Repetition isn't necessarily tedious, but science is. Why, and what should we do?

[chaos_forge]

I think one possibility is to relate it to a possible discovery mechanic. As in, at the beginning of the game, all of the radius/mass/etc information would be unavailable, and as you sent missions and did experiments, you would unlock more data and possibly even more flavor text in the descriptions tab in the map view. This mechanic would also synergize very well with a rover/lander simulation facility: first you send out an unmanned probe to take some data, and then you can use that data to build a good lander/rover for your kerbals. Keeping with the theme of discovery, a dedicated mapping part would be pretty cool.

Another big thing Squad should fix is relating the science parts more to actual science. I don't want magical science point generating black boxes like a "Mystery Goo Container". Give us spectrometers, magnetometers, cameras, what have you! Don't give us a "Negative Gravioli Detector", give us a camera that measures mass through gravitational lensing! KSP has one of the nerdiest communities out there, so why not relate the science parts more to real science? It would both please those who already know what the instruments are, and encourage those who don't to learn about them.

Actually, I feel like the original science parts (thermometer, barometer, accelerometer) do a lot better job of this than the new science parts. As in, when I land on a new body, I will check the thermometer not to get points but simply out of curiousity. I still remember landing my first probe on Eve and going "wow, this place has 2g of gravity and 5atm of atmosphere!" The new science parts, particularly the goo and materials bays (the atmosphere sensor could easily be made to display atmospheric composition or something like that), have really lost this sense of curiousity. In general, I think Squad should go through all of their science parts and make sure that for each one, there is a reason to click it out of curiosity, not just to get points. Take advantage of the nerdiness of your community and your game.

In general, science should feel a lot more like making discoveries than simply collecting points.

EDIT: TL;DR: The only science parts worth keeping in the game are those you'd want to click out of curiosity, not just to get points.

Edited May 15, 2014 by chaos_forge

[Threadsinger]

I've always experienced science as XP points; I've only played career mode (and heavily modded to boot!), so I've always enjoyed having to successfully get to a location that generates science, return it intact, and collect the science as a reward enabling me to unlock new parts. I've had more than a few occasions where I've collected science with the intent of returning, not transmitting, only to discover that the craft I sent can't, or lacks the tools necessary to land safely (although this can be mitigated somewhat by an intercept). Even with intercepts, I was still terrible at them, so it was transmit or lose it all, or attempt near-impossible powered landings where the science modules physically survive. And if they did, wow, what a rush! I might have to repeat a mission a few times to get enough to unlock some cool parts, but isn't that the point of career mode?

I mean, if you want to do away with incremental upgrades (distributed through the XP-mechanic of science), why play career mode at all?

[Jouni]

The funny thing about experience points is that by the 90s, RPG designers generally agreed that they were a poor and mostly obsolete game mechanic. When Windows XP came out, people laughed at the name, as it implied that the new Windows was old-fashioned and mostly obsolete as well. But then computer game designers picked up the mechanic, and now we have XPs everywhere, just like in the old bad times.

[comham]

I've always thought a simple collectable system along with a detector thing (like the anomaly detector in STALKER) would work quite well for science. Collect+combine a whole set to get science points; sets of varying sizes and amounts, so you'd have eg a set of 4 within 50m of each other, a set of 4 within 1km of each other that's worth more but you'd need a rover to do it in a reasonable amount of time. The objects themselves just as simple low-poly physics-enabled rocks or pebbles or meteoriod fragments.

[Laie]

- In Doom (and all of its followers) you repetitively shoot monsters/enemies/targets.

- In RTS games, you repetitively order units around.

[...]

I think this gets at the heart of the problem with the current science mechanic. You can't get any better at it the more you do it because there's no skill to be learned, and the action has no effect on the state of the game or the gameplay. This is why it seems so "grindy" (heck, at least in, say, WoW, the grinding usually involves using your combat skills).

As far as I'm concerned, my job is landing the Kerbals somewhere and getting them safely back to Kerbin. Going EVA on the Mun was a lot of fun at first, and on Minmus Bill & Bob took turns jumping over the lander. But that kind of thing quickly wears off. After running and jumping for a while, the things that are left to do (that the game makes me do) aren't exactly entertaining: Temperature scan? Check. Four mystery goos? Check. Check. Check. Check. Ad nauseam, and on a larger scale as well: Highlands? Check. West Crater? Check.

