Science is not suposed to be grindy!

[MC.STEEL]

So i dont know if everyone is aware or just doesent care (maybe even likes the way it is now) but i think the science mechanic needs to be a bit redefined and a new thing involved: technology research. The way it is now science is learning about the celestial bodies and then unlocking parts with that.

Almost anyone would agree that this doesnt make sense.

-hey Werner whe got the results from the munar exploration the surface temperature is 35Kelvin.

-Oh great thats just what i needed to finish my mainsail desing.

See it doesent make sense.

Now the thing i would like to bring to the table is very much inspired by XCOM enemy unknown,a great game and i dont see whats wrong with borowing ideas from other games(plus there arent much games with such game mechanics).

1-separate planetary database and research.

the r. points that are used to unlock higher tech parts like basic parts then rcs then large parts then nervas and rtg then xenon tech.

1st way to gather them:hiring scientists and letting them research in the complex for a set amount of time, there should also be a time skip at the ksc screen. (do not suggest list but still you should be able to hire not just kerbonaughts)

2nd using and unstable prototype that has a random chance to malfuntion(do not suggest list but its that, a prototype not a main part)

3rd way is using parts in different configurations like on a mishion that uses LV 45<-> FL T-200 <-> MK1 cmpod on a suborbital 30,000m will bring you, say, 40 points.As a mainsail, 2 jumbos decouplers, a poodle, fueltanks, landing legs, lander can and a parachute doing a munar land and return gives you 650 points.but doing it in the same configuration over and over again gives diminishing returns so you can try to put them in different ways.

As for the exsisting science points and biomes the more you have the higher preseige you get (buzz aldrins race unto space vibe goin on) thus more funds that diminish over time.

also some data gathered like visiting Kerbins poles gives you better cooling technology.

And thats pretty much it. sorry for the bad english im not in the mood to do it properly right now and i dont want to meddle in squads work,or if they have it planned but im just saying that a game thats so realistic and then you have a research mechanic thats dubious at best,it just makes me sad and yes i know its alfa but whe need a stable research mechanic before proceeding to make the contracts list.

Edited January 16, 2014 by MC.STEEL

[Flixxbeatz]

Science is grindy, because you need science to do science.

No more explanations

[MC.STEEL]

also because whe have to time skip to do science there can also be a mechanic to make rockets be build in a set amount of (in game) time, making you think ahead of time

[Sean Mirrsen]

Science is grindy. Science is very, very grindy. While IRL spaceflight development is rather divorced from spaceflight itself, the acquisition of scientific knowledge is grindy as heck - meaning, a lot of it is doing essentially the same thing, over and over, until something new is discovered, and the rest of it is finding new ways to grind.

In KSP, since it's a game about the rather more fun aspect of a space program - i.e. the flying in space thing - merging the two to be directly related is an acceptable convention. The player is already expected to be doing lots of flying in space - so making flying in more and different kinds of space be a replacement for the daily horrors of the spaceflight engineers tasked with creating a new engine, is a sensible choice. It can be seen as an inversion of indication of progress - instead of scientists creating new engines and systems in the background while the space program putters along and expands, you have the act of the space program boldly going where it hasn't gone before, expressed in accumulated research points, serving as the indication of the scientists' progress on the new engines and systems. Larger and more remote missions take more time, and bring back more points - indicating more progress.

Really, if you actually think about it, it makes perfect sense.

[MC.STEEL]

I understand but ksp isnt just about zooming around in space.

Its about commanding an ENTIRE space program to expand kerbal kind to new frontiers.

If you played games like xcom(sorry for bringing it up so much it just the only game i can think of at the moment that has managment), its actual combat/base managment is about 50/50 gametime, why should ksp be diminished to a simple space flight sim.

[G'th]

As far as KSP goes, when the time comes for large amounts of science to progress, so too comes the time for large amounts of ingenuity. Its a matter of going interplanetary and returning your probes with no 2.5m parts.

[Guest]

why should ksp be diminished to a simple space flight sim.

It's not, really, there's a lot of depth to the game already outside of flight. The problem I have with science accumulating over time is the difference in game styles. IMO games like X-COM are reactive, as in you react to events the game throws at you. It's perfectly fine to wait around in a reactive game researching things and time warping because at any moment you could be called up to do something. That doesn't work in KSP because KSP is more of an active game where you have to set the goals and do the things. Waiting around in a sandbox game like KSP is terrible gameplay because random events don't exist (and I don't think the devs are going to be adding them in) and you define the goals. KSP-style tycoon gameplay will be along the lines of you doing the things you want to do and the game providing a framework and challenges for your goals to be achieved, it will likely not be something like X-COM where you react to events in the world.

[Themohawkninja]

Science is a resource.

Resources are by their very nature, grindy.

Also, KSP is a sandbox style game, whereby the developers specifically made it so there is no set way of doing things, which means that the tech tree needs to be as customizable as possible. The only real way to do that is by having some resource that unlocks parts of the tech tree, and since resources are grindy, unlocking the tech tree becomes grindy.

It's unavoidable.

If you think the grindy-ness is bad now, you probably won't like when money comes in, since that will be one more resource, which means one for thing to grind.

