Should science be relevant to research?

[Bobe]

First of all, let me preface this by acknowledging that KSP is by no stretch of the imagination meant to be an analog for a real space program.

With that said, I wonder if later down the track the career mode should be structured such that performing certain experiments, or using certain types of parts, during missions accumulates science in various different categories based on what kind of experiment is being done.

For example, sending a probe into orbit around Mun would reward you with science in propulsion, utility and I suppose science for respectively launching the rocket, utilizing solar panels and activating a communications device. Similarly, a manned sub-orbital flight would again reward you with science in propulsion as well as command, control and perhaps utility. The amount of science you get in each category factors in the time spent using them, the cost (which might influence a base science index) and of course their usefulness (a monopropellant tank with no RCS is not useful).

I believe this might encourage a more logical and meaningful progression through research and development. After all, NASA didn't acquire the technology to go to the Moon by driving a buggy around the parking lot. Sure, they might get some interesting data out of that, but the key elements were the early stages of astronaut training, including their flight experience prior to the Apollo program (ie. spaceplanes), building bigger and more advanced rockets over time and previous missions to explore the effect of prolonged exposure to zero gravity on humans.

In terms of the tech tree, rather than a single branching tree, perhaps there could be one smaller tree for each type of part with less parts per unlock. This way you could obtain more relevant parts sooner based on your current mission.

The current progression of the career mode is not far off, we obviously still have to start small and do small things before moving on, but it might be more enjoyable if you could really have more control over the direction of your own space program.

[Fel]

I've looked at "a few" of the science threads due to thinking this very thought and most of them tend to simply diverge into what I figure is a temporary demonstration "tech tree." As it stands, "Science" is blatantly an achievement system. Launched a Rocket, +Science. Got to the mun, +Science. Returned from mun after doing who knows what with a piece of goo +300 Science -__-.

But I couldn't help but ask "what if science was about science."

I tend to think of Sid's Alpha Centauri and how you "discovered" "Superconductors" and were rewarded with "an upgrade"... but lets say taking various soil samples (not EVERY sample, and not "you took 5 samples") unlocked some "Discovery" which then produces "upgrades". You could possibly even "choose" what you want to "be researching for" for the less "sciency" (though the idea of getting better stuff from "mining planets" does come to mind)

Let's even say that the "mystery goo" was simply a container that you could subject various samples to various conditions and hence again, unlock "discoveries" and hence "technology."

Of course, I'm a large fan of underlying complexity. Others... seem to hate anything that adds on more complexity than already exists :S

[GavinZac]

I've looked at "a few" of the science threads due to thinking this very thought and most of them tend to simply diverge into what I figure is a temporary demonstration "tech tree." As it stands, "Science" is blatantly an achievement system. Launched a Rocket, +Science. Got to the mun, +Science. Returned from mun after doing who knows what with a piece of goo +300 Science -__-.

But I couldn't help but ask "what if science was about science."

I tend to think of Sid's Alpha Centauri and how you "discovered" "Superconductors" and were rewarded with "an upgrade"... but lets say taking various soil samples (not EVERY sample, and not "you took 5 samples") unlocked some "Discovery" which then produces "upgrades". You could possibly even "choose" what you want to "be researching for" for the less "sciency" (though the idea of getting better stuff from "mining planets" does come to mind)

Let's even say that the "mystery goo" was simply a container that you could subject various samples to various conditions and hence again, unlock "discoveries" and hence "technology."

Of course, I'm a large fan of underlying complexity. Others... seem to hate anything that adds on more complexity than already exists :S

"Stop with the quotation marks unless you're quoting something"!

It's abstraction, because this is a game, not work.

When you run a fuel line in KSP, it just pops on one end, and then onto the other. Pop! Magic fuel transfer pipe. Of course we know that it's also doing the internal work, creating pumps and pressurised containers and space-worthy plastic tubing. But really, it's just a magic pipe.

Abstraction is good. This is not a simulator. We don't have to agree contract clauses when hiring Kerbals. We don't need to wait months for the vehicle we've designed to be built. We don't even care about how a Kerbal is spending a year in space with no food or air. This is why it's Kerbal Space Program, not Human Space Program.

I'm arguing that based on your tone, because I can't fully work out what you're trying to say.

"Let's even say that the "mystery goo" was simply a container that you could subject various samples to various conditions and hence again, unlock "discoveries" and hence "technology."

" is exactly what the mystery goo container does. It's not even abstracted from that. It doesn't tell us what the Mystery Goo is - it's a mystery - but we expose it to the elements (Observe), transmit or return the discoveries (Data), which turn out to be worth a certain value of technology (Science). Then we quite literally choose what we upgrade (Research).

After all, NASA didn't acquire the technology to go to the Moon by driving a buggy around the parking lot.

[Fel]

"Stop with the quotation marks unless you're quoting something"!

