Science collection should gain benefits from duration/thoroughness.

[Visitor]

For each type of science experiment, advantages should be accrued for time spent/actions taken.

For example:

• Mystery Goo - Assigning a kerbal to stare at it / poke it with a space-stick could improve the results. About 30 minutes of that and you hit max multiplier.
  
• SC-9001 Science Jr. - The longer the experiments are exposed in the environment, the better, even further improved with a kerbal assigned to sniff/taste the results.
  
• GRAVMAX - Gain a bunch more science by letting the machine gather data for multiple orbits.
  
• PresMat - Gain a bunch of science by getting data from surface to orbit for a given planet.
  
• ... etc
  
• 
  

It could provide a reason to build space stations/satellites in career mode, where taking multi-year seismic samples might yield more and better science than just snapping a sample and taking off. I love the implementation of science, but I feel that collecting it is too simplistic.

[Magma]

Insanity: Repeating one experiment and expecting a different result.

[Idobox]

I think the developers expressly said they want to avoid grinding, so it's unlikely to happen. Sitting in front of your computer for hours while a bar slowly fills isn't great gameplay.

And anything that takes time is pointless when you have time acceleration.

[Kasuha]

Insanity: Repeating one experiment and expecting a different result.

Real-life science: Repeating one experiment over and over again and making sense of all the different results.

Anyway, I don't think this suggestion is a good idea.

[Guest]

Anything that makes me want to leave my game running while I do something else is bad, anything that can gain me resources while under timewarp is bad, and anything that makes me sit in front of my computer clicking the same button over and over is bad. In short, this is a bad idea.

[ultrasquid]

Real-life science: Repeating one experiment over and over again and making sense of all the different results.

Anyway, I don't think this suggestion is a good idea.

The science system as it is, while a valid game mechanic (the diminishing returns for performing the same experiment in the same environment) isn't very sciency.

Reproducible results are nearly as important as new discoveries, and are far more useful. And, if performing the same experiment gains different results, it would tend to indicate that there is an external variable that the experiment hadn't controlled for, and is worthy of further investigation.

[Visitor]

Anything that makes me want to leave my game running while I do something else is bad, anything that can gain me resources while under timewarp is bad, and anything that makes me sit in front of my computer clicking the same button over and over is bad. In short, this is a bad idea.

I am glad we are being candid, but there is nothing here about doing any of these things. The idea is that all the different methods of gathering science ought to be improved with more player interaction.

Nowhere is there a suggestion to walk away, sit around pressing a button, or timewarp to win, anywhere.

For example, if you can pull off assigning a kerbal to an EVA project in the upper atmosphere of a planet for several minutes of flight-time (in game time) then you have accomplished a more significant challenge than simply timing your "observe goo" click to occur in the upper atmosphere while your ship plummets in from orbit.

Likewise, if you establish a stable, low orbit around Dres, and take "long readings" from a piece of science equipment, you have done more significant work as a player than simply clicking the button and transmitting on a fly by.

The idea is not to bore people to death with clicking buttons, but to allow players to gain more from science by taking on increased science gathering challenges. Challenges that, like all challenges in KSP, are creative player-driven decisions, and not mandatory.

[Guest]

For example, if you can pull off assigning a kerbal to an EVA project in the upper atmosphere of a planet for several minutes of flight-time (in game time) then you have accomplished a more significant challenge than simply timing your "observe goo" click to occur in the upper atmosphere while your ship plummets in from orbit.

Likewise, if you establish a stable, low orbit around Dres, and take "long readings" from a piece of science equipment, you have done more significant work as a player than simply clicking the button and transmitting on a fly by.

So basically what you're saying is that my science gathering should benefit from timewarping? Your first example here is no different than science now except that I am more likely to use physics warp instead of simply burning retro to end the flight. The second example is pretty silly and just illustrates the point: get into Dres orbit, start an experiment, timewarp, watch some football. In both cases it amounts to artificial, boring gameplay.

[Sathurn]

So basically what you're saying is that my science gathering should benefit from timewarping? Your first example here is no different than science now except that I am more likely to use physics warp instead of simply burning retro to end the flight. The second example is pretty silly and just illustrates the point: get into Dres orbit, start an experiment, timewarp, watch some football. In both cases it amounts to artificial, boring gameplay.

Why not? Did you get to Dres without timewarp? Should intra-solar travel benefit from time-warp?

