Discoverable Planet Statistics

[edwardc]

Kerbals are pretty dumb and by their own admission thought several planets were specks of dirt on the lense. Having them know fine details about the planets from the get-go doesn't make sense. They are just starting their space programme after all.

Telescopes can only provide so much info. Yes, atmosphere can be seen but these are Kerbals...

At the moment, you can see all the statistics for any planet by just selecting it. Most people won't even need to check this as they know it off by heart by now but this would make it more immersive for newer players. Plus it adds more uses for probes.

My idea:

Make the details of planets hidden at first. Unknown atmosphere, unknown gravity etc.

To discover these you need to send a probe with the appropriate science tool.

Put a gravioli sensor in orbit to uncover the gravity and escape velocity.

Send a PresMat barometer into the atmosphere to get it's density and altitude or even existence.

Things like radius and mass could be left as is or given as estimates until the probe confirms them by just being in orbit.

All this should obviously be transmitted back to Kerbin like regular research.

If this is approved this shouldn't be too hard to implement as it's just replacing the static text with a variable and an if statement to check if a few new research items have been completed to decide what text to display.

[JiWint]

would be a good idea,and a great use for probes!

edit: also,you have to discover the planets by looking through telescope,and once you see one,you can see it in orbital map.

Edited December 31, 2013 by JiWint

[Atoning Unifex]

+1 sounds like a great idea - although gravity should be obvious based on orbit shouldn't it?

[lajoswinkler]

It would be cool if the probes would give you a diagram like this one, depending on what you put on them.

[Capt Snuggler]

+1 great idea. would be great if all the data was under the "planet info tab" in map view. as you discover more it populates the tab with data.

it should start out with approximate size, color. all other data needs to be "discovered" somehow.

ground based and orbital telescopes can get you orbital duration, number of satellites, distance from Sun and atmosphere yes/no.

probes/landers will be needed to gather local data like atmospheric height, pressure, accurate size, what its made from etc etc.

I know that the discovery of planets and maps of the solar system happen 1000s of years before space travel and that advanced space telescopes can detect allot of this data but for the purposes of game play i think the player should have to discover this.

*edit

graphs like that would be amazing!

Edited December 27, 2013 by Capt Snuggler

[LethalDose]

This has been discussed before, and I think got shot down as being impractical. HarvesteR has stated that community discussion is better when everyone is playing on the same system (as an aside: I happen to agree with this position, and it's one of the few times I feel like the devs are actually giving logical rationale). If the system is the same for everyone, then gravity values are the same for everyone. The publisher can then make the information available in-game or not. If they don't supply it, then players will post the values elsewhere. So the net effect of not posting the information freely in the game doesn't really hide the information, it only makes it less convenient. So, there are two options:

If the gravity parameters are different between games, the OP's proposed system is reasonable, but the Devs have stated they won't do it.

If the gravity parameters are identical between games, the OP's proposed system only serves to obscure information from players, which is not good game play/design.

[Atoning Unifex]

If the gravity parameters are identical between games, the OP's proposed system only serves to obscure information from players, which is not good game play/design.

I see the point you make but what if the discovery of the parameters provided a benefit in itself. Like perhaps it could provide a research benefit (points, or whatever is in the final game). Thus simply knowing the number doesn't give you the whole benefit, and creating probes for the purpose of discovery is still meaningful.

[Themohawkninja]

If the gravity parameters are identical between games, the OP's proposed system only serves to obscure information from players, which is not good game play/design.

Not really. Some people might like the idea of having to discover the force of gravity on certain planets. It would make unmanned probes very useful, since you could just send one out on a one way trip to beam back some gravity information to plan for a future manned mission.

[BlackBicycle]

I see the point you make but what if the discovery of the parameters provided a benefit in itself. Like perhaps it could provide a research benefit (points, or whatever is in the final game). Thus simply knowing the number doesn't give you the whole benefit, and creating probes for the purpose of discovery is still meaningful.

I absolutely agree. And I think we have a hint of that in the "Planned features" list. I remember something along the lines of "Discovering new planets". That would mean (I am guessing here) that we'll start out with just Sun and Kerbin on our map and will have to "discover" the rest of the system. And I completely agree that after "discovering" a planet, we should get science points or any other reward (mission completion? Extra funding?) when we actually go there and measure stuff. Oh wait, we already have that! In terms of Science that is.

[deaththrower]

It think this is a great idea!