To me, KSP is a virtual erector set: what I enjoy most is designing stuff and see how it works / making it work. Designing a vessel that could land and come back was cool. Designing a Lablander that could restore it's equipment and land several times was fun, too. But after a few iterations, I had a near-perfect vessel and still many biomes to go. At that point, it became checking boxes. I'd rather have gone on establishing a space station or a refueling depot on Minmus or something.

I think one possibility is to relate it to a possible discovery mechanic. As in, at the beginning of the game, all of the radius/mass/etc information would be unavailable, and as you sent missions and did experiments, you would unlock more data and possibly even more flavor text in the descriptions tab in the map view.

THIS. I'd not go as far, but I like the direction.

I've sent up several barometers just to see how the air gets thinner up there, using that information for a few gutsy-feely rule-of-thumb calculations regarding the gravity turn. I wish I could do some measurements indicating how much thrust I lose to drag -- and I wish there was a data recorder so I don't have to scribble down notes at a time that's frantic enough as it is. A data recorder would also require a means to display the readings in-game -- I'm afraid thats more than one can of worms. I don't expect it to happen soon, or at all.

But anyways, what I'm trying to get at: there's a lot of data I'd like to gather just to build better rockets and fly better missions. If that could be done in-game, and also translated into science points...? I certainly wouldn't complain.

The only other thing along these lines I can think of is radar mapping. It came up a few times already as a tool to identify biomes; I'd like to point out that it could also help with the problem of the dark sides being pitch black. If the game can't handle dark shades, how about a false-color "radar view" or something?

[allmhuran]

To me, KSP is a virtual erector set: what I enjoy most is designing stuff and see how it works / making it work. Designing a vessel that could land and come back was cool.

Yes, that's precisely it! Designing a vessel and seeing if it works is fun because you're constantly changing something about the game that feeds back into how you play it. It looks different, it flies different, it has different capabilities. This isn't true about science... as you say it becomes "check, check, check check ad nauseum".

To put this another way: KSP was fun without science. But try to imagine a game that was just the science part of KSP without anything else. This would be a game composed of a dialog box with a button that you click over and over, and nothing more. Obviously an extremely boring game!

Discovery could certainly be worked in somehow. Of course, there is the danger that you just have to click the same button even more as you fly around to make sure you don't miss any potential discoveries. Allowing some things to be done automatically on rails warp might help - the challenging and fun part would be to put your rocket in the right kind of orbit, with the right kind of inclination, in order to scan as much as possible (or to scan areas marked as "interesting"). It introduces piloting skill into data collection. It's just a small example, but it demonstrates that the activity needs to engage and challenge the player somehow.

A recent reddit thread talked about part failures. Not quite the topic at hand, but another thing that could be made fun using the same principles. Random part failures would just be frustrating. But consider a situation where the player can predict failures (by your kerbals warning you of problems, creating a new interaction between the player and the kerbals), and avoid part failures by "playing the game well". Perhaps sudden jerky changes of throttle accelerate engine wear, so smooth throttle control becomes a new skill. Perhaps if you have a manned craft you can take a toolbox and repair materials with you, which creates a reason (and a realistic one at that) to send manned instead of robotic missions, and gives you something to do on EVA that will actually affect the game. Perhaps the toolbox and materials have mass, so we've introduced a new challenge to building rockets - a tradeoff between lower weight on the one hand, or the ability to repair parts as they wear out on the other.

Introducing this kind of gameplay-involving-challenges-and-skill into science seems to be much harder than it is for the example of part failures. But surely we have enough imaginative people playing the game to get some really well thought out suggestions.

[Superfluous J]

I just want to be able to right click the pod and say "collect all science on this vessel." Make it able to be in an action group and if so, it always happens last.

Then you get into a new biome, hit "1" and take all the readings and have them instantly be put in your pod.

Edited May 15, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[CaptRobau]

I have no problem with the science system as an XP point system. That's a simple way to make the tech tree work and with contracts around the corner, the interchange between reputation, science, etc. will remove the over reliance on simple science spam. What I do want is a science system based on knowledge. The current blurb system is bad, not just because it repeats too often and is focused more on humor than anything really interesting but because it doesn't really help you at all. In real life space programs science results in you learning why something is why it is (why did the Moon form, were those geological forms on Mars caused by rivers, etc.) and/or knowing what it takes to do a future mission. For example two sub-satellites launched by Apollo 15 and 16 showed us that the gravitational field of the Moon was irregular except for a few so-called frozen orbits. Discovering something like that in KSP would be amazing, even if you could potentially find that on the wiki. Here are some ideas on how discovery could be the driving force behind the science system, using just the current parts and currently known data.

