A change in how science works in relation to transmitting and returning.

[Moonfrog]

Lore and realism and other stuff aside, I feel the science should be changed in terms of gameplay.

I feel the problem with transmitting and recovering is that they compete against one another, the attempt to balance it with science loss due to transmission is an overcomplicated idea that detracts from the usefulness of science parts. It forces people to get into a min maxing situation, instead of just having fun.

I think science should work like this.

Lets say you activate a science part, for example mystery goo container in space. Lets say this gives three options.

1. transmit data about how the goo changed while in space. Get 10 science points.

2. take it home and study it in a kerbal lab on planet. get another 10 science points.

3. take it to a space lab, perform advanced experiments on goo. Transmit results get another 10 science points.

Each method you have to study the goo, provides a way of obtaining science points. None of them conflict with each other, no competition. You want more science, add a transmitter and solar panels, only going one way, you can only get 1/3 rd of the science. But u can use that 1/3 of the science to get remaining 2/3's. Again no conflict, because all the science u can get by returning the goo home is still there, not been consumed by transmitting. Same applies to the lab.

No conflict, no competition, no min maxing choices. Each part is useful.

Please just remove transmission lost, don't try to balance a game that doesn't need balancing in the first place. This is not a war game, there are no sides. I understand this is the logic Squad wanted to use with parts anyway when building engines and fuel parts. I see no reason why they should not apply this same logic to every part being useful and bringing something new to the new table to the science system as well.

I admit, I do not know how complicated it is to code, so if this is not possible to code, then fair enough. Otherwise though I feel this is a better system.

[Sirrobert]

I like it. Do everything for all the points, rathern than a pool that all options draw from.

That makes both probes, AND manned return trips usefull at the same time

[Alchemist]

Result of such experiments usually consists of 2 parts: direct observations of process (also scans immediately after) that can be transmitted and whatever permanent changes are there in the sample that can be studied in a lab but are not perceived by on-board equipment. Space lab module gives also third possibility - to study or conserve semi-permanent changes that would be lost during return.

So the highly realistic scheme for experiment containers could be this:

1) Some science is transmittable and can be transmitted immediately (about as we have now).

2) Transmitting doesn't reset or lock the experiment, so the untransmittable part is preserved and will be recovered upon return.

3) Lab module can convert some of untransmittable to transmittable by using better scientific equipment for analysis (as it does now)

4) if delivered to lab module (or directly recovered) within some specific conditions (in some time limit and without withstanding too much stress) the sample can get some bonus science value on both transmittable and untransmittable.

So the differences are 2: 1) you can transmit and then recover the rest (but if you used the partial transmit, you can reset only by using the lab); 2) bringing the lab to the site (or as close as possible) gives some real bonus not only for just transmitting.

[steamypete]

Great idea. I always knew something felt wrong with science. But I didn't know what.

This idea would be great for immersion too.

Now its really immersion breaking when you land in a new Mun Biome and you cannot call home and tell them about it because that would cost you science points.

I'm all for it.

[Moonfrog]

Is there anyway to know if more people like this idea so squad may take notice of it? Is there a poll system or something? I don't feel like giving myself 5 stars as that would feel like cheating, but I am interested in knowing if the community likes the idea as a whole.

[Uburian]

Personally, i think that this idea is great. Definitely the science part of the game needs a lot of work, and this seems a great way to make it a more entertaining experience.

[Superfluous J]

I'd prefer it if, let's say (as in your example) a piece of data is worth 30 points.

1) You take the experiment. Now you've got 30 points of science in that goo container. If you take it home and recover it, you get 30 science points.

2) You transmit, gaining 10 science points back home. YOU STILL HAVE 20 IN THE CONTAINER.

3) You take it to the lab after transmitting, and the lab can eke out 10 more science points that you can transmit home. YOU STILL HAVE 10 IN THE CONTAINER.

4) You eventually take the container home and get your last 10 points.