It's abstraction, because this is a game, not work.

When you run a fuel line in KSP, it just pops on one end, and then onto the other. Pop! Magic fuel transfer pipe. Of course we know that it's also doing the internal work, creating pumps and pressurised containers and space-worthy plastic tubing. But really, it's just a magic pipe.

Abstraction is good. This is not a simulator. We don't have to agree contract clauses when hiring Kerbals. We don't need to wait months for the vehicle we've designed to be built. We don't even care about how a Kerbal is spending a year in space with no food or air. This is why it's Kerbal Space Program, not Human Space Program.

I'm arguing that based on your tone, because I can't fully work out what you're trying to say. " is exactly what the mystery goo container does. It's not even abstracted from that. It doesn't tell us what the Mystery Goo is - it's a mystery - but we expose it to the elements (Observe), transmit or return the discoveries (Data), which turn out to be worth a certain value of technology (Science). Then we quite literally choose what we upgrade (Research).

Stop with the italics unless you're citing an article! It is "The Internet" and you aren't even using strong enough grammar to make that argument.

There is a difference between "Work" and "I don't care about that stuff." "Work" means effort, as in "OMG I HAVE TO WAIT 10 MINUTES TILL MY NEXT BURN! WOE IS ME." "I don't care" means "or I could just hyperedit myself into... done!"

Is it REALLY "effort" to have discoveries limited by what you can collect with the technology available; or are you one that would make a mun hopper, land all over the place, and just abuse and ignore the whole point of the tech tree? Science isn't exactly a limited commodity, there is a large amount of it in the Kerbin system. Furthermore, you can repeat several experiments for gains which rationalizes "it doesn't matter how I got the science; just that after cheating, I have enough to get what I want."

Abstraction always results in dumbed down gameplay.

Acting as if contract clauses when hiring Kerbals is BAD is silly. "You Killed our DADDY! We demand $100,000 in damages [Career Mode].

Acting as if waiting for a vehicle to be built is bad is again silly. "Hello Timewarp. Done!" (But what does it add? Difficulty. You cannot launch one rocket after another to skip rendezvous maneuvers [Though one could have them all prepared, this is not the thread it was discussed on]. It rewards SSTO, as the time for refueling is less than the time for construction. It "Changes things"... but it doesn't make things "inconceivably bad")

Acting as if Life Support is not a "heavily debated feature that many people want in one way or another" is, well, silly ;p

What true genius comes from is when you create the underlying subsystems but allow those who hardly care about them to either purely "Opt Out" or ignore it with other options. While RCS is horrible in the current state, it does provide an option for those that feel Reaction Wheels that are capable of turning a 1 Mg pod around on the surface are obviously a little over powered... and when you turn off the magic the flight model becomes better, the thrust vectoring engines become "more important", and the gameplay changes.

[vger]

I've said this in other threads about this topic now. The way science relates to R&D is simply an oversimplification.

Will bringing back moon rocks get you better rockets? No. But will it open opportunities for such a thing? Absolutely. Science gets more people interested in space, which means more people will enter fields of study to further space travel. Furthermore, anything you do that would get your space program on the news, will help generate public interest, leading to more funding. The end result? Better tech.

[Sirrobert]

Personally I think the science thing is on the right track, in the way that we have a single currency, science, that we use to research new things.

The way I see it, is that we research things in outer space (or in orbit, or on the lauchpad. You get the point). Those research points are added to a kerbal national database. And than we (as KSP) are rewarded with a budget (the amount we get in this budget is based on how much date we bring back, and how much this data is worth. The worth of the data is the direct number of science we get in game), and with this budget, we research new things to help progress our space program.

If we'd have to do something in propulsion in order to advance propulsion research, I fear the science system would only become more and more grindie-er (is that a word? It is now). There's already grinding biomes on the Mun and Minmus involved in the science system, let's not introduce more

[Camacha]

If we'd have to do something in propulsion in order to advance propulsion research, I fear the science system would only become more and more grindie-er (is that a word? It is now). There's already grinding biomes on the Mun and Minmus involved in the science system, let's not introduce more

On the contrary, making science relevant will reduce grindiness, not add to it. But we have had this discussion in another thread, there is no need to repeat all the same point again.

Summarizing: yes, science should be relevant to research, very much so. And I am sure that even almost all of the naysayers will enjoy that

[Javster]

Exactly: why should landing a rover on Duna give you access to wings?

[boomerdog2000]

Exactly: why should landing a rover on Duna give you access to wings?

Because otherwise gaining access to new wings would require several years of research, prototyping, and testing which may not even yield usable data. Real science is incredibly, tedious and more often than not, provides very little information. It is generally very confident in that information, which can then be compounded with other researchers information to maybe come to a new idea.

This comes back to sacrificing gameplay for the sake of realism, a line KSP seems to walk fairly well in my opinion.