Thermometer

While the tempature scanner is pretty bugged, if it worked as it should it could be used to help you plan a few missions. Let's say Moho still had that super hot atmosphere that it had a few updates ago. What if there were some valleys that were colder than the rest of the planet. To know where we could land our manned lander or probe, we could put a mapping probe in orbit with a temperature scanner. It would map the planet while we were doing other things, with a temperature layer being available in the map view. After a few orbits it's found a few spots that are probably safe enough to allow a landing without overheating our ships. Your Kerbal scientists now also more accurately know more about Moho's temperature differences.

Barometer

Looking up at Eve you have a feeling that it has a very dense atmosphere. But you need to know exactly, because you want to send a manned mission and you need an indication on how it compares to Kerbin. So you send a probe with a barometer through Kerbin's atmosphere and later send one plummeting through Eve's atmosphere. This gives you an image that you can access that looks something like the one below. It won't magically build you an Eve return vehicle, but it will make the job a bit easier and has given Kerbal scientists food for thought.

Biomes

Your planning your next mission to the Mun, but its cratered surface makes it hard to tell some biomes apart. Thus you send an orbiter probe to the Mun that maps the planet's biomes, giving you a map layer that looks something like this (I had an issue with UniverseReplacer, which is why the texture doesn't line up). This allows you to pinpoint your landing to that not so obvious biome that you missed on your previous few landings. You still have to do the work to get science from biomes on the ground, but you've learned something about the geographic differences of the Mun and made future missions easier.

Terrain Height

Eve is hard. It has a thick atmosphere making it very beneficial to land and take off from a high mountain top or if you're using a mod is completely covered in clouds (something I imagine stock will introduce someday too) making a dry landing a bit of a gamble. Thus you send a probe or have your manned spacecraft make a few orbits with a part that can scan through the clouds and make a terrain map. Now scientists know what Eve is all about and you know what mountain or non-wet place to aim for with your lander.

Image Quality

In the map view you can see every single celestial body in quite high detail, ruining a lot of the surprise when you actually get there. What if the map view's celestial bodies aside from Kerbin and its moons had a bad image quality (pixelated or blurred). It'd make it harder for you to accurately pinpoint your approach (will this orbit get me over flat terrain or over mostly hills and canyons?) and when you do get there or send a probe to map it, it'd feel like you don't already know the planet in an out from the map view.

How to do this?

The best way to approach this would be, I think, to use a mix of science-over-time and the current click-to-do-science. Once you get past the challenge of getting into a stable orbit that takes you over most biomes, orbital science using the current system is as challenge-less as can be. It's just waiting to click a button while over a certain biome. Thus a SCANsat-like system of automatic mapping is just as challenge-less as clicking, but a million times less boring and annoying. On the ground its different as doing nothing will not get you anywhere else. There the click-to-do-science works much better. This science can add to the visual map layers too, by mapping a radius around the Kerbal/craft doing the science.

[Laie]

(the previous post)

I'm tempted to quote this in full. Now what can we do to actually get that into mainline (there's mods doing at least 2/3rds of it already, aren't there)?

[rkman]

I think a task becomes boring when it is simple (has no or very little variation) and it has to be done many times, such as: EVA, EVA report, reenter capsule, timewarp, repeat. The result is hit-and-miss, with the player having very little control over whether it's hit or miss. It doesn't even matter if it's a miss, it just means you spend more time trying to get a hit, or give up. In that it is very different than holding shift for throttle up.

Shooting monsters generally involves tactics and taking the environment and the monsters' skills into account, which can make it interesting. But killing the same monsters in the same place over and over quickly becomes boring. Clicking parts together in the VAB involves deciding which parts and how to click 'm together - the clicking is only a small part of we do in the VAB.

Not sure if this matters much, just pointing it out: XP in KSP (science points) is unusual in that it is used as a currency, while in most games XP (level) just needs to be a certain amount in order to be able to use certain in-game items, and a currency (game money, tokens) might be needed to purchase those items. You don't usually spend XP to get something, rather XP just keeps accumulating.