[LethalDose]

I see the point you make but what if the discovery of the parameters provided a benefit in itself. Like perhaps it could provide a research benefit (points, or whatever is in the final game). Thus simply knowing the number doesn't give you the whole benefit, and creating probes for the purpose of discovery is still meaningful.

This is already possible, just send probes for, what are essentially, RP reasons*. There's already a benefit to getting to the surface with a gravimeter: the science you get to transmit back. I don't see why there needs to be another benefit.

Not really. Some people might like the idea of having to discover the force of gravity on certain planets. It would make unmanned probes very useful, since you could just send one out on a one way trip to beam back some gravity information to plan for a future manned mission.

This is still possible for "some people" to do, without getting in everyone else's way (as I mentioned above, is bad game design). There's no reason that a manned craft can't also discover the force of gravity just as well as a probe, not making probes no more useful than they already are*.

*I'm someone who already thinks probes are useful for the following reasons:

• Probes let you attempt initial landings on new bodies without the risk of loosing Kerbals
  
• Probes let you scout future landing locations
  
• Probes allow you to perform 1-way explorations, thereby allowing probes to be substantially smaller and more efficient than manned craft
  

These are all already valid without hiding any information from players, as the OP suggests.

[Themohawkninja]

This is still possible for "some people" to do, without getting in everyone else's way (as I mentioned above, is bad game design). There's no reason that a manned craft can't also discover the force of gravity just as well as a probe, not making probes no more useful than they already are*.

Assuming that Squad doesn't change their minds, once life support is added, there will be a much more utilitarian reason to use the probes for such a task as far as planetary statistics are concerned.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

This is planned, in a way. You will have to research telescopes, and manually find the planets. Discovering them, you will then be able to see them on the map

[LethalDose]

Assuming that Squad doesn't change their minds, once life support is added, there will be a much more utilitarian reason to use the probes for such a task as far as planetary statistics are concerned.

Which provides another reason for probes to be useful, and doesn't require obscuring any data from the player, making the OP's original suggestion even less necessary, and therefore more problematic.

This is planned, in a way. You will have to research telescopes, and manually find the planets. Discovering them, you will then be able to see them on the map

Uhm, okay? Cite a source?

[Themohawkninja]

Which provides another reason for probes to be useful, and doesn't require obscuring any data from the player, making the OP's original suggestion even less necessary, and therefore more problematic.

It's not necessary at all and never was. It just gives the science parts, and probes, more uses.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

-snip-

Uhm, okay? Cite a source?

All sources about this were lost in the April Purge

[Cupojoepro]

You could just use the wiki , but I like the idea about having telescopes

[Kanddak]

Yes, please. This sort of actual discovery-based science is much more interesting to me than meaningless grinding for "points" to "unlock" things. I've been known to send probes and measure their speeds at Pe and Ap of a few different orbits to compute planets' masses and radii manually.

[Mitchz95]

I think it's a good idea. For first-time players, it would add a touch of realism and the fun of discovery. For more experienced players, it wouldn't cause any problems because they'd already know it all.

[jwenting]

sigh, not again....

You really think we didn't know anything about say Mars before we sent the first probes there, except that it was there?

[Atoning Unifex]

This is already possible, just send probes for, what are essentially, RP reasons*. There's already a benefit to getting to the surface with a gravimeter: the science you get to transmit back. I don't see why there needs to be another benefit.

What I feel are grind-inducing transmission losses aside, there was no suggestion that a surface probe was required. Perhaps an orbital measurement. Your suggestion that there is already a 'single' benefit to the gravimeter misses the fact that there are already multiple biomes you can use it in and hence allowing an orbital measurement would be in keepig with current game mechanics.

sigh, not again....

You really think we didn't know anything about say Mars before we sent the first probes there, except that it was there?

True but surely the addition of more goals/challenges/things-to-do in KSP is a good thing? It's not like it's a massive stretch of the imagination to believe a probe could be used to probe a new planet, rather than using a ground based solution - which would remove the need to launch anything and remove something potentially fun to do.

[kiwiak]

opps wrong thread

Edited December 28, 2013 by kiwiak

[LethalDose]

True but surely the addition of more goals/challenges/things-to-do in KSP is a good thing? It's not like it's a massive stretch of the imagination to believe a probe could be used to probe a new planet, rather than using a ground based solution - which would remove the need to launch anything and remove something potentially fun to do.