I personally would like science to be, start experiment, do do something else (in another craft, or maybe eva), come back to experiment and get science. However since unfocused ships will not do science right now, I'm ok with instant science. I'm also ok with time-warping through a science experiment. After all I time warped to get to some place.

[Guest]

Why not? Did you get to Dres without timewarp? Should intra-solar travel benefit from time-warp?

Spaceflight is an inherently boring activity but SQUAD have chosen to model it and turn it into a game, so we are given timewarp to help deal with the issues of boredom. Timewarp in that case becomes an active part of gameplay. You have to watch SOIs, not warp too fast to pass your maneuver node, etc... In the science case here you are adding an activity that pretty much demands you use timewarp, much like spaceflight, but in a very non-active way; you just sit there and wait while your science accumulates. There's no anticipation, no fine-tuning, no frantically hitting buttons when you almost miss your maneuver node, it's just downright boring gameplay.

[Kasuha]

The thing I don't like on the science how it is done today is that by repeating you get more. More measurements/transmissions = more science. Even after they nerf transmissions in the next release it will probably still hold that you get more by repeating the transmission or delivery. In my opinion it should be just single hit - for each instrument and each biome, you get some science if you transmit it and some more science if you deliver it. Maybe add manned/unmanned to the equation but that's all. Repeating the same measurement and the same delivery method gives you nothing. There's no point why it should. If you were there once, you can get there any number of times again if you send identical mission so the game should just send you to the next place.

[Nobody]

I can see some benefits to science over time but it would also need something to counter balance it so people don't just leave their game running at max time warp all day to unlock everything on 1 rocket.

How about adding a new resource called 'research materials' which the lab that has been announced for the next update consumes while doing science over time. Stations would need to be resupplied to keep them running and the resource could be used to reset experiments if the ship has or is docked to something with a lab module.

There should be limits to how much can be learned by science over time in a given area too so players would need to move their science stations from time to time.

[Nemoricus]

If you were there once, you can get there any number of times again if you send identical mission so the game should just send you to the next place.

This summarizes my main problem with the science system quite nicely. Aside from reading the science messages for a given experiment, there is almost nothing for the player to do. They push a button and DING! Science! This is quite boring...

In the absence of an interesting science mechanics, like a minigame or something, the science system should instead be streamlined. Getting a science experiment to a location automatically gives you the transmission fraction of the science for that location, while returning it to Kerbin automatically gives the return fraction. Now, the player should always be able to choose to review the data in their modules to see what they have, or to transfer it to a capsule, but actually getting the data shouldn't require player involvement.

However, I'm not too fond of that option, and would prefer to see some interesting gameplay wrapped around doing science in the various locations. Something that preferably involves some measure of player skill/knowledge to obtain, but I'm afraid I can't come up with something myself...

Still, even with my second suggestion, a sufficiently skilled player should be able to get all the science possible for a given mission profile in one flight, which leaves the focus on flying novel rather than repeat missions.

[Visitor]

I can see some benefits to science over time but it would also need something to counter balance it so people don't just leave their game running at max time warp all day to unlock everything on 1 rocket.

I wholeheartedly agree, but this is about making science additive with interactions, not generate over time.

For example, if you can "Observe Goo" at any given moment, that is fine - but being able to observe it in the same environment (in space high over kerbin) for a duration would give you increased, but limited amount of benefit. The additional challenge of establishing a stable orbit, preparing the craft for a deorbital burn, and returning it safely to Kerbin would be what earns you the extra science - not sitting around waiting for timewarp.

This is even more significant on the other planets, where there must be a substantial consideration given to the design of a craft that (for maximum science-gathering effect) must be able to remain active, crewed, and transmitting from the surface of another world for a given period of time. Again - the time doesn't earn you anything - the challenge of building your ship to handle it does.

In the science case here you are adding an activity that pretty much demands you use timewarp, much like spaceflight, but in a very non-active way; you just sit there and wait while your science accumulates.

This whole thing about "the game would become boring if an objective of the game was more easily achieved with time warp" is not fitting, since the objective of the game is space travel, which takes an inordinate amount of time, and thus, timewarp.

Nothing I have suggested implies accumulating science by waiting, so I really don't know where you came up with that. I have seen plenty of other suggestions about it, which I disagree with - which is why I made the thread.

