes also easy to miss. 

[Meecrob]

8 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

That was the advice I got, if terrain looks different its probably another biome. And has not been at the huge crater yet but has an mun lander underway. 
And the polar ice on Minmus is the borders to the planes also easy to miss. 

Look, I was making a bad joke. The poster said they needed to look up online a guide to tell them to land in the big crater on the Mun. I was honestly dumbfounded they needed to be told to go to a crater.

Again, I was out of line making a joke, I apologize. This is text and nobody can see my body language or tone of voice to tell I was not being serious, and its not my first day on the internet and should know better, so sorry.

To take away from my own point, lots of things that were biomes in KSP1, are not in KSP2, so I get checking a guide. Or if someone is a new player, I get not understanding what is generally considered a biome. When science dropped in KSP1, I just launched a rocket really high thinking "well its a sounding rocket, the higher it goes, the better, for science," and had no clue you had to click on the experiments to run them. I had no clue why I was getting zero science til I checked online for help.

Edited February 1, 2024 by Meecrob

[magnemoe]

9 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

Look, I was making a bad joke. The poster said they needed to look up online a guide to tell them to land in the big crater on the Mun. I was honestly dumbfounded they needed to be told to go to a crater.

Again, I was out of line making a joke, I apologize. This is text and nobody can see my body language or tone of voice to tell I was not being serious, and its not my first day on the internet and should know better, so sorry.

To take away from my own point, lots of things that were biomes in KSP1, are not in KSP2, so I get checking a guide. Or if someone is a new player, I get not understanding what is generally considered a biome. When science dropped in KSP1, I just launched a rocket really high thinking "well its a sounding rocket, the higher it goes, the better, for science," and had no clue you had to click on the experiments to run them. I had no clue why I was getting zero science til I checked online for help.

Np, my point is that finding biomes was a bit confusing, now I say it was worse in KSP1, you needed an decent probe core and use it to track them. Or have an kerbal at eva and polling him. In KSP 2 you get it mouseover an symbol and you can do this warping around an body. 

[Meecrob]

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Np, my point is that finding biomes was a bit confusing, now I say it was worse in KSP1, you needed an decent probe core and use it to track them. Or have an kerbal at eva and polling him. In KSP 2 you get it mouseover an symbol and you can do this warping around an body. 

The solution is to make biomes more obvious, not dumb down the overall science mechanic.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

On 1/25/2024 at 9:16 AM, Hanuman said:

I didn’t say that it was too hard.  I said that the parts I enjoy using to build craft for interplanetary missions are locked until I complete interplanetary missions, and that was not fun, which led me to being bored and finding other things to do with my time instead.

That isn’t an issue with difficulty or complexity.  There are no loss conditions and players can revert mission flights.  It’s a systemic issue that they’ve created, whether it’s through the streamlining and removal of early experiments, the lack of repeatable visits to ‘mine’ for more, or the escalating tier costs or the confluence of all of it.  

The missions already exist to walk the player along a path that creates a story that the devs want to tell.   It does not need to be reflected in unlocking tech parts as well, and I’m arguing that it actually shouldn’t be.   My argument is that the science and R&D system should allow a progression of part unlocks that have more tolerance for varied playstyles.   As I’ve written before, a hundred hours creating missions and craft exploring all parts of Kerbin is currently worth a fraction of a 30 minute transit and return from Duna, and that is just goofy.

It just seems like that is against the spirit of the game to me.  Like it’s going from “What did you do in KSP today?” to “What boxes did you tick off today?” or “How did you complete the mission we gave you?”.   By pairing their story path with their technology path they’re going to make dead ends for players who wander off.   And not penalizing that behavior is one of the things that has always made KSP special, at least to me.

The first part of your paragraph sums up most of my *issues* with the current exploration mode. I am not saying I do not like the game.. but I feel you get penalized for wanting to actually explore.

 

It's body go where no kerbal has gone before... and onto the next.. and the next..repeat!

[Biggen]

Im confused why need to play science mode if their goal is exploration on their own terms. Isn’t that what sandbox is for?

I enjoy having goals to work for. Sandbox isn’t my thing but I’m not complaining it’s part of the game.

[kdaviper]

2 hours ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

The first part of your paragraph sums up most of my *issues* with the current exploration mode. I am not saying I do not like the game.. but I feel you get penalized for wanting to actually explore.

 

It's body go where no kerbal has gone before... and onto the next.. and the next..repeat!

There will be more depth with colonies and resources I would guess. You are going to have to find more to mine, places to set up your colonies, etc.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

On 1/27/2024 at 11:47 AM, Hanuman said:

They’re locked because they cost thousands and thousands of points of science and thanks to the scaling that they’re using to differentiate tiers there doesn’t exist enough science to be able to pick and choose and experiment with different pathways through this tech tree.   They have inadvertently created a “right” way to play (send kerbals not probes + bring back data + further is more)  and if that’s the intention I neither think that is a good idea nor in keeping with the spirit of the game.

I myself like using a fair amount of mk2 and mk3 spaceplane parts.  But that’s only a single facet of the issue, because as I have written this system penalizes experimenting with unlocking things without it being necessary to complete your next mission until you’re far enough on their breadcrumb trail to pay for it.  There looks to be roughly 8-9,000 total science spread across Kerbin,  the Mun, and Minmus.   A player will be able to invest and experiment in only so many ways before they hit a wall.   Roughly 1/4 of your total science available will be used just on getting access to T3 parts.  So as it is, here’s a couple of interesting road markers going down this tech tree:

For spaceplane parts:

1,860 science for the Mk1 spaceplane airframe and parts 2260 if you include Mk0.