[boomerdog2000]

I don't mind sacrificing realism for the sake of gameplay. If we want more realism we'd wait 7 years for a mun lander to be designed, built and tested on the ground, then send it up for a single test flight in low kerbin orbit, only to wait for an entirely different munar lander to be built and tested, test that in low munar orbit without actually landing, then land on the mun.

The current science system seems fine to me. You can fill out most of it without even leaving Kerbin's SOI. I was actually going to suggest increasing the science requirements for the higher tiers.

[Z-Man]

Progression in games is, IMHO, allowed to be slightly illogical if the result is that not very interesting in-between steps are avoided. I see the current system as an abstraction for:

- by doing science experiments, you prove to the public/government that you are doing useful work

- they want you to do more useful work

- they grant you a bigger rocket tech research budget so you can do more science in new locations.

IMHO, the suggestions of the OP would not reduce the apparent grind one bit, they'd just put some flowers on top of it to make it appear more meaningful. Gamers are trained to see right through such schemes by now. And really, randomly breaking prototypes? So in order to do a mission with new parts, I have to do it with prototypes with a random chance I have to do it all over again with no fault of my own? There is a good reason this is on the do-not-suggest list.

Before we complain the career progression is too grindy, we should wait for some of the other parts to fall into place and give the devs a chance to ballance things a bit. The only problem I see right now is that you feel compelled to milk the existing Kerbin/Mun/Minmus biomes dry before you go interplanetary, like you feel compelled to kill every monster in the starting dungeon before you go exploring the vast overworld. And you really don't have to do that.

[Mobjack]

Science gets grindy if you make your main goal to gather as much science as possible. You don't have to play that way though.

I approached the game as making a ship with limited parts, slap on some science parts then go to new places. Return with new science you can use to get new parts which you can use for a more ambitious adventure.

Instead of trying to get the most points as possible, my goals were more like land on Duna and return with a surface sample. The science naturally came as I progressed through the game.

[Keymaster89]

Before we complain the career progression is too grindy, we should wait for some of the other parts to fall into place and give the devs a chance to ballance things a bit. The only problem I see right now is that you feel compelled to milk the existing Kerbin/Mun/Minmus biomes dry before you go interplanetary, like you feel compelled to kill every monster in the starting dungeon before you go exploring the vast overworld. And you really don't have to do that.

I agree, IMO science is now grindy only because it's limitless and just introduced. This MUST be "getting start" point from an advanced and indept career mode.

As soon as they introduce economy, new science/utility/lucrative parts and missions system i'm sure Squad will revamp science radically to be inline with that.

I imagine a science system integrated into the economy or an archivement system, with prerequisites for example: "manage get into a stable Kerbin orbit to unlock inline reaction weel" or "buy and burn into space 20.000t of fuel to unlock FL-800t" or "land in the desert biome collect surface sample and run a material study to unlock OX-stat solar and Z-100 battery" or "land on the Mun twin crater and extract with drill this kind of metal alloy that unlock this things" or "bring u into jool atmosphere and do a atmosphere scan to unlock ions" or "as mission, run this cargo bay into orbit and run this high electrical intake experiment (15.000 E or more) to get Docking port Sr." and so on... archiviment + ingame effort + missions. I think this is the way.

[MC.STEEL]

It's not, really, there's a lot of depth to the game already outside of flight. The problem I have with science accumulating over time is the difference in game styles. IMO games like X-COM are reactive, as in you react to events the game throws at you. It's perfectly fine to wait around in a reactive game researching things and time warping because at any moment you could be called up to do something. That doesn't work in KSP because KSP is more of an active game where you have to set the goals and do the things. Waiting around in a sandbox game like KSP is terrible gameplay because random events don't exist (and I don't think the devs are going to be adding them in) and you define the goals. KSP-style tycoon gameplay will be along the lines of you doing the things you want to do and the game providing a framework and challenges for your goals to be achieved, it will likely not be something like X-COM where you react to events in the world.

I understand but 4x games are active and there research isnt just defeat an enemy of this race to unlock something.

As someone that has played games with research that is in the background so you research indirectly by giving them more funds or somthing else, the whole "do this to earn science" just feels like one big rpg skill sistem blatantly maskarading as a research mechanic.

And ps accuse me of demoting original concepts but this is no "original" its more than a space rpg than a research sistem and the science points are just xp. If im rushing squad,well sorry take your time dont mind me:)

Edited January 17, 2014 by MC.STEEL

[Streetwind]

Regardless of game design, as someone with a science background I'd like to point something out... Real science is excessively grindy.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Are there other games where the only other resource you can give your scientists is time, and you are free to accelerate time? In X-COM, you pay your scientists wages, and you make money by fighting aliens. In 4X games, you spend money to build and upkeep laboratories or outright devote funds to research, and you acquire funds by, among other things, defeating enemies, because if you don't you won't be able to expand your economy.

See, the only alternative in KSP is having an economy. As a space program, the only way you will make money is by performing successful flights - essentially, the same goal-oriented gameplay. You will need to conform to government requests in order to secure and increase your funding, for instance, so that you can devote that money to your scientists, among other things.