The additional benefit that I am suggesting is about the challenge of creating an environment where long experiments can take place - not waiting out long experiments - we have time warp so that we can skip stuff that takes a long time.

I am suggesting an additional challenge with additional rewards that help make science a more interactive part of gameplay.

[Guest]

Nothing I have suggested implies accumulating science by waiting, so I really don't know where you came up with that. I have seen plenty of other suggestions about it, which I disagree with - which is why I made the thread.

• Mystery Goo - Assigning a kerbal to stare at it / poke it with a space-stick could improve the results. About 30 minutes of that and you hit max multiplier.
  
• SC-9001 Science Jr. - The longer the experiments are exposed in the environment, the better, even further improved with a kerbal assigned to sniff/taste the results.
  
• GRAVMAX - Gain a bunch more science by letting the machine gather data for multiple orbits.
  
• PresMat - Gain a bunch of science by getting data from surface to orbit for a given planet.

All of those activities would be made much better with judicious application of the timewarp buttons; they essentially amount to "warm oven to 350, put pie in oven, bake for 25 minutes" only there isn't a delicious pie at the other end which makes me wonder why I'm compelled to perform these activities in the first place.

The additional benefit that I am suggesting is about the challenge of creating an environment where long experiments can take place - not waiting out long experiments - we have time warp so that we can skip stuff that takes a long time.

I am suggesting an additional challenge with additional rewards that help make science a more interactive part of gameplay.

These suggestions add no real challenge, although they might provide additional incentive to do things a player would already be inclined to do (land somewhere, set up an orbit, etc...) They also provide incentives for leaving the game running while they watch a game of football, which is why I think they're bad mechanics.

[Visitor]

They also provide incentives for leaving the game running while they watch a game of football

I don't understand where you are getting this. What part of "science provides improved output when certain conditions are met" is making you want to watch football?

I am not even suggesting a change to the way science currently works. I am suggesting added benefits for those who would enjoy the challenge of creating the conditions suitable for them - eg orbits vs flybys, landing multiple crew vs one, etc.

You don't agree, that is fine, you don't have to like the idea - but based on the hypothetical boredom scenario you have outlined, your interpretation of what I am suggesting is simply incorrect.

[Nemoricus]

I don't understand where you are getting this. What part of "science provides improved output when certain conditions are met" is making you want to watch football?

• Mystery Goo - Assigning a kerbal to stare at it / poke it with a space-stick could improve the results. About 30 minutes of that and you hit max multiplier.
  
• SC-9001 Science Jr. - The longer the experiments are exposed in the environment, the better, even further improved with a kerbal assigned to sniff/taste the results.
  

These parts. Both of these involve waiting until you've accumulated maximum science. However, since they can be reduced nothing by judicious use of time warp, there is really no point in having them require time at all...

[Guest]

What part of "science provides improved output when certain conditions are met" is making you want to watch football?

All of your example scenarios involve conditions that provide literally no additional challenge and where I am not taking an active part in gameplay, which is my main objection to them. The first condition I've seen from you otherwise is "landing multiple crew vs one", which might be a bit more challenging but doesn't exactly make the game more exciting. Can you provide any other examples?

[UberFuber]

I don't understand where you are getting this. What part of "science provides improved output when certain conditions are met" is making you want to watch football?

Well, from your OP.

Mystery Goo - Assigning a kerbal to stare at it / poke it with a space-stick could improve the results. About 30 minutes of that and you hit max multiplier.

Assign Kerbal to Mystery Goo, time-warp or go watch football. Come back after 30 minutes.

SC-9001 Science Jr. - The longer the experiments are exposed in the environment, the better, even further improved with a kerbal assigned to sniff/taste the results.

Same as above.

GRAVMAX - Gain a bunch more science by letting the machine gather data for multiple orbits.

Might want to clarifies what counts as multiple orbits (different height? We already have near/outer space as approximation).

I am not even suggesting a change to the way science currently works. I am suggesting added benefits for those who would enjoy the challenge of creating the conditions suitable for them - eg orbits vs flybys, landing multiple crew vs one, etc.

That's a fine idea. I suggest that those "challenge" shouldn't be something like "setup something, wait a while" but actually challenges.

You don't agree, that is fine, you don't have to like the idea - but based on the hypothetical boredom scenario you have outlined, your interpretation of what I am suggesting is simply incorrect.