Essentially transmitting gets you 1/3, lab gets you 2/3, returning gets you 3/3, but if you do one you use up that science.

[Moonfrog]

I see a problem with that in what I wanted to achieve with my idea 5thhorseman. I wanted to get rid of competition between transmitting and recovery.

If u can recover and get all 30 points. Why put transmitters on your pods? why build one way probes? min maxes going to not bother adding stuff that they don't need. Why go to the trouble of building a science lab when its not needed to recover that 30 science.

I had to choose each one to be 10 science each, so that they were not in competition. Your suggestion puts them in competition again, Sorry but I don't want that.

I want each science part to provide its own useful contribution to science, you put in the effort to get a science lab there u get the science from the lab. You put in effort for recovery u get the recovery science. You put batteries and transmitter u get science from that too.

That way your effort is directly rewarded.

Thx for your suggestion though. if I've misunderstood what you wrote please say so.

[Miro Beero]

Anything above the current science system I will be a fan of.

[Alchemist]

If u can recover and get all 30 points. Why put transmitters on your pods? why build one way probes? min maxes going to not bother adding stuff that they don't need. Why go to the trouble of building a science lab when its not needed to recover that 30 science.

For going to the Mun and back you don't really need to transmit anything. But what about some long range missions? From Jool's moons sending as much as you can now and getting the rest to Kerbin later is notably better option that just geting everything to Kerbin after 1 year. The same goes for probes - they are necessary when you can't just send a manned craft there and back, but they will never bring as much as a proper manned mission.

[Moonfrog]

That game mechanic still exists with my suggestion. My issue with horseman suggestion is that, you can get all the science without a transmitter or lab. With my suggestion u need the lab and transmitter and recovery to get all the science.

Lots of people who are pros and min max people, they will just ignore every science item and just do recovery. Just like before, in 0.22. Why do recovery when u can just transmit repeatedly and get all the science. Recovery not needed. His suggestion just undo's what my suggestion does.

I don't want people to think which is best method of doing this to get all the science by doing the least effort. Each science method should have its own merit and use. It should not be optional in the sense that it is not needed.

Hope I explained that well enough. I'm thinking in terms of gameplay. Your thinking in terms of role play and ability to do something in the game. There are pros who can get to Duna at basic career.

I will not be in favour of anything that makes a person think, i'll do it this way to get all the science because its easier. I don't need to do anything else. Seen this happen with how people use engines in sandbox. People simply look at forums, and ask what is best engine for interstellar flight, someone says lv N. SO everyone uses LV-n. If one engine is better than another, why use the weaker engine? or the one with bad isp?

That's what I want to eliminate. the Competition between transmitting and recovery. hope that explains it. time constraints don't matter in this game. You said in your first what worries me alchemist. You really don't need to transmit anything. That's my problem, you don't need a transmitter its become a useless part.

My suggestion wants to change that.

[Superfluous J]

My problem with the proposed concept (that I tried to fix in my suggestion) is that I don't see how you could possibly learn something with transmitted data that you couldn't learn on the ground. What value is transmitting adding to the data? Why can you simply not get that data when you bring the rocks back home?

There's added value in a science lab, because while in orbit you get data about how stuff works in 0g and while on planets you get unique levels of g to do the experiments in. However just the transmission part doesn't add anything, because presumably when you transmit about a rock sample you're not doing any actual experiments on it first.

As to gameplay possibilities, I sent probes to Duna, Eeloo and Moho that were just Nasa flybys because I hadn't unlocked the tech to make reasonably sized landers and there was no way I could have returned the data. But I wanted it anyway so in that case, 1/3 would be (and still is, as I got even less than that, like 20% or whatever on the science jr) just fine for the investment.

[ArmchairGravy]

What is the total science pool available in your example, and what is your transmission cap? I would shuffle the order around in your example and add one more phase.

Here's how I would like to see it:

Say you have goo with an available pool of 50 points, and a transmission cap of 25 points.

