Research & development projects

[Atoning Unifex]

There's plenty of posts on ideas for improving science with many good ideas. I've been pondering this myself and think we could combine a number of these ideas into a better framework - I'm not certain exactly which specific ideas I'm combining here but it feels more like I'm using old ideas in a new way, rather than being revolutionary!!!

My aim is to keep it light and simple but make it feel more like something is being accomplished.

Research Projects

Currently research is unfocused, we spam each biome with every device to get as much science as possible. IRL research is focused on a specific goal, and I think should be in KSP too.

Researching the next node in the tree would be a research project: There would be a cost (when money is implemented) - either static or over time - and importantly, a specific set of device measurements/samples, etc to be collected from across the system that are required to unlock that node - so an advanced materials research project could require surface sample from 3 moon biomes, for example. On return of the correct data to either a lab or Kerbin the research would become unlocked (possibly with a time delay?).

Benefits seem to me to be: No research points, no transmission losses, a different challenge for each research node, the economical challenge of actually being able to afford the research.

Downsides: The linking of measurement to research might be a bit far fetched (like what would goo research really provide!?)

Development & testing

To add a bit more depth to the unlocking of new parts, after research on potential parts has been completed there could be a requirement for development/testing of these parts.

Each new part could require launching on a test (non-profit making, when money arrives!) craft, to prove the prototype works. Naturally costs (when around) of constructing these craft would limit when you can test new parts.

Again trying to keep things light and fun, but challenging, there could be certain conditions required to prove the parts fitness. This could be as complex or as simple as people want, such as simply reaching a certain altitude, or achieving an atmospheric entry of over 500m/s. My personal favourite would be crash testing - yes an actual excuse and reason to crash your craft into Kerbin (or the mun) during a careeer mode game!

Once the part has been proved then it becomes available for use in any vessel.

Benefits: A (hopefully) more involved but fun & challenging way of unlocking parts

Downsides: Having to test every part could become laborious, especially on mods with large no's of parts (although it could just mean you are more selective in what to prototype)

Misc suggestions

Science devices should be grouped together in specific research nodes, rather than spread across many. Currently there has to be grinding/spamming of biomes every time a new device is unlocked, which is often! Instead there should be a basic group of devices, followed by a more advanced group later.

The research 'tree' suffers from becoming very broad very quickly (as you'd expect from a tree structure). This allows a wide range of choices for what to research next and makes it easy for players to cherry pick the best ones. Instead there should be several much 'flatter' (maybe even simply linear) research streams to basically force players to a certain level of progression. If there was an independent stream for each section of parts (Pods, propulsion, control etc) users could still focus on specific areas but have to do so within controlled conditions.

So there you have it. A lot of waffle, sorry folks. What do you think?

[Hashbrown66]

I definitely agree that science needs to be more focused. It doesn't really make sense that you take a surface sample from the moon and suddenly your kerbals know how to build mainsails. I think/hope that when they implement an economy some of this will make more sense, like maybe surface samples give you money and science, and research costs money and/or science. Your development and testing ideas were really cool; kinda like bonuses for proving your vehicle is mostly safe or something.

[Kairos]

I was thinking about something quite similar for a mod, but didn't checked so far if it were possible to edit the tech tree and the science points system without invasive code (hope not .

Anyway, I think that's a very good idea in a challenging purpose. There's something sad about the actual tech tree (→ exhaustive unlockability with only a fine organised moons exploration), in the way you can unlock everything in less than a few hours, regardless to the things you currently do.

I was thinking about an achievement system to unlock nodes (first extra atmospheric launch, first orbital flight...), which seems to me likely to be what you mean about research projects.

As a result, I was wondering if science points shouldn't be used differently: to unlock prototypal parts in a unlocked node. There we're joining again I guessn since I was wondering if a complementary point system (developpement points) should be used to upgrade the protypal parts to stable mk-I, stable-mk-II, etc... Which can then be used as a condition to unlock some other prototypal parts (I guess the Mainsail require some use of the Skipper to be developped . This points could be aquired in a passive levelling system (the more you get data by usage, the more it level up to it's ubber-full-state), or in an active one, don't know yet. Anyway, always by usage, debris recovery or flight data saving system transmissions (which allows crash tests too XD ).

I personnaly come out in favor of the passive system, but I wonder what you think about it.

So far, I didn't checked what could be done with KSP current science system code in this way, but I guess it can give a way to make the research more involving in terms of tests and objectives than it currently do (I effectively reached the Skipper in 5 hours by focusing science points ditribution and maxing science output - just need mun and minmus orbital flight, with EVA's reports above the maximum of biomes of both... which is quite sad in fact).

Does this concept join what you're thinking about the science system? Waiting for your opinions

[Atoning Unifex]

I was thinking about an achievement system to unlock nodes (first extra atmospheric launch, first orbital flight...), which seems to me likely to be what you mean about research projects.

Yes this is the sort of thing I was thinking. I hadn't actually considered the first flight options you suggested, I was more thinking about "collect goo observations from above 2 planets", but your suggestions are equally as valid and could provide challenges early on in the research.