Based on two of your four examples (the remaining two are fairly ambiguous), your suggestion basically involve setting up a condition and waiting. So please clarify why it is not so.

[Visitor]

I want to be clear about something:

All of your example scenarios involve conditions that provide literally no additional challenge

There is currently no challenge to science collection whatsoever. The act of gathering science may as well be automated, since forcing the player to zoom in and locate the thermometer, so that they can click it to take a reading, is not the challenge of gathering science.

The challenge was getting the craft there in the first place - a process that demands, and rewards, judicious use of timewarp.

Can you provide any other examples?

Sure. Many of the science gathering parts gain just as much effect from a flyby aboard an unmanned probe, as they do in a stable orbit with multiple astronauts there to "study" the experiments.

I am not suggesting that you only collect science when the is a football game handy - but that science collection can be increased in effectiveness for a given instrument when other conditions are also met along with the collection - such as having a kerbal who can watch the goo react. The reason I suggested a duration is because it prompts the user to think about how the kerbal will fare over the course of the duration. For example:

Are you in a stable orbit? No problem. Are you plunging into reentry? Not the best time to try and multiply your science - next time, shoot for a stable orbit.

Is your SC-9001 attached to a spaceplane? You might try to get a "long reading" of the upper atmosphere of Kerbin, which could determine your fuel considerations, ship design, and recovery scenarios - this is very much the objective of career mode in the first place - design ships to gather science.

Gathering enough science to unlock the complete tech-tree is, in my opinion, primarily a challenge for new players, but also provides some refreshing additional challenges for creative-mode experts. From a new-player perspective, launching a rocket straight up and letting it plummet back into Kerbin should not provide nearly the reward that achieving a stable orbit and returning it intact after a week of MET does.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Visitor
Fixed name of Kerbin

[Guest]

Sure. Many of the science gathering parts gain just as much effect from a flyby aboard an unmanned probe, as they do in a stable orbit with multiple astronauts there to "study" the experiments.

Yes, but Kerbals are their own "scientific instrument" and are thus useful in and of themselves. It is up to the player to determine whether they belong in their space program past probes being unlocked, which is the basis of sandbox gameplay. Stable orbits will be much more meaningful when biomes are available on more planets, as will bringing Kerbals along.

I am not suggesting that you only collect science when the is a football game handy - but that science collection can be increased in effectiveness for a given instrument when other conditions are also met along with the collection - such as having a kerbal who can watch the goo react.

Having a Kerbal activate the gear in order to gain more science would be a fine small boost to science, but I fail to see how it should be significant.

The reason I suggested a duration is because it prompts the user to think about how the kerbal will fare over the course of the duration.

Irrelevant without some sort of meaningful life support system and meaningless with timewarp mechanics in play.

Are you in a stable orbit? No problem. Are you plunging into reentry? Not the best time to try and multiply your science - next time, shoot for a stable orbit.

Is your SC-9001 attached to a spaceplane? You might try to get a "long reading" of the upper atmosphere of Kerbin, which could determine your fuel considerations, ship design, and recovery scenarios - this is very much the objective of career mode in the first place - design ships to gather science.

Gathering enough science to unlock the complete tech-tree is, in my opinion, primarily a challenge for new players, but also provides some refreshing additional challenges for creative-mode experts. From a new-player perspective, launching a rocket straight up and letting it plummet back into Kerbin should not provide nearly the reward that achieving a stable orbit and returning it intact after a week of MET does.

I'm pretty sure KSP already differentiates between "flying", "upper atmosphere" and "in orbit" around most planets (I know of Kerbin and Eve for certain), and it also differentiates between a suborbital and an orbital flight on Kerbin, so I'm not quite sure how "staying there longer" is benefiting or even necessarily more challenging gameplay.

Most, if not all, of your examples involve duration, which doesn't exactly add more challenge or fun except in a few edge cases (and even then it's questionable). If you want Kerbals to affect science gathered you have a fine example above, but duration is a poor mechanic.

[Visitor]

Having a Kerbal activate the gear in order to gain more science would be a fine small boost to science, but I fail to see how it should be significant.

You finally understand the nature of the suggestion. I didn't see a requirement to make dramatically significant suggestions in the forums. After playing the through creative mode a couple times, I saw an area where appreciating the extra effort a player might go through, and posted the suggestion here.

Irrelevant without some sort of meaningful life support system and meaningless with timewarp mechanics in play.