Transmit only-10 points

Process in lab and transmit-20 points

Return to Kerbin-30 points

Process in lab and return to Kerbin-40 points

This way science labs would be incentivized, and if you want all of the science for a pool you have to repeat the experiment like a good scientist.

[razark]

My problem with the proposed concept (that I tried to fix in my suggestion) is that I don't see how you could possibly learn something with transmitted data that you couldn't learn on the ground. What value is transmitting adding to the data? Why can you simply not get that data when you bring the rocks back home?

You go to the Mun, and you find a rock. Taking it back to the lab will tell you about the rock. But describing where you found it, what else was nearby, other types of rocks in the area, etc. provides other information that you aren't going to get by examining the rock itself in the lab.

Of course, that's what EVA reports are, so back to the question: What can you get only from transmitting? All I can think of is "artificial game balance". Perhaps that's enough of a reason for some people. Some information does makes sense to transmit, such as EVA/Crew reports, instrument readings and so on. Transmitting data from a surface sample just doesn't make much sense.

[Superfluous J]

You go to the Mun, and you find a rock. Taking it back to the lab will tell you about the rock. But describing where you found it, what else was nearby, other types of rocks in the area, etc. provides other information that you aren't going to get by examining the rock itself in the lab.

And the astronauts can't do that and just remember it?

If you LAND ON KERBIN and then transmit (before recovery), you would get the exact same science value as you would by transmitting on mun. It's pretty obvious you're transmitting an "on site report" that Jeb has written up. Returning that in person should be worth exactly the amount it was worth for transmitting, plus the added value of the rocks the scientists are now able to get their hands on.

[Frostiken]

I would also like to see crew reports come 'back'. It feels a little odd to never have to check in with my crew after the first time.

I'd rather have every single flight around Kerbin have to 'check in' and give me data points every time instead of a big one-time-lump-sum.

The idea, in my mind, is to make constant communication (and thus power drain) a thing you have to deal with.

Maybe every biome that your crew is in, they generate data. Say a low orbit around the Mun generates 1 Mit of 'report data' every two hours, per crew member. Capsules can store a limited amount of data (say 20 Mits for a 1-man pod). Every 15 Mits of data, you can send a crew report that gives you a few data points.

[Moonfrog]

My idea and suggestion is not based on realism or roleplaying. I apologise but its only a change in gameplay mechanics to make parts all useful. The game is not going to be perfect, just have to pretend certain stuff.

Perhaps we could pretend that mr Bill kermen, takes a collection of rock samples He then transmits there measurements, possibly 23,36,28. Transmits back lots of measurements for lots of different rocks and there colours. Guys back home then say , we want the blue one. Or do this too it, or drop it and see this. Lots of behind the scene stuff u never get to see that may or may not happen. Perhaps bill Kermen trys eating the rock and then transmits back that it does not taste like cheese.

My idea is purely game mechanics I apologize for a lack of realism and role play.

[allmhuran]

I think what 5thHorseman is getting at - and I have to agree - is that if the gameplay mechanics needed to balance the system aren't sensible, then there's something more fundamental wrong with the system that needs to be looked at.

By "sensible" here I don't necessarily mean "realistic". I mean intuitive, or logical, or reasonable.

By way of a more obvious example, something that is entirely unreasonable and illogical in the current Squad system is that simple measurements (like temperature readings) are worth less transmitted than returned. This just isn't how you would expect things to work, and the fact that this kind of gimmicky rule needs to exist indicates that there's probably a flaw in the system.

I'm going to put this here, because I put it in every thread about the science system:

1) Remove transmission loss

2) Remove repetition (and therefore diminishing returns). Every science gaining activity provides its full value first go.

3) Make simple observations transmissible immediately. This includes crew and EVA reports, temperature readings, etc.

4) Make three independent "sample" (goo, materials bay, surface sample) based experiments:

4a) Basic observation by the crew. Worth a small value. No special equipment required.