[CaptRobau]

I'm tempted to quote this in full. Now what can we do to actually get that into mainline (there's mods doing at least 2/3rds of it already, aren't there)?

While they no doubt check threads like this, a practical example such as a mod might help them understand how well linking science to practical knowledge in a visual way could work. As you said, there's bits and pieces of a better science system to be found in mods, but they're too scattered. I made one as well (don't have time to update it atm) but its far from perfect. What we need is a sort of NovaPunch of science mods, one that combines all the good parts from the various science mods. Pooling ideas and skill into one larger mod might also help it become better as a whole.

[Unabled]

I have been perusing the forums for discussions on how to improve science for weeks, and I really like the ideas presented in this thread!

First, I had to decide where it is that KSP's strengths are and where it is they start to break down. I think they break down at a similar point...

I think KSP's true strengths are more than just basic rocket design/flight:

• Engineering solutions to problems. You have a destination you want to get to and explore, and you design a means of reaching that height. You get an idea in your head of something you want to try, and then focus on making that happen. This KSP does very well.
  
• Sense of Scale and wonder: KSP has a sense of scale and perspective that never ceases to impress me. You can approach a crater and not realize just how large it is until you land in it and try to rove to the other side. Even with KSP's reduced solar system the effect still holds up. I get that bit of wonder every time I leave the Kerbin system, reminding me of Carl Sagan's pale blue dot.
  
• A good dose of fear, and a whole lot of curiosity. I always quick save before attempting landing or anything critical because I don't want to lose my Kerbals, or all the hard work I put into a design that I strongly think should work. I worry about running out of fuel a little too early, landing a little too hard and breaking something but I do it all because I want to accomplish landing on an alien world and exploring it!
  

Then this is where we hit a bit of a snag. As soon as you touch down and cut your engines on another world all the pressure is off, the danger is gone. Along with that is the realization that there isn't much to see and explore either unless you take off and move to another spot on the planet with vastly different terrain. Now the Mun is more interesting to visit and look at with its' procedural craters, still remaining one of my favorites, but even that only goes so far.

After reading so many players' thoughts on how to improve KSP's science/exploration these are some of the ideas I have on how to improve the KSP experience:

Don't eliminate the sense of danger:

Space is exciting, space is beautiful, but space is also dangerous. Anywhere you go in Space, you have to bring what you need with you (unless you can find some resources at your destination). As of right now, KSP doesn't convey this much at all. We have fuel and electricity as our only real limitations on travel, and while that is good for starting out, I really think they should look into expanding this.

Now I'm not talking about some super detailed resource mechanic, but at least some kind of abstraction. I think some kind of Life-support is a necessity to convey this. With the new difficulty scaling being worked on this could be disabled if too challenging or scaled back. I think this would be most important on EVAs. EVA'ed Kerbals should have a limited supply of oxygen, and thus a limited amount of time available to be outside the craft.. I'll call this back again in just a little bit.

Provide the player with things to explore and discover:

We all have that drive to go out and explore the KSP solar system and all its' varied celestial bodies. We plan for the worst to come (or not), plan out an entire mission, we choose the most interesting landing zone and arrive at our destination excited, ready to explore and discover, only to find a lack of things to satisfy this desire.

Squad needs to really focus on what I think is the major missing feature in KSP at this moment in time, the lack of anything significant to see or do once you arrive at your destination. If Squad could figure out a way to flesh out this critical phase of the Space experience, this game would be propelled way above where it already is.

How?:

I have seen numerous good ideas that would go a long ways towards addressing this major issue, and this is my attempt to tie some of those together.

Picture this: You arrive at your destination, having mapped out or spotted for geologically significant areas ahead of time either from orbit or with a probe. You have specific scientific instruments and packages on board with you, and a few Kerbals on board your lander. Why? We really can only control one Kerbal at a time. What if the scope of the game changes to where now you can either control one Kerbal and orderthe others, or control all of them like you would in a real time strategy. WHAt?! That's nuts! Go with me on this one.

