A different kind of Science

[Kaito]

It seems to me like the way Science is currently, it rewards tedious grinding and doesn't offer much fun. As Scott Manley showed, you can max the tech tree in TWO flights (I know it's Scott Manley, but still). I do, however, like the idea of science. So I thought of a different kind of science: Experimental science.

Instead of random goo experiments that offer arbitrary points to unlock completely unrelated things, the experiments could be offered in a few categories: Structural, Electrical, and Rocketry. The structural one is what comes to mind the easiest for me, so that will be the one I explain.

Imagine having a large rocket, one prone to flexing. Put some "stress meters" on it (stress meters would be available in the utility/experiments tab), and let her loose. The stress meters would measure the flex of the rocket, and once you've done enough experimentation with it, you will have enough Structural points to purchase improved parts. But that's not all. Once you've maxed out the tech tree for structural parts, the stress meters would still have some advantages. The more you stress your rocket, the more the Kerbals learn about stress, and the stronger they can make the connections between parts. What I'm saying is that the more you use your rockets and the more you push them, the stronger they will become. This system will reward those who do the crazy and outlandish, because they would end up with overall stronger rockets. This has a much stronger feeling of "science" to me.

In addition, we could put the old school experiments (Gravi-tron) to good use. Say, for example, you want to do a landing/return on the planet Eve. Obviously you want to get to the highest point, right? Since I assume KSP doesn't model different Mass Concentrations, we can assume that the highest point also has the lowest gravity on the surface. So, strap a gravi-tron and some sort of radio projector onto a basic survey sat, and put it in orbit around EVE. Now, turn on the Gravi-tron and wait...eventually you'll have a map of the gravity field on the surface of Eve, with red being areas of high gravity and blue being areas of low gravity (It would also be useful if this map could be overlayed over the planet in map mode). This may not unlock any science points, but it would provide something useful to the player: A map of the gravity field around Eve, which could be used to have more complicated missions.

I know this all seems idealistic and quite difficult to implement, but I feel like this would be a much better way to do science. It rewards experimentation and encourages the design of crazy rockets.

[boomerdog2000]

Your design may reward experimentation but it doesn't reward exploration, which seems to be one of the core concepts of the game. This system would basically ignore all landings, sample returns, and most experiments in space. I feel the current system works very well if you don't abuse it. I did a career mode run without transmitting anything except readings from detectors (gravioli, seismic, etc.) and crew reports, and I had to do many flights and a 3 ship Jool mission to unlock the whole tree.

Most of the grinding aspect will be irrelevant with the .23 update anyway, which will fix the ability to gain all the science just by transmitting.

[Kaito]

That was just an idea for structural science. Another example would be returning surface samples from different planets. These surface samples would be analyzed and thus unlock better landing gear for landing on certain terrain.

The whole idea is to give some practical purpose for what you're doing

[JSD]

Me and my brother talked about this same thing today as well. Something like the Skyrim principale. The more you do melee attacks, the more melee skills and or tricks you get in Skyrim. I always assumed that Kerbal kind of took the same road there because they always said/the goal was, that the Kerbal system some kind of rewards you the more you learned. As said; it would be neat to unlock better landing gear/legs because you pulled of some tricky landings on old gear. Like Skyrim; The more you land, the better your getting at it. I totally agree; It's a more honest, solid and rewarding system in my opinion. Science points are cool, but science points should indeed be collected by doing science, but shouldn't be used as "unlocking currency".

Edited November 12, 2013 by JSD

[Dun Kirk]

I like the idea of a tougher grind, but my current experience is the spam transmit, so if I like tougher, I'm not sure. Not sure how landing hard is a good thing? More like more efficient launcher/trajectory gets you better tech.

What the skills of kerbals themselves have is unclear yet. It'd be nice gold shirts can do more technical surveying.

[Kaito]

Me and my brother talked about this same thing today as well. Something like the Skyrim principale. The more you do melee attacks, the more melee skills and or tricks you get in Skyrim. I always assumed that Kerbal kind of took the same road there because they always said/the goal was, that the Kerbal system some kind of rewards you the more you learned. As said; it would be neat to unlock better landing gear/legs because you pulled of some tricky landings on old gear. Like Skyrim; The more you land, the better your getting at it. I totally agree; It's a more honest, solid and rewarding system in my opinion. Science points are cool, but science points should indeed be collected by doing science, but shouldn't be used as "unlocking currency".

Something like this, yes. I like the idea that doing something makes you better at that thing, but I've seen this system abused (For example, putting a rock on the "use magic" key and walking away.)

Not sure how landing hard is a good thing?

It wouldn't be that landing hard is better, but landing on different planets, different terrains, landing speeds, etc all contribute to better over-all landing legs. The Kerbals obviously have no idea what the surface of the Mun is like until they return some samples, which requires landing on it. All they can do is take a best guess as to what the surface is like.