4b) Analysis in mobile lab. Worth a larger value. Performing this would also perform 4a automatically.

4c) Analysis back at KSC. Worth the largest value (which makes sense - they have the biggest lab). Performing this would also perform 4a and perhaps 4b* automatically. This is obviously the only thing that can't be transmitted. Requires return to Kerbin.

Oh, and preferably 5) Require line of sight back to KSC (including via relay, a-la remote tech) for transmission.

Note that splitting 4 into 4a, 4b and 4c aligns with idea presented in the OP: making the experiments independent, not "lesser" versions of the same thing.

* Maybe not 4b, because it is reasonable to think that analysis in situ (or in zero-g) would reveal data that cannot be learned at KSC.

Edited December 22, 2013 by allmhuran

[tntristan12]

I think I see what 5thHorseman is getting at. Different subjects should contribute to the science pool differently. For example, an EVA report is worth just as much whether you report it over comms or bring it back home. In fact, it's worth even more the sooner you transmit it because the experiences are still fresh. Imagine if Neil Armstrong had waited until he got back home before he described what it was like standing on the surface of the freakin' moon.

Another example. Consider how the goo behaves in zero gravity. Obviously if you observe the goo and report your observations by comms, your results aren't going to be as thorough as if you had a lab on site and could perform a more thorough analysis. However, once you bring the goo back home it's no longer in zero gravity. You've destroyed the experiment so how can your observations about how it behaves in zero gravity possibly be worth more than the observations you could have reported through the radio? Clearly in that instance the on site lab is the best option.

Now, if on the other hand you have a clutch of soil fresh from Duna and the means to preserve it properly, here your observations clearly would yield the least amount of benefit and your on site lab would give you a better means of analysis, but that's nothing compared to the analysis you could do at home. The best option here is clearly to return the sample to Kerbin for analysis.

So the way I see it, every experiment has an ideal option. Furthermore, once you've conducted an expetinent you are imposed by a set of conditions that decrease the value of the science gained once those conditions are no longer met. Took an EVA report? Good! Report it while you're still on EVA or the experience won't be as fresh and therefore worth less science. Observed the mystery goo in zero gravity? Good! Now keep it in zero gravity while you try to exact the most science possible from it (via mobile lab or reporting).

Within each set of conditions, you should be able to mine a total amount of science from it regardless of what you do as long as the parameters of the experiment are upheld. In the goo example, if you report your observations you get some science, but you have not broken the experiment. If you then take it to the lab and conduct experiments on it, you should then get the total amount of science available, since that was the ideal option, minus of course the science you already got out of it by transmitting. That only makes sense, as the experiments you conducted in the lab would not be able to tell you anything new that you had already observed.

So by treating every experiment as something different, the game opens up the challenge of players discovering what the optimal method of science mining is, what the parameters of the experiment are, and how best to gather the most science from the experiment while still adhering to the constraints it imposes. Science mining becomes less of a grind and more of a puzzle to solve, and becomes less abstract and more representative of conducting science in the field. I think that's the kind of improvement science in KSP needs, and hopefully the kind of improvement that the devs have in mind...

...or, you know, they could just add 50 different kinds of dirt and have you collect them all to bring back to KSC!

[CaptRobau]

Oh, and preferably 5) Require line of sight back to KSC (including via relay, a-la remote tech) for transmission.

Note that splitting 4 into 4a, 4b and 4c aligns with idea presented in the OP: making the experiments independent, not "lesser" versions of the same thing.

* Maybe not 4b, because it is reasonable to think that analysis in situ (or in zero-g) would reveal data that cannot be learned at KSC.

Line of sight broadcast is a bit too hardcore for stock KSP, I think. But antenna ranges with relaying could add a bit of strategy to antenna use. Do I build a Duna rover with a big heavy comm dish to send my stuff back to Kerbin or do I relay it with an antenna to an orbiter with a comm dish, which then relays it to Kerbin?