"potentially fun" != "good"

"potentially fun" == "potentially good"

No one here has done anything to establish that this would actually be fun. I've posted several reasons it's bad game design.

I find it particularly odd these kind of recommendations get propped up with "realism" arguments, then their proponents selectively ignore why they're not realistic, e.g. a simple ground-based equation can give you the information extremely accurately, but that isn't fun and you want to players to have to send probes... /facepalm.

And jwenting is straight on: If a body has a natural satellite, you can use it's orbital period and orbital altitude to calculate the planet's gravitational parameter and, directly, it's surface gravity.

One more reason to "like Ike".

[Atoning Unifex]

"potentially fun" != "good"

"potentially fun" == "potentially good"

No one here has done anything to establish that this would actually be fun. I've posted several reasons it's bad game design.

In a game currently devoid of many things to do, or goals to attain, I would certainly say that adding more of these things is definitely good! I say it's potentially fun because I fully admit not everyone would find it fun to do.

A number of people have commented that it sounds like a good idea therefore it's reasonable to assume they find the concept has components that they associate with fun. I personally enjoy different challenges and think that this would be an interesting, and fun, way of controlling player progression. I also think it's something else to actually do, you know rather than simply grinding research for magical research points, I get an actual goal for doing something specific.

I've looked back at your comments and see nothing that really refers to bad game design. You first say the dev's don't like it, it is a bad idea because people can simply look up the fixed numbers online and that variable numbers aren't going to happen. Your next post then says that you have mentioned above bad game design but there is no mention of it as far as I can see. I personally see nothing badly designed with having a challenge which requires you to perform a task to reveal something. Isn't this what research is already? The challenge is to get device X to place Y, use it and attain research points? What's the difference?

I find it particularly odd these kind of recommendations get propped up with "realism" arguments, then their proponents selectively ignore why they're not realistic, e.g. a simple ground-based equation can give you the information extremely accurately, but that isn't fun and you want to players to have to send probes... /facepalm.

And jwenting is straight on: If a body has a natural satellite, you can use it's orbital period and orbital altitude to calculate the planet's gravitational parameter and, directly, it's surface gravity.

One more reason to "like Ike".

Do you really find it that odd that people want it to be as realistic as possible and as fun as possible, at the same time? It seems fairly obvious to me. We want to have our cake and eat it! It's all about compromise and fitting the included features/challenges etc to the game. I could certainly suggest an excellent ground based telescope setup, where you have kerbals looking across the system through a mini-game style telescope, and performing analysis on planets to determine the values for diameter, gravity, atmosphere, escape velocity etc, but such an addition would not fit in with the feel of the game IMO, and so an alternate suggestion of using a probe - something that is already available in game, and fits in with the launching rockets theme of KSP - whilst not entirely realistic does meet a compromise between realism and game theme.

It honestly doesn't really matter to me whether this specific feature is included but KSP needs more to do and this is certainly a simple addition that would fit that criteria!

[LethalDose]

I've looked back at your comments and see nothing that really refers to bad game design.

Post #6 in this thread:

If the gravity parameters are identical between games, the OP's proposed system only serves to obscure information from players, which is not good game play/design.

I thought I had stated this more times, but /shrug. This is really the bedrock of argument, the obscuration of this information serves no meaningful purpose. You may argue that this makes probes worthwhile, but I've already pointed out that:

A. Probes are useful currently, without this mechanic

B. Manned craft can do this just as easily as unmanned

So, because "B", the proposed mechanic doesn't add value to probes, but because "A", probes don't need to even have value added.

And to answer:

Do you really find it that odd that people want it to be as realistic as possible and as fun as possible, at the same time?

exemplifies my point that proponents frequently to ignore that it's not realistic. You're making my point from post #23 in this thread. This mechanism would be neither realistic or fun, as obscuration of game information like this doesn't add fun (see my quote above).

Finally, because a lot of posters are asking for it, doesn't mean it's a good idea. It means they think its a good idea, then some dig in their heels and scramble for justification, like:

A number of people have commented that it sounds like a good idea therefore it's reasonable to assume they find the concept has components that they associate with fun.

An opinion or desire is not correct or factual because a majority of participants share said opinion or desire (and, yes, I understand this statement can be easily turned around on people asking for resources). So because a lot of people think this mechanic would be fun, does mean anyone would actually enjoy it.

Any one of these points tanks the argument, so until all these points are coherently addressed, I'm done talking about this. We aren't going to agree on the topic and I'm tired of repeating myself.