How realistic do you want science to be?

[Caelib]

I find it silly that KSP is missing the absolutely most basic form of science that was used by Humans: photography. There are so many possibilities with adding this piece of science equipment to the game ... can you imagine how cool it would be to have a museum on Kerbal Space Center that feature RETURNED surface samples and photographs from missions? These could even be canned photographs from say "low orbit", "high orbit" and "surface" to match the current biomes. Just sayin'.

[FITorion]

I want the text with the science results to be more than just flavor text. There should be clues in them where if you collect the right experiment in the right spot you could discover something that would lead you to another place and another clue.

KSP doesn't need a story for you to be in... you create your own story... but it does need a history that we can discover.

There should be reason to leave a maned station in orbit... or a manned outpost on the ground. There should be science that probes can do easily but that manned missions can do better. I would like to say have the probes... with a new part that lets them take a surface sample like the Kerbals do now... And have the kerbals be able to take several different types of surface sample with different animations and store each one in the ship even if they themselves can only carry one at a time. I want there to be a reason to have more than one kerbal out side at a time.

A lot of what they were talking about doing for resource mining... and subsequently scraped sounded like it could be applied to make science even better. The scanning from orbit to identify a region with resources could be scanning to find a region with untapped science. The ground scanner to find the highest concentration area could do the same to find say 10x10 meter areas of high science and give reason for manned rovers traveling all over collecting science.

science should be more GAMEY and less click click click.

[Mosimir]

Imo there should be something like quest or milestones for Science.

Like "Create space station 100km above Kerbal with at last 100 parts, using 3 docking port and assemble it in space" for 100 or more Science or "Create Mun base with at last 100 parts (or with 5 research equipment) using 3 docking port and assemble it on Mun"

I mean, there should be Science for assemble space station on orbit etc.

Or even rescue mission, random spawn Kerbals in crash lander on Mun and we have to rescue them for Science

[Mystic]

I find it silly that KSP is missing the absolutely most basic form of science that was used by Humans: photography. There are so many possibilities with adding this piece of science equipment to the game ... can you imagine how cool it would be to have a museum on Kerbal Space Center that feature RETURNED surface samples and photographs from missions? These could even be canned photographs from say "low orbit", "high orbit" and "surface" to match the current biomes. Just sayin'.

I love this idea! Imagine being able to switch to a camera instrument, pan around and then capture one or more images that would later be displayed for posterity at KSC? Probably have a "memory limit" on how many pictures can be taken and transmitted at once. The science return could be very small from such photos, but they would be able to be transmitted back to Kerbin for 100% science benefit. Presto, a science reason to do the Grand Tour ... and souvenirs to show off afterwards, too!

[Superfluous J]

I like the idea of having to do something other than clicking, but if it gets too complex it quickly loses fun on the other end. Collecting science right now may not be fun after a while, but at least it's the easiest part of the mission as well. The focus is on GETTING to Moho, not doing the science there and honestly I think that's okay.

And you should not have to go back out and get another surface sample when you transmit. Just transmit, get the science, and keep the sample. Maybe add another button: "Transmit and dump." It makes NO sense at all that transmitting data about a rock makes that rock cease to exist. And if my guys have to pulverize the thing to get that 15% transmit value out of the rock, I'm also cool with assuming that when I told them to get a surface sample, they grabbed two rocks instead of one.

[Khatharr]

My biggest beef right now is the limitation on what can be stored in a single pod. I would be okay if the pod were limited by data size, but limiting it by one-per-type is annoying as hell, especially when a lot of experiments don't collect the full science value unless you run them twice. I'd like to be able to take up a pair of good pods, run them both in the same biome, and then bring the data from both into the capsule.