Science points skip money entirely in favor of the goals themselves providing science return. Instead of Successful flight->Money->Research, it becomes Successful flight->Research, without anything inbetween. Before we get funding as an intermediary, this is the best we can have.

[Kasuha]

Personally I'd really prefer if all science in KSP was one-shot. Transmission losses are ok, but as soon as you deliver, you're done.

But who knows. Current "grindy" feeling of science might get totally eclipsed by contracts. If you need to perform 50 Mun missions to get money for your space program, you won't really mind taking two or three samples.

[m4v]

I can't bring myself to think that science in KSP is grindy. A game is grindy when you have to repeatedly do the same task for get one thing, if you play a free to play MMO you'll know, in KSP you hardly have to launch mission after mission just for unlock one tech node, I always unlock new stuff when I haven't even used the parts of the previous nodes.

If you play with the objective of collecting ALL science available, then I see why the game might become an endless grind, but that's the way you choose to play, once the techtree is fully unlocked then collecting science has no point other than for the role play.

Edited January 17, 2014 by m4v

[Guest]

I understand but 4x games are active and there research isnt just defeat an enemy of this race to unlock something.

As someone that has played games with research that is in the background so you research indirectly by giving them more funds or somthing else, the whole "do this to earn science" just feels like one big rpg skill sistem blatantly maskarading as a research mechanic.

I've read this a few times trying to figure out what you actually mean. I'm still not entirely sure, but I think you're saying that KSP's science system is an RPG skill/XP system masquerading as a research system?

So what?

You could make that case for a 4X research system; in both you accumulate "points" through various means which then get "spent" on a benefit. The method of accumulating "points" is all that really differs (and maybe when you make the choice of what to gain from those points.) From everything the devs have said so far we'll eventually get something like what you want, where you exchange one type of "point" (time/money in a 4X, in KSP's case money and reputation) for another (science in both cases). KSP isn't a 4X game, and I doubt it ever will be, so we don't need a traditional 4X research system. Since KSP gameplay is more personal goal-oriented (rather than story or mission driven) there needs to be a mechanic that fits that gameplay. The current science works just fine. Just wait until you can exchange "points" in KSP for other "points", that will probably open up the perceived grind a bit.

OTOH, if you think science now is grindy, I wonder how you think contracts and reputation will pan out...

[MC.STEEL]

point taken, i will stop nagging about it now.

[vetrox]

I love me that sandbox mode

Cannot wait for the economy to see what challenges it adds to career mode. To me the career mode feels unfinished (and it is) so i will just stick to sandbox mode for now. I dont have to grind anything in that mode

When i play x3:the terran conflict. All i do for the first portion of a save is grind missions to get enough money for some ships to be able to do better missions to be able to buy a station to make more money so i can buy bigger ships so i can complete harder missions so i can buy more stations so i can buy more ships to complete the hardest of missions so i can dominate the galaxy...sounds grindy to me

[Kodiak42]

How is science grindy? What are you talking about anyway? It's not at all grindy unless you decide to exhaust a body for science before moving on to the next. If you decide to launch a brand new craft for each tidbit of science you want, yeah, that could make the game a little grindy, but you don't need to. As for how collecting temperature data on the mun helps you unlock a mainsail, Research Grants. As for your first suggestion, do you really want to play a game that makes you pointlessly wait or a game where you unlock stuff for actually accomplishing something in your own creative way (and even if you did have to wait, science doesn't work like "it'll take this long exactly", it's "we have no idea how long this will take, hey, go see how this works, we might be onto something"). As for your second suggestion, NO! NO! NO! NO! How is random part breakage as a critical part of game progression any better than plain random breakage?! Kerbal space program is a game about knowing what you're doing, not rolling dice. As for your third suggestion, (sarcastic tone begin) Yes, because I would LOVE to try suboptimal garbage just to get further rather than visit another planet and do experiments. (sarcastic tone end) Take twenty random people and they'll know who first set foot on the moon but they won't know the technical details of how they got there.

I can see you mean well, but KSP is a game, not a simulator, and the critical difference between a game and a simulator is whether realism is sacrificed for enjoyable gameplay (REGARDLESS OF THE NAME; since this is the internet, SOMEONE will come up and say "But [something something] Simulator sacrifices realism for gameplay")

[rben13]

I have some, perhaps obvious, suggestions for science:

Give science credit for:

- First space walk

- First docking

- Establishing comm sat in Kermin Stationary Orbit

- Planetary Flyby

- Asteroid Flyby

- Crashing probe into planets, asteroids and moons for research

- Orbiting other celestial bodies

- Kerbol Observer Satellites to observe space weather

- LandSats that might reveal resources/science

- Soft Landings on celestial objects

- First Kerbal orbiting a body

- First EVA on planet/moon/asteroid/alien ship

- Discovery of anomalies

- First Probe to exit Kerbol system and still communicate with KSC

- First Rover on X

- First Base on X

- Core Samples

- First use of Booster

- First use of engine type

It's not hard to come up with other examples. Science rewards should come from making sensible investigations and advances towards greater capabilities.

I hope some of what I suggested is useful.

Great game, already, btw.