[razark]

And the astronauts can't do that and just remember it?

Of course they can't, and if you give me some time to get through my coffee, I'll come up with some silly reason to back that up.

If you LAND ON KERBIN and then transmit (before recovery), you would get the exact same science value as you would by transmitting on mun. It's pretty obvious you're transmitting an "on site report" that Jeb has written up. Returning that in person should be worth exactly the amount it was worth for transmitting, plus the added value of the rocks the scientists are now able to get their hands on.

Ok, why transmitted reports provide data that cannot be gotten by returning it:

Jeb lands on the Mun and finds an interesting rock. He reports back to Mission Control, explaining everything he sees about the rock and the area it was found in. The geologists in the back room are listening in, and are able to ask questions and provide suggestions of what else to examine, which will provide a fuller picture of the context of the rock that Jeb brought back.

There you go. There's a situation where transmission provides data that _cannot_ be gotten in another way, and it's something that happened during Apollo.

I'm not sure there is a way to make the science system work in a way that will make everyone happy. There's multiple ways the game can handle science, and Squad will need to pick one and we'll live with it, or they will need to give us some control over how science happens so we can each set things up in whatever way makes us happy.

[Alchemist]

Ok, why transmitted reports provide data that cannot be gotten by returning it:

Jeb lands on the Mun and finds an interesting rock. He reports back to Mission Control, explaining everything he sees about the rock and the area it was found in. The geologists in the back room are listening in, and are able to ask questions and provide suggestions of what else to examine, which will provide a fuller picture of the context of the rock that Jeb brought back.

That's a good reason, but that's also something that wouldn't work further than Minmus. Another thing about such remotely controlled experiment is that this is really necessary when you don't exactly know hat to expect. Once proper experiment procedure (not Kerbal, I know) is established most of that benefit is already there without the connection (like the difference between Lunokhod and Curiosity).

However there can be an interesting mechanics about this. Some experiments have less than 100% recovery value, meaning that you can get more by repeating. Large part of that gap can be because of factors not accounted for first time. So in the early game opening comms channel directly during the experiment could give you some bonus that narrows this gap. But the more experiments of this kind are done, the more experience you already have and this gap narrowing bonus appears without the uplink - by the time you get to interplanetary missions (where you can't have real time dialog with science team) you'll already have that bonus almost full on it's own.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Alchemist

[allmhuran]

Line of sight broadcast is a bit too hardcore for stock KSP, I think.

What makes you think that? Actually, I've seen the comment a lot, and I wonder what makes anyone think that.

If you can get to another planet, or hell, even the mun, then you can obviously put satellites up around Kerbin.

So since you are someone who does think it would be "too hardcore", can you explain for me why that is? I must be missing something, because I honestly do not see how setting up a satellite relay network is any harder than launching any other kind of rocket. In fact, since satellite relays need only be small, unmanned probes, they're actually vastly easier to launch than your regular interplanetary manned missions.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I agree with allmhuran here. Setting up a satellite relay network around a planet for data collection would be fun and it would be doing something productive, rather than repetitive like sending a new lander mission to a planet you already landed on before just to bring newly researched tools. If you brought all the tools the first time, and you make a satellite relay network later, you should be able to increase the amount of value in the data you send back home. If mobile labs allowed different levels of processing, then providing power and maintaining communications could become important things. It could go in 3 stages:

1.) few seconds - requires little power and instant line of sight transmission

2.) few minutes - requires either constant power input or lots of batteries, and you have to pick a time when the satellites will stay in communications range for a short while

3.) few hours - might have to maintain power through the night and will need multiple satellites to maintain communications as they orbit the planet, or geostationary satellites.

Losing power and communications would halt the research temporarily.

[Frostiken]

Since we're on the topic, I'll show you my concept for science that is actually, you know, science. Requiring you to actually do things and EARN science points:

http://i.imgur.com/QDobhSv.png