You have some objectives to meet, packages that need to be deployed in specific areas, and scientific experiments that need to be setup and run. You have a limited amount of EVA time/total mission time based on your lander's supplies and your Kerbals crew rest cycles (optional with difficulty), so you work to accomplish all you can by assigning the best kerbal for the tasks that need to be done. The need to collect varied samples from a landing site or certain experiments location setup requirements would justify the use of a rover. The EVA limit would make the thing just uncomfortable enough to remind you that until you are landed safe on Kerbin, you are in a hostile environment.

I know there are those against a time mechanic for science, but I think we need something like it. If we do not include some sort of setup time or something that delays your collecting of scientific data, there will never be a reason to land on a planet for more than a just few minutes before taking off again.

The story of the KSP Universe could be told and expanded upon through discoveries either you, or the science team on Kerbin makes through your exploration of the solar system.

For me, right now the most interesting scientific instruments are the ones that actually tell me something about the planet I am on: the thermometer, the barometric sensor, the graviolli, and the accelerometer. These instruments give you actual data relating to the world around you, and these have made me feel far more connected and interested in the universe than any other.

If these types of instruments could be expanded and enhanced, we would be well on our way to a more interesting KSP.

[SkyRex94]

Yes another topic about the change of the Science System. I also feel it needs a change to get actual Gameplay out of the Science System. And the more threads and the more people i see with similar hopes and ideas the more optimistic i get that squad might actually read some of the Threads and change the System to be more Fun.

Let me quote my Ideas for the Science System Overhaul:

Activities:Problem is as we all know, there is literally nothing to do after landing on another planet (or even on Kerbin) unless clicking on parts. And simply adding biomes to everywhere isn't the answer, because there is nothing to do on mun and minmus too.

A ressource system won't happen, they said. Why we're doing mission in Real Life? Money for bringing things for a customer from A to B OR Exploration and Research of the unknown. And i think the contracts are mainly providing the funding of your Exploration Missions. It's an Exploration Game after all,so the Exploration has to be fun (not just the way to get to destination).

That leads to:

Science System Overhaul:

I think we agree simply clicking on several parts to finish the experiments is not realy Exploring-Fun.

So i think there should be certain ways of actually performing the Experiments (Maybe Squad can use parts of the Contract-conditions-system Code for that)

First, you can't do everything everywhere. And you can't do biome specific things in 'high' Orbit, like the gravioli, please remove that that makes absolutly no sense.Suggestions for specific Experiments:

- only one remaining clicking Experiment which provides Data Readouts like Temp. and Pressure

- a Terrain Analysis, which requires you to move a certain distance over the Surface ( for Rovers)

- a long time Lab Experiment (Maybe use the current Lab for it) Requires to be manned and requires a certain time in the enviroment (Surface,Space) before yielding the Science ( Base and Station Use) e.g. 100 days

- a drill-core Experimet, analysises the deeper regions of the ground, but needs like 2 hours to finish

- a dive exploration Experiment , like above but only in 'splashed down'

- an impactor experiment, working as in interstellar, with a experiment active while an impactor has to hit the ground

- a meassurement experiment, requires a minimum of three experiments further apart than e.g. 10 km to measure out the planet (giving multiple landing sites a better purpose)

- maybe a solar particle collector and analysis, works only in Orbit, has a readout for magnetosphere and only yields the science if in high enough particle density aka magnetic field density (or solar orbit) so you have to find the place first.

- a weather research experiment, requires to be in atmosphere and under 10 m/s relative to surface. maybe requires a ballon part

- an orbital observing experiment, requires to be in orbit for a long time around a body e.g. 1 year. *Maybe modelled like a Telescope

- and maybe seasonal Experiments, which yield only 25% of its value per season of the planet, so a permanently base makes sense

-a life behavior experiment, maybe like the Science Jr. Bay for researching Plants and microorganisms exposed to the enviroment, requires some random(!) time to finish in each situation, so you may have to check back after some time to check if something actually happend.

- a Assemble-First-Experiment: consists of a part, which can be docked to itself and form a bigger structure. Maybe something like a Particle-Accelerator. So you'd have a slight curved Part, but if you' dock like 20 of them together it'd form a Ring with 1km Radius. Then you can ran the Experiment in that Enviroment (not biome specific), but you'd have to launch several missions first and assemble it somewhere to do so and it makes a nice objective for a big base or station. (It could actually be some kind of a substitude for Ressources, if actually no ressources will be implemented, and it'd be only one new part and some Coding to add a deeper space-building purpose)

Biomes shouldn't yield the same Science, the first you land in should give you 100%, the second 50% , 3rd 40% , 4th 30%... That would encourage to explore new planets but not punish to stay. And the most new Knowledge is gained on the First Landing in Real Life too.