[JSD]

At some point science as it is right now turned into a game-play kind of view. To protect the "new" players. As a alternative to mining, drilling, the resource idea as it was. In mine point of view, it sucks. Science in general is cool. Traveling to a planet, scanning the hell out of it, and get some data. Some following up information. Right now, you do science to unlock stuff. (Why the hell do we have archive? We only unlock parts with it. It's money..) In a realistic kind of perspective, if you did the tech three, you are done with science. You don't need it anymore. Why? I don't get it. You can't even/aren't allowed to do science in sandbox. Science is a fancy career unlocking tool at the moment. And that is a bad, bad choice. It's game breaking in my opinion. I think is not about how you expand the science feature by adding more options, but how you expand/change is in a feature point of view. Science as it it, is sad. Science is nothing more them replacing some kind of money system. Like the way mobile games do. In-game money, and some sort of "city" credits you have to buy with real money. With only one goal in mind. To drain you as fast as possible. It has that same unbalanced, weird feeling kind as KSP has in sandbox v.s career. It's like you have to choose between them. And if you happen to choose sandbox, your about to feel it. That's a weird, and stupid choice to make. Love the game, but the whole understanding of this Science thing.. I miss it. Completely..

Edited April 16, 2014 by JSD

[Jouni]

I want to separate science from technology. Technology should progress by building bigger and more advanced rockets and launching them to more ambitious missions. This can be reasonably simulated by crew reports and EVA reports (and hopefully by probe reports in the future). If you put science parts in the rocket and fly a mission on your own, they should only waste fuel. After all, we're playing engineers and pilots, not scientists, so we don't really know what to do with those instruments.

Then there could be science contracts. Put these instruments on a probe, land it on Mun, and transmit the results. Build a space station with a hitchhiker and a laboratory, launch these two civilian scientists there, and return them back safely after a year. (The scientists are not trained pilots, so you'll probably want other crew as well.) Include this medical doctor in the crew of any long-term mission. (The MD is also not a trained pilot.)

[boomerdog2000]

I want to separate science from technology. Technology should progress by building bigger and more advanced rockets and launching them to more ambitious missions. This can be reasonably simulated by crew reports and EVA reports (and hopefully by probe reports in the future). If you put science parts in the rocket and fly a mission on your own, they should only waste fuel. After all, we're playing engineers and pilots, not scientists, so we don't really know what to do with those instruments.

We're playing as all 3. NASA has scientists of their own, who do their own research. The only difference is most of that research is focused on improving the technology they have or discovering new technology for space travel.

Then there could be science contracts. Put these instruments on a probe, land it on Mun, and transmit the results. Build a space station with a hitchhiker and a laboratory, launch these two civilian scientists there, and return them back safely after a year. (The scientists are not trained pilots, so you'll probably want other crew as well.) Include this medical doctor in the crew of any long-term mission. (The MD is also not a trained pilot.)

That's... just a normal contract. A private group pays you if you do the job. And with Squad talking about being able to exchange money and science; you could potentially buy science with the money from that contract.

[KerbMav]

We only unlock parts with it. It's money. In a realistic kind of perspective, if you did the tech three, you are done with science. You don't need it anymore. Why?

Yes, it money, Felipe once said (in an interview I think), that science, money and reputation would be interchangable somehow in the finished game. So after filling out the tech tree you would use science to get money or garner reputation.

I always thought of getting science as creating incentive for the industry to come up with new tech to sell to me.

So the new tech does not come from looking at rocks, but me looking at rocks and finding out stuff about other worlds drives the Kerbal economy to invest in space tech, because they see something "can be done/achieved" with rockets.

(tired, lingo skills dropping...)

[Jouni]

We're playing as all 3. NASA has scientists of their own, who do their own research. The only difference is most of that research is focused on improving the technology they have or discovering new technology for space travel.

When we design rockets, we're doing real engineering. Obviously it's simplified engineering, but real nonetheless.

The science part of KSP, on the other hand, has nothing to do with science. We're just operating instruments - a job that trained monkeys can do. Science is about planning the experiments and interpreting their results, not the actual process of running the experiments.

[FITorion]

When we design rockets, we're doing real engineering. Obviously it's simplified engineering, but real nonetheless.

The science part of KSP, on the other hand, has nothing to do with science. We're just operating instruments - a job that trained monkeys can do. Science is about planning the experiments and interpreting their results, not the actual process of running the experiments.

And this is why I switched out of Astrophysics. I didn't want to be the one analyzing the data... I wanted to be the one collecting the data. Making the observations is just as important as the other parts... without the observation there would be nothing for the boys back at the lab to analyze.