I didn't realize we were shooting for realism here. A process that takes a week of MET is not insignificant because of timewarp - it just doesn't take up your actual real time. It takes different design considerations - not massive ones, but ones that are fun for new players, and reward experienced players... but again, as stated above, completely optional.

Most, if not all, of your examples involve duration, which doesn't exactly add more challenge or fun

I am not inclined to believe that your interpretation of "Fun" is the same as mine, but to each their own.

[Guest]

I didn't realize we were shooting for realism here. A process that takes a week of MET is not insignificant because of timewarp - it just doesn't take up your actual real time. It takes different design considerations - not massive ones, but ones that are fun for new players, and reward experienced players... but again, as stated above, completely optional.

I guess I don't see the difference in design regarding a ship intended to orbit once and one designed to orbit many times, or what I have to take into consideration to make that happen (unless we had some sort of meaningful life support). I also don't see how orbiting ten times is somehow better than orbiting once when you have timewarp available since, as you rightfully pointed out, it takes very little of my actual time (it's also a terrible game mechanic because it is a very passive way of generating a resource based on time when timewarping is available). Once more biomes are added to more worlds the player will have incentive to do more than a simple fly-by and also some incentive to bring along the Kerbal-as-science-instrument. Having Kerbals able to interact with science gear for a small bonus would be cool but anything duration-based isn't.

[Visitor]

I guess I don't see the difference in design regarding a ship intended to orbit once and one designed to orbit many times

I am talking about a ship orbiting at all, not the difference between once or 10 times.

I can see from your signature that you wrote a plugin, and created an "improved difficulty" tech tree. I would hazard to say you have played the game a fair amount, and know the ins and outs.

So I can understand why you don't see the difference, but not everyone is as experienced with the game as you are.

Getting a stable orbit around a world is much more challenging (for the new player) than just flying past it - or into it. Of course you might not still find it challenging to get a zero-inclination near-circular orbit 6km above Minimus, but that is plenty challenging for plenty of players who have no incentive to ever bother - a one-way fly-by is just as good as a parking orbit, despite the fact that getting into orbit and back to Kerbin requires more fuel and better design considerations.

So, this would provide goals & incentive to new players, and the added benefit of speed for experts who can already "do it all".

I also don't see how orbiting ten times is somehow better than orbiting once when you have timewarp available since, as you rightfully pointed out, it takes very little of my actual time

If you were conducting an energy-intensive study, your electrical requirements would add considerations to your decisions - batteries, solar exposure, ship positioning, and kerbal capacity would all become more important considerations. Utilizing them would be optional, but if you pull it off, it would increase the impact of your efforts.

And again, timewarp makes most of the gameplay elements possible, so suggesting that something becomes "less fun" or "pointless" because you have to use timewarp kind of invalidates the entire game.

Having Kerbals able to interact with science gear for a small bonus would be cool

Hey, thanks for the feedback, this is the sort of comment that really makes this forum feel like a friendly, comfortable community.

[Guest]

Getting a stable orbit around a world is much more challenging (for the new player) than just flying past it - or into it. Of course you might not still find it challenging to get a zero-inclination near-circular orbit 6km above Minimus, but that is plenty challenging for plenty of players who have no incentive to ever bother - a one-way fly-by is just as good as a parking orbit, despite the fact that getting into orbit and back to Kerbin requires more fuel and better design considerations.

So, this would provide goals & incentive to new players, and the added benefit of speed for experts who can already "do it all".

People already do those things in sandbox mode without even needing science or some other arbitrary reason to do it. And, again, when biomes are available in more places than Kerbin and the Mun there will be incentive to get into stable orbits and bring along Kerbals. There's no need for meaningless time-based mechanics.

If you were conducting an energy-intensive study, your electrical requirements would add considerations to your decisions - batteries, solar exposure, ship positioning, and kerbal capacity would all become more important considerations.

That's not a bad idea for some additional "difficult" design considerations, energy-intensive experiments...

And again, timewarp makes most of the gameplay elements possible, so suggesting that something becomes "less fun" or "pointless" because you have to use timewarp kind of invalidates the entire game.

Not at all. There's a difference between "your four month transfer is our nod to realism even though we've also made the solar system one-tenth the size in order to alleviate the boredom of spaceflight" and using time to make something "more difficult" (pro-tip: it doesn't add difficulty and it's silly when timewarping is possible).