Discoverable Planet Statistics

[Atoning Unifex]

Post #6 in this thread:

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.

which is why i suggested immediately after that post that the discovering of obscured information be given a purpose (like research), hence removing what you call 'bad game design' from the issue. You disregarded that idea by simply saying it's RP reasons and there is already a benefit to reaching the surface with a probe - I never said surface was specified. It would be an expansion of the research system, measuring gravity (or diameter, or atmosphere, or any other metric we want) from orbit, or from some other planetary orbit.

The usefulness of probes is besides the point, I'm looking for new things to add, and I like this idea as an addition to the game. I'm sure a manned probe would also be as good at these missions as probes, I'm not arguing that point either.

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).

Incorrect I'm afraid. Simply because you don't believe it could be fun does not mean that you speak for the entirety of the KSP community. In fact the posters asking for it clearly do think it would be fun, hence blowing your argument out of the water. I certainly don't think everyone will find it fun just because I do. I'm not quite sure why you seem to feel that your opinion is the only one that could be correct?

As for realism, I went into detail about why the balance between realism and game theme was a compromise (Here), you entirely skipped that part of my argument. I fully accept that the suggestion is not real, but it works, IMO, with the game. You clearly disagree, which is fine, but please don't simply ignore my previous comments on the matter. I'd love a way of making this more realistic and in keeping with the game if you have any ideas?

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:

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.

Well, yes, exactly. That's the point of these forums isn't it? Everyone on here thinks for themselves, decides what they think is a good idea and posts it, it gets discussed amongst the community and may, or (most likely) may not, make it into the game, or a mod. The OP suggested an idea they, and I, and others, felt was a good one. There's no way for any of us to know if it would work in game without trying it but why should that stop us making the suggestion and discussing it? Nobody is going to suggest something they think is a bad idea are they!?!? Also, many people would argue that an opinion, and desire, can never be wrong as it's subjective to an individual. I'm not quite sure why this is an argument against this suggestion, unless you think we should not be expressing our opinons and desires for the game?

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.

Well clearly I disagree with this assertion. I believe I have addressed all your points quite clearly, however your arguments have disregarded my suggestion of making discovery of information worthwhile, have ignored my discussion around the compromise between reality and game theme, have suggested that your opinion - that this would not be fun, or a good idea - is the only one that is valid, and appear to have asserted that other users' suggestions are invalid. I wouldn't usually get so argumentative but it feels your arguments are a bit dismissive of others ideas and opinons, and I had to respond.

As you say, it is pretty clear we aren't going to agree on this, which is cool. It's been a good argument anyway! Hope the OP doesn't mind us hijacking their thread!

[edwardc]

Just to further my suggestion (despite a lot of conflicting arguments posted above) on why I want this and hence, suggested it.

Yes, a lot of information CAN be discovered about planets remotely using telescopes and orbital calculations etc. That's great, we use it in real life all the time to save costs and life.

Now, this is a game. Where Kerbals have a courage and STUPIDITY meter. They also only considered using electricity with space flight LATER in the research tree. I really don't think they have the foresight to do a lot of advanced remote research on planet statistics.

If we're arguing realism, computer models can predict ~90% of Kerbal research anyway so what IS the point of the research tree then?

When you have items with descriptions like "trashcan full of boom" you have to take it with a pinch of salt, nay, a fistful.

The idea wasn't to make it more obscure for people. In fact, I don't think I've EVER actually used the atmospheric pressure/height and gravity values in working out what I need to land there. The most I've done is (if atmosphere then add parachutes). To be honest, I think most people just playing for fun don't really care. A lot of the rockets I've seen are way overpowered with extra fuel & boosters "just in case".

The values are only of real benefit to those that want to fine tune their ships to be as lightweight and efficient as possible. If you want that level of precision, surely you'd want to probe your destination more anyway just to be sure?

As it's already been proven, you can max the research tree with just 2 launches. This feature could be enabled on career and sandbox would just show it all anyway.

Kerbal is still growing and expanding as a game. This idea was just to give us more to do as features are added.

Pros:

It's a relatively easy thing to add.

It doesn't actually complicate the game more as it's just showing/hiding/changing labels based on a research item.

It adds another objective or 2 per planet.

Cons:

It annoys some people to have more objectives.

[AwesumnisRawr188]

How about another gamemode? Called Complex Career, which makes it harder for people to find planets and more realistic in a sense to do things. It wouldn't be for new players, but for people looking for more objective in the game, seeking more things to do, or wishing it wasn't so easy. Then keep the "Casual" Career for players learning the ropes, like myself, and people not wanting to be tangled in a huge mess of computations and things they might not understand, that the Casual version teaches.

[Mitchz95]

What about, instead of knowing nothing about the body before we send a probe there, we simply have unconfirmed estimates? For example, until we send a ship to Eve we believe its atmosphere is around 80km high and the surface gravity is 2g. Once a ship visits Eve's SOI the estimate is revised. That way players would have an idea of what to expect, but the fine details would be discovered over the course of the mission.

[kamov23]

I really like this idea, and apparently Squad does as well (According to the planned features on the wiki). Prior to the April forum purge, Squad have talked about implementing this system into the game. In fact, even now we can see many parts of this system already in place, although not directly tied together. The science center has an observatory, and parts that read temperature, atmospheric pressure, and gravity are present. Since statistics are already known, these are all useless as they don't add any new information. Through logical progression, it is highly probable that future updates will add discovery systems.

This isn't to say that these systems will be mandatory for every game. Many games have an options list prior to the commencement of a new game that let the player tailor their experience. It is possible that an option will exist that would let the player start with planets and parameters already discovered. We can not know how squad will implement this system, but we can say that it will exist in some form as resources and time have already gone in to developing models and parts.

My one quirk with this system is that these tools are unlocked fairly late into the science tree with respect to their complexity. By the time I unlocked a barometer, I had already landed on both Mun and Minmus several times. These parts should be unlocked at least 1 - 2 tiers earlier than they are, with the thermometer being one of the starting parts. Furthermore, transmission for data from these instruments should be at 100% instead of the current 50%. These instruments do not give much science, and their data is fairly simple.

[Mach_XXII]

They talked about adding this Parameters tab (need to send probe to get info)

http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1bxuwp/

[Alchemist]

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

When they sent first probes to Venus they really had no idea about how dense its atmosphere really is. Probe intended to land got the pressure readings off the scale and then got crushed by the pressure about 30 km above the surface.

As for mass and gravity parameters: you can determine them well if the planet has moons. Otherwise it's very difficult to get reliable readings on how does this body influence its parent body (especially with kerbal tech, also this effect is not present in the patched conic system). You can guesstimate by the size, but density may differ several times. A flyby probe is the most reliable way to determine the mass of the body in such cases.

[Thomas988]

I love this idea! Squad, get on it!