Recreated Tech Tree, more logical and more Nodes. Either make it more expensive in total or decrease the science payout of experiments and contracts.

* Adding new non-Part Nodes for Endgame---like the ability to Track Asteroids unlocked through Science points.

And a basic Antenna Range, so the big Dishes have actually a use.

(But after all that won't lead to big bases , but it doesn't in real life either. After Apollo Missions no one got there again, because right know there is no reason to do so. Infrastructure comes with ressorces (for the RL moon that could be Helium-3 sometime), so if there won't be one Ressource in KSP you have to get a Mod for senseful Base building, but thats also realistic.)

And my two Threads regarding the Topic:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93005-The-Career-motivator-The-SCIENCE-System

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/89221-Devs-Read-this-What-KSP-needs

[rkman]

I don't think the fact that you need to press and hold Shift for a second when you want to throttle up your ship is any less tedious or repetitive than current means of collecting science.

Except maybe for the part where you don't usually spend half an hour only adjusting throttle, without even knowing whether it will have the desired effect.

Edited September 12, 2014 by rkman

[Andrew Hansen]

I think a good example in this discussion is the mod Kethane. You know how you scan planets for Kethane? Well, imagine that each time you get over a new hexagon on the terrain, you have to right-click the scanner and press "Scan." This is just ridiculous. Instead, the scanner is always scanning the terrain, and every now and then you come across a bunch of Kethane! Oh what excitement! You might even stand by to watch the scanning process because every now and then you discover something amazing!

The same thing could go for science. You don't know where biomes are, but as you're scanning the surface, every now and then you find a new biome and collect more science! How thrilling! And then of course you get to read the science reports and see some goofy message (by the way, the default messages like "You collect the data" should never be displayed). But science instruments should never have to be right-clicked to collect science - they should do it automatically. And you shouldn't have to take your Kerbal outside the capsule either for collecting EVA data - you can see perfectly well from inside the capsule.

If this was implemented, science would transition from being a boring gameplay element to actually being fun!

Of course, having huge changes like earning science towards different technologies based on where you go would be nice too, but for the near future, a simple solution like having all science be done automatically would sure help a lot.

[Empiro]

For me, a big thing I want to see are more unique challenges when doing science. For example, sending a Kerbal on a mission is a unique challenge -- I need a heavy pod instead of a tiny probe core, and if I'm playing with TAC, I need provisions. In addition, I want to be more careful since I don't want him to die a fiery death. The Mystery Goo and Science Jr. both present a bit of a different challenge since I have to figure how how to place these fairly awkward parts because they tend to make your lander tall and/or unbalanced (and is definitely something you need to worry about if playing with FAR).

However, the other experiments don't do that -- thermometers, gravioli sensors they're tiny, massless parts, and just add more clicks for me to do. Even when I have a Kerbal along, the 3 experiments of EVA reports, Crew Report, and Surface Sample all behave exactly the same way (other than Surface Samples requiring you to remember packing a ladder on some worlds). There's no reason why all three experiments can't be collapsed into one larger report (that covers what the surface is like and how everything feels to the Kerbal). I also agree with Andrew above that it shouldn't require any clicks, and it should just pop up automatically.

I think there are lots of ways for experiments to present more unique challenges. For example, having more bigger and heavier parts like drills that require some planning to carry with you. Perhaps other experiments require you to bring a heavy sample back. Maybe some experiments need a particular arrangement of parts. We can add more unique challenges based on the planet as well. For example, if you want to land on Eve, perhaps you need to invest in something that can withstand heavy pressures, and something that can withstand extremely high temperatures if you wish to land on Moho.

Another thing I'd love to see especially is that now we have contracts is to see science tied tightly in with contracts. Make it so that you gain very little science (if any at all) outside of contracts and have the contracts ask you to do something very specific -- like what some of the Fine Print and MCE contracts are asking, things like landing in a specific location and driving around.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Empiro

[Bilfr3d]

A mechanic that involves a skill you can improve upon?