[Dwight_js]

I love this idea. I think it would be great to have that kind of contextually relevant experimentation (if that phrase makes any sense!). I would also like it if the accuracy of data displayed for parts were tied to the amount of experimentation you've done in relevant areas. So specific impulse and thrust numbers are given as a roughly estimated range at first, and the more different environments that you use them in, and the more you learn about your atmosphere and low orbit environment, the more accurate the numbers become. This would force even the real-life rocket scientists among us to use more Kerball-esque trial and error to get their first missions off the ground.

[Kaito]

I love this idea. I think it would be great to have that kind of contextually relevant experimentation (if that phrase makes any sense!). I would also like it if the accuracy of data displayed for parts were tied to the amount of experimentation you've done in relevant areas. So specific impulse and thrust numbers are given as a roughly estimated range at first, and the more different environments that you use them in, and the more you learn about your atmosphere and low orbit environment, the more accurate the numbers become. This would force even the real-life rocket scientists among us to use more Kerball-esque trial and error to get their first missions off the ground.

THIS. This is exactly what I had in mind, but couldn't put into words. I'd be cautious with forcing good players to resort to pointless explosions, though. You want to reward behavior you want (Making gigantic rockets explode), but not hold back those who stray in a different direction.

Maybe another idea for having relevant experimentation would be an engine monitor part that you attach to your engine. Obviously the Main Sail is better in a Vacuum, but the Nuclear Engine is better than all of them, just because it's designed differently. Having a ship designed specifically for testing different engines at different altitudes would mean "discovering" the nuclear engine sooner, merely because instead of just passively observing the engine and assuming it's fine, you actively tried to make the best of your design.

[Dwight_js]

"...be cautious with forcing good players to resort to pointless explosions..."

Yea, you wouldn't want to force everyone down one linear path. People who can do the math would still be able to get good results by creating designs with a healthy margin for error. The payoff for them is to be able to really run lean missions by the numbers as the accuracy increases.

I've posted this elsewhere, but I would also love to see remote sensing satellites that produce data (e.g. elevation) that can be analyzed for use in mission planning. Like slope analysis to find flat spots for landing and base-building. Or they could analyze surface composition to identify areas with possibly useful natural resources. Follow up missions could then analyze surface samples to confirm the chemical composition of the soil, and placement of seismic sensors and the use of an "impactor" satellite could determine the size of the deposit.

I really hope the developers explore these types of hands-on and relevant science instead of just "click for points" options.

[JSD]

I love this idea. I think it would be great to have that kind of contextually relevant experimentation (if that phrase makes any sense!). I would also like it if the accuracy of data displayed for parts were tied to the amount of experimentation you've done in relevant areas. So specific impulse and thrust numbers are given as a roughly estimated range at first, and the more different environments that you use them in, and the more you learn about your atmosphere and low orbit environment, the more accurate the numbers become. This would force even the real-life rocket scientists among us to use more Kerball-esque trial and error to get their first missions off the ground.

The problem with this is, that you make it to technical. Granted, it's really cool. But remember, it's a game. You don't want to make it to realistic. Only a handful of really hardcore players out there would want that kind of difficult (realistic) science system (And understand it), cause they want to know/reflect to the real life Space Programs. Gameplay is all about finding a balance between real life, (Being realistic, accurate and scientific right) and fun to play, learn and or understand it at all ages. It's cool for sure. As a mod. Or maybe a expansion or something. It's just not a real/doable suggestion that fits the game right now..

Edited November 13, 2013 by JSD

[Kaito]

The problem with this is, that you make it to technical. Granted, it's really cool. But remember, it's a game. You don't want to make it to realistic. Only a handful of really hardcore players out there would want that kind of difficult (realistic) science system (And understand it), cause they want to know/reflect to the real life Space Programs. Gameplay is all about finding a balance between real life, (Being realistic, accurate and scientific right) and fun to play, learn and or understand it at all ages. It's cool for sure. As a mod. Or maybe a expansion or something. It's just not a real/doable suggestion that fits the game right now..

While this is true that it adds technical stuff to the game, If the values are just numbers that have a random amount added or subtracted, then it won't interfere with gameplay at all. Those who want to mess around can do exactly that and not care about the values. Those who are concerned about the numbers will probably look them up, or they will just have to do enough flights to get numbers they feel are accurate enough.

In any case, no matter what changes are made, I think this point still stands: The changes should reward people who do things but not penalize those who don't do things, no matter what those "things" are. Do you want players to just build rockets and make them explode? Great, just don't penalize people who want to take the game seriously. Want people to explore the outer moons of Jool? Awesome, just don't penalize people who want to make giant rockets and watch them explode. Squad has done this INCREDIBLY well so far, I just feel like this needed to be said