As a result, I was wondering if science points shouldn't be used differently: to unlock prototypal parts in a unlocked node. There we're joining again I guessn since I was wondering if a complementary point system (developpement points) should be used to upgrade the protypal parts to stable mk-I, stable-mk-II, etc... Which can then be used as a condition to unlock some other prototypal parts (I guess the Mainsail require some use of the Skipper to be developped . This points could be aquired in a passive levelling system (the more you get data by usage, the more it level up to it's ubber-full-state), or in an active one, don't know yet. Anyway, always by usage, debris recovery or flight data saving system transmissions (which allows crash tests too XD ).

I personnaly come out in favor of the passive system, but I wonder what you think about it.

Well our ideas do seem to be very similar. The first difference I see is that you are ok with using points whereas I am avoiding them in favour of achieving specific goals. I personally feel that a goal feels more like a real tangible achievement ("Gather a moon rock and check for seismic activity") rather than just points, which seems a bit vague ("Collect 100 points").

I do like the idea that unlocking certain parts will require previous parts to be unlocked too. So there is still the research tree but to get part X you also have to have researched AND unlocked part Y.

Levelling up parts, I'm not so convinced about. What you are effectively saying is that the Mainsail Mk 2 is unlocked after the Mainsail Mk 1. So instead of having the Mainsail upgrade, why not just have a new part called the Mainsail Mk 2, requiring the Mk 1 as a prerequisite? See what I mean?

The passive system you suggest I kinda see the point - the more you use something the better it gets. The only issue I have with this is that you don't actually have to do anything above what you are doing anyway. Unless I'm missing something?

[Kairos]

Let's put aside the upgrade system for now. I'm not sure of what it should be.

Well our ideas do seem to be very similar. The first difference I see is that you are ok with using points whereas I am avoiding them in favour of achieving specific goals. I personally feel that a goal feels more like a real tangible achievement ("Gather a moon rock and check for seismic activity") rather than just points, which seems a bit vague ("Collect 100 points").

I'm really agree with you on theses points. For the record, I worked a while ago on a RPG system based on this concept - "You become what you do". But there's something frustrating in this if it doesn't keep a part of player-handed attribution, because if you just become what you do, you're equally no more than that. And the points system already exists - in terms feasability, it's more convenient to re-use it than to just forget about.

All the goals your mention, seems to me like achievements: shouldn't we use it as conditions (solar flight under x altitude, moons rock from x biomes, and eventually moon bases or else if you like KAS for example, but we should already start a list ) to unlock the tech in which parts are unlockable?

Then, using achievements again to unlock parts individually seems quite overlapping (don't know if I'm explaining rightly there). Instead, if the use of points is limited by the locked/unlocked nodes, and has for purpose to unlock parts individually, the "you-become-what-you-do" still safe, with the advantage to manage a re-use of the native science points system (without mentionning even that it enable soooo many research to do that you're pretty sure you can't just unlock everything by maxing output on minmus and mun).

Affecting the points you earn still be quite fun if you can't go ubber on space planes without having ever use it

Now, concerning the upgrades.

I didn't really thought about that before reading your crash-test idea - that's more in this way I were conceiving it. Maybe, upgrade is not a good term - I guess we can see this levelling type as a malus remover more than bonus giver. That was what I meant by "unlocking prototypes" - some kind of downgraded parts that reach there full potential after some kind of uses (several launches, atmospheric entries, orbital flight, crashes, docking? ...).

Levelling up parts, I'm not so convinced about. What you are effectively saying is that the Mainsail Mk 2 is unlocked after the Mainsail Mk 1. So instead of having the Mainsail upgrade, why not just have a new part called the Mainsail Mk 2, requiring the Mk 1 as a prerequisite? See what I mean?

Exactly. That's why I might have seen it like that: the difference is that you can launch a prototype, and eventually fix it later with the knowledge acquired by experience in the interval. I mean, if KAS can add part to a ship while in orbit, it is necessarily possible to "update" a part on the same way.

The point is that the crash test idea is really interesting, since it involve a wider range of evolution ingame. But there's two things embarrassing in the fact that "blank launches" should be required to make a real use of the parts:

- redundant gamedesign

- what about restart?

I mean, I guess I would find it fun to crash some parts sometimes. But making a rocket only to crash it, to get a better one with which I'll must have to do the same before I can use it in a real ship seems to me a bit redundant. Instead, having it seperated from a multi stages launch, observing it's atmospheric entry and crash to up a little to a more stable state seems more interesting, because more collateral. And it preserve the fact you need several uses, in term of occurencies and times, to unlock a better part having this one as prerequisite.

In other word, if we must do specific action to use a part after having unlocked it, I think it will become borring in the tenth first ones. And if you restart...

The passive system you suggest I kinda see the point - the more you use something the better it gets. The only issue I have with this is that you don't actually have to do anything above what you are doing anyway. Unless I'm missing something?

So that's more in this last way I've think about that. Sure, we should have a list of what is required for a specific part to "stabilize" it; and in this vision, you can always make a specific prototypal test to rush on a upper tech level (for example with your excedent credits when it will be implemented). But as it is a passive system, even if you don't specifically make tests (you're no more forced to since you can use protypal parts in regular ships), you should eventually "stabilize" it without requiring a redundant gamedesign process. And you can always fix your prototypes parts later with EVAs

It seems quite cool to me. I'll check this week end to see if the tech tree is modable in this way or not (I guess a looooot of ideas can add matter on this way ).

Huh, if you want to start a list of potential achievements, I guess it can be usefull later anyway!

Waiting for what you have in mind about that