8,760 science for Mk2 in T2 and 3

38,100 science for Mk3 in T3 and 4.

but more generally:

760 science before the second possible experiment unlock.

2,380 science in required unlocks to access T3

4600 science before a second experiment unlock that doesn’t require a specific biome

10,600 science in required unlocks to access T4

28,980 science before you get an aquatic experiment unlocked.

Again, there’s not enough science spread across all of Kerbin, the Mun, and Minmus to get anything in T4, including the science experiment for testing the largest biome on the planet, or to learn to build a space truck. 

Missons already exist as a means to push a player to go to a specific place or to push bigger and further.  That isn’t the job of the tech tree.  As it stands there are no early less productive or efficient versions of late game experiments,  Science returns on a revisit go to zero.   Multiple experiments that could have been used to overlap and revisit biomes with new experiments were removed in favor of the one click box tick arcade game solution.  Cost scaling introduces logical problems like needing to go to Duna before you can build a jumbo jet.  That isn’t a skill test.  It’s an oversight.

I’m glad that it provoked a positive response from you,  but you are not everyone and experimentation and the narrative creation that comes from those successes and failures are a key component to what makes KSP so personalized and special to players.   Penalizing experimentation with part unlocks is a mistake.

I do realize that if I would simply give in and play the game the way the devs wanted me to, it would all magically work.  But that’s not the point of a beta test and feedback,  and whether or not some people want to admit it, this IS a non-release beta.  I’ll even go so far as to say that’s also not the kind of quality I want to see out of KSP science, so I came and gave my two cents.

Judging from the amount of posting I’m seeing on the subject I don’t think I’m the only one that feels this system is off target from what’s desired.

I so completely agree with you about this.
People in conversation keep confusing my frustrations with an inability to navigate the (not too) difficult task of landing on a different planet in the game. I have 1500 hours in KSP1 since i discovered it two years ago.
I had reached some of the various planets and **adequately** managed to successful rendezvous... Before I discovered CKAN and the glory of Mechjeb. 
I honestly love the interface and mechanical approach to teaching in game mechanics. Those i could not get interested in KSP1 because it was too hard are actually able to hit Ike in KSP2. But it is prohibitive in its approach to the game mode and punishing if you dont pick the right choices with each mission unlock.
Career was amazing *Because* it was sandbox plus. Like any management game trying to enforce some form of structured gameplay. The difference i think boils down to many of the points you mentioned, 

It is somewhat avoided on discord whether there will be a career mode.. it was stated early in that Exploration is intended as the Bridge to combine the two gameplays into one. 
I am so F-ing   amazed that more havent rallied behind some of these specific points.

Im becoming more convinced that many of the champions for the Rapid approach to essentially a Sandbox mode (Minus the parts you think are stupid) are those that really didnt enjoy playing career mode all that much in KSP1.

Edited February 2, 2024 by Fizzlebop Smith

[Hanuman]

I thank you guys for your kind replies.   I’ve been sitting and trying to think about it for a bit, and I really hope they aren’t doing away with career mode, with funding and losing the game actually possible.

Science mode worked as a game mode because it was a non threatening Easy Mode on top of sandbox for players who wanted to do more than build things.  It lacked any kind of real stakes in your choices though because that’s where Career mode came in to play.  You didn’t just have to explore enough to unlock that giant fuel tank you had to pay cash for each one of them you flung into space along with all the fuel inside.   I did a Class E asteroid redirect in my career, and put it into 300k Kerbin orbit to use as a fuel depot.  That wasn’t exactly cheap to pull off.  But it was awesome.

Sandbox was for -building-.  I would really enjoy it if people stopped suggesting this to others like they’re in the wrong mode.  You could pop into sandbox and build freely using all parts.  You could play with how well some parts might help you, or build your awesome pie in the sky design, all gas no brakes.  Sure, you could go places.  But as far as doing things…..

Science Mode became the go to mode for learning how to fly, honestly.  I mean that in all ways of exploring, and more of in the convention of walk, run, fly.  You couldn’t run experiments in Sandbox, so you had something to do once you got to a place.  So, you had to learn how to get places so you could do the thing.   That’s also why it worked as a great mode for kids.   A very basic push:  Explore and you can build more things to explore with.  But it didn’t have missions, because missions mostly paid in funding, and Science mode had no use for that.

Career is for when you can fly and want a challenge.  Because your mission boondoggles just hit different when you gotta pay to try wacky ideas and they don’t work out.

I really enjoyed Career mode, and I hope it’s not being dumped.   Especially not for this system as it sits.   I don’t think this is better than Career was.  Missions make it better as a gaming experience than the old Science Mode was, but it simply is not a better challenge than Career.    I mean in this mode the hardest part of having deep space fission reactors is their weight.  Wanna shoot 20 of em into the sun?  Hope you brought enough fuel, but otherwise go nuts.  No consequence.  Who cares?  They’re free now.   We took half the scientists off that advanced “cargo ramp” project thingy since we can’t understand it and invented deep space fission reactors instead and can make them endlessly.