What about, lets say, on each kerbal they have a certain 'skill level' of 'knowledge'. Perhaps the current stupidity meter comes into play. The higher the stupidity of the kerbal, when collecting science, the lower amount of science that sample or report will yield because of, for example:

a) the kerbal not correctly handling a sample (because of their stupidity)

the kerbal not correctly making a science report (because of their stupidity).

So now lets say that with each poor report and sample, they get better because they start to get the hang of things (and they are sick of the scientists yelling at them). Over time of doing experiments, the stupidity will get lower, yielding you more science as you create reports and take samples. You could also send certain kerbals into 'science training' which costs funds, but reduces their stupidity a certain amount. With this method though, each science experiment would also have to be rejigged, so each experiment can be done an unlimited amount of times, but only up until a point it reaches a designated 'max science' point where you finally stop getting science from that experiment. This would make it more realistic too, as you would expect that the scientists won't have all the info they need from poor reports and badly handled samples. Just my idea on this thing.

[Unabled]

For me, a big thing I want to see are more unique challenges when doing science. For example, sending a Kerbal on a mission is a unique challenge -- I need a heavy pod instead of a tiny probe core, and if I'm playing with TAC, I need provisions. In addition, I want to be more careful since I don't want him to die a fiery death. The Mystery Goo and Science Jr. both present a bit of a different challenge since I have to figure how how to place these fairly awkward parts because they tend to make your lander tall and/or unbalanced (and is definitely something you need to worry about if playing with FAR).

However, the other experiments don't do that -- thermometers, gravioli sensors they're tiny, massless parts, and just add more clicks for me to do. Even when I have a Kerbal along, the 3 experiments of EVA reports, Crew Report, and Surface Sample all behave exactly the same way (other than Surface Samples requiring you to remember packing a ladder on some worlds)...

I think there are lots of ways for experiments to present more unique challenges. For example, having more bigger and heavier parts like drills that require some planning to carry with you. Perhaps other experiments require you to bring a heavy sample back. Maybe some experiments need a particular arrangement of parts. We can add more unique challenges based on the planet as well. For example, if you want to land on Eve, perhaps you need to invest in something that can withstand heavy pressures, and something that can withstand extremely high temperatures if you wish to land on Moho.

Another thing I'd love to see especially is that now we have contracts is to see science tied tightly in with contracts. Make it so that you gain very little science (if any at all) outside of contracts and have the contracts ask you to do something very specific -- like what some of the Fine Print and MCE contracts are asking, things like landing in a specific location and driving around.

Empiro, I am with you mostly all the way on a lot of these points!! Oh and in regards to thermometers, and gravioli sensors, I was using those as an example of experiments I would like to see more of because they provide actual data about where you are. Every planet has its own unique data features, and I would like to see those types of instruments improved and expanded on. For me, it was just more interesting to watch the pressure change as I went from vacuum down into Duna's atmosphere then reading text. It seemed to make the Kerbal Universe come to life a bit more than the flavor text from the Goo or Science Jr., but I suppose the flavor text has its place as well.

I've had another week of thinking about this and reading other forum posts out there. I'm going to take a shot at another idea I had, and kind of an add on to my earlier post as well.

This is an attempt to tie contracts, science/exploration, and reputation all together in a different way then we have it now.

PRE-Launch:

What if starting back at the VAB as you build a craft (if you already have one built then at the launchpad) you are given a prompt asking where your intended destination is.

Using the Mun as an example, let's say you select that as the destination your ship is going for. At that point "Kerbal Scientists" present you with a Map of the Mun and various 'possible landing zones' or areas of interest all depending on how well you have scouted it with mapping satellites or actually orbiting the Mun. You could either select one of those zones or not, and this would be mainly as a means of guiding the player if they have no idea where they want to land or what a good landing spot would be. If you happen to select one of these 'suggested' landing zones, or more than one if you think you're able, you are presented with a outline of what the scientists would like you to accomplish in that zone.

Say they have been analyzing previous photos, or mapping images you took on an earlier mission and pick out areas that interest them and essentially come up with a procedural mission (Contract?).

You would have a breakdown of what experiments they would like you to run, differing areas they want you to collect samples from, etc. When you make for the landing zone, the closer you get to the marked area, the better off you will be when it comes to collecting everything.