[Killerdude8]

Number Transmissions like Tempurature, Crew reports and EVA Reports should have 100% Transmission returns.

[FITorion]

Number Transmissions like Tempurature, Crew reports and EVA Reports should have 100% Transmission returns.

yes and no.

Crew reports and EVA reports already are 100% and I don't know about Temperature.

But... A case could be made for them not being 100% because that percent is not a portion of results being lost to the transmission it's a portion of the available science for that area. If you made them say 25% then they would still transmit at 100% but only get 25% of the locations science... meaning repeated crew reports and eva reports from the same area would continue to have value.

But... I don't like that either. I don't like the idea that there is a pool of science that can be depleted. That just doesn't sit right with me. I think every experiment should have a set amount of science it can get per use depending on which biome it's in. And it never stops getting that. Do a goo experiment 10,000 times in one spot and each time should return the same amount of science. And of course simple number transmissions should return full value while more complex things should need a kerbal with gear to get more value or returned for full.

Now with that you may ask what's to prevent people from doing 10,000 goos in one spot? Tedium, for one thing. The inability to clean and reuse the goo without a lab, for two. New goos would have to be sent to the location... and that takes time, for a third thing. The extremely large cost of later tech tree unlocks making doing such a thing instead of seeking out larger value experiments in other locations impractical, for a fourth reason. That last one is the only change to the tech tree that would be needed. People will grind if it is more efficient than doing something else. You have to make doing something else more efficient to avoid the grind. If you can get more science with a half hour orbital trip then spawning massive quantities of goos on the launch pad and recovering them over and over in the same period then people will do the launch.

I recognize that this approach would mean there would be large regions you would "out level" where doing further research there would not be beneficial and you would leave them behind... but the current system does that too... it's just that you completely unlock the tree so fast you don't notice. or more that the regions are small and close to kerbin...

Edited April 17, 2014 by FITorion

[Creature]

The reason career doesn't feel like progression right now is that it isn't finished. The tech tree is only one piece of the puzzle and, as it stands, is used to introduce newer players to the parts in a fairly controlled fashion. That could stand changing to some extent, but the currently released information we have is that science is only one of three "currencies" that will all be interchangeable. So once you unlock all of the tech tree there is still incentive to get more science because it will provide you with additional "income". Subject to change according to the dev's whims, or course, but that's what we know right now.

This is true. But still the only way I see the situation changing is if we're gonna be starved on other resources so that we're constantly forced to exchange science to money/reputation or doing non-scientific missions just to keep the program going. Honestly I don't believe that will happen, but we'll see. Still, I generally like the way science is implemented so as long as they keep similar mindset it's all good. There's always mods to make things harder.

[Fendleton]

Science must have realism

...by which I mean "paint the parts brown and set up massive spotlights to provide enough bloom to boil away the oceans"

On a more serious note, I'd love to see more science stuff to do around the place to make large station in LKO have a scientific purpose....but I'm guessing that the implementation of contracts and the like will make the direction of the science system a bit more obvious.

[Ruinsage]

Thanks for voting everyone, and please continue to do so . I'm lad to see that the poll seems to have reached the point where I can make some conclusions from it:

People want probe functionality, which I get, as it is also the functionality i miss the most in KSP

Rovers have yet to be mentioned, but a fair amount of people have voted for rover functionality and unmanned surface sampling, so maybe SQUAD should look into that as well?

My station functionality suggestion was stupid (sad face)

A lot more people wants change than the amount that want's things to stay the way it is. I hope someone from squad sees this poll, and that they have a discussion about it

UNLESS

some of the functionality they plan to implement with contracts makes probes, stations, bases and rovers needed in the game, in which case a science overhaul is less needed, and just something that would be nice whenever they have the time for it.

[78stonewobble]

Personally I'd like there to be incentives to use a variety of science gathering missions. Both surface and orbital.

Getting to the surface should give science. Returning samples should give quite a bit of science. But I'd like for ie. satelite mapping and orbital stations to give science too.

How it should all be balanced is a bigger question. Maybe different pools of science for all the categories? Combined with tweaking cost of the techtree.