Landed on the Surface:

I still like this idea I had before, so i'll bring it up again here but elaborate more on what I had in mind:

You have an idea of what experiments need to be ran, where they need to be setup and where samples need to be collected from. You are limited by either life support/oxygen supply on the lander that your Kerbals draw from, or just by an EVA oxygen supply; I haven't decided which sounds best yet. You do have a limited amount of EVA oxygen though and while you could board the lander to resupply, you have a limited amount of 'EVA oxygen' on board so you would only draw that down more. I wouldn't want it ultra punishing, but something to be mindful of just to keep you challenged and invested that much more.

So you have a limited amount of time on the surface, and a lot of things to get accomplished! So this is where your Kerbal's traits and abilities come into play. Certain Kerbals would be better at running experiments or photographing a site or whatever, use your imagination. Those you could assign to perform those tasks and they would get to work on it without any additional required input. If you so desired, you could control a Kerbal to do some of the tasks yourself, but it isn't required. Yes this would require some AI for them, but I think for extra Kerbals to be useful on any kind of EVA mission we might need something like this.

*Side Note* Biomes were a good start and maybe a good 'broad' region division, but I think that any good landing zone should have almost a subdivision; a scattering of different rocks and features worth checking out. How close they are would separate a good 'interesting' landing zone from a bad one. The terrain scatter system currently in play could be very well used for this purpose.

Alright! So you've ran your experiments, collected more than enough samples, and are ready to head home-- but wait!! You have collected too many samples and are overloaded?! Well now you have to select which would be the most valuable samples to keep and dump the rest, collect your data and finally blast off. Samples would have weight you have to take into consideration. Can't have one lander collecting everything now can we?

Reputation:

Where would this come into play? Well aside from the normal returning kerbals alive and intact, I've thought it would be interesting to include a public interest type of affect on your reputation.

Rewinding back to when you first decided you were heading to the Mun: that is something new! Kerbals on surface of the Mun?! Even if your first few ships that make the attempt fail (Without killing Kerbals), the ultimate goal is still the Mun and this boosts reputation because it's exciting! Now you would have to be careful... Make repeated trips to the Mun to uninteresting areas, or come back relatively empty handed and you risk losing public interest in your space program and thus rep.

Continue to push a space frontier? Then you keep up the public interest, funding, etc. Anyway, just a thought to try to make the Kerbal universe come to life and provide some motivation to try to reach higher.

Empiro, you mentioned utilizing each planet's unique features to increase challenge? I love this concept.

I would love to have to take into account Eve's extreme heat and pressure, dust storms or cold spells on Duna (someday?), or any other unique features that would exist. The Mun has it's Mun Arches already! This Phenomena needs to be studied!!! I think eventually every body needs to have cool unique features like this.

Time to end this. Thanks for your time if you read this much, I refuse to let these type of threads die!!

[mattinoz]

A mechanic that involves a skill you can improve upon?

What about, lets say, on each kerbal they have a certain 'skill level' of 'knowledge'. Perhaps the current stupidity meter comes into play. The higher the stupidity of the kerbal, when collecting science, the lower amount of science that sample or report will yield because of, for example:

a) the kerbal not correctly handling a sample (because of their stupidity)

the kerbal not correctly making a science report (because of their stupidity).

So now lets say that with each poor report and sample, they get better because they start to get the hang of things (and they are sick of the scientists yelling at them). Over time of doing experiments, the stupidity will get lower, yielding you more science as you create reports and take samples. You could also send certain kerbals into 'science training' which costs funds, but reduces their stupidity a certain amount. With this method though, each science experiment would also have to be rejigged, so each experiment can be done an unlimited amount of times, but only up until a point it reaches a designated 'max science' point where you finally stop getting science from that experiment. This would make it more realistic too, as you would expect that the scientists won't have all the info they need from poor reports and badly handled samples. Just my idea on this thing.

Why stop there?

I think the Kerbals themselves should earn skills, so instead of mechJab autopilot, your Kerbals actually fly the ships, on there own. You have to train them by taking the controls yourself. Or have them fly missions with trainers. A courageous Kerbal might learn quicker a stupid kerbal might fly less efficiently within the same skill level.

There could be a catch unlike the science tree the skill tree could lock off branches once you head down them they lock out other branches. In effect creating mission specialists. So a pilot might become good at orbit and transfers but no good at docking or controlled landing. A space plane pilot might be rubbish with no atmosphere to work with, put him in a lander heading to the Mum and well he's going to land hard maybe to hard.

All this could be very live in how it effects the game play.