More education mixed into the game?

[THX1138]

I guess the developers already have a lot on their plates (can't they just hire more people? According to Wikipedia, they have only two?) but I'd like there to be more education mixed into the fun; I'd like to learn while I play, instead of being totally reliant on outside sources. I play in career mode. Maybe, when I unlock science after completing a mission and returning to the space centre, a chief scientist Kerbal pops up and tells me stuff related to what I've done (and maybe tips on how to make it easier in the future). I guess there are many possible opportunities to mix that stuff in there.

[Deathsoul097]

I guess the developers already have a lot on their plates (can't they just hire more people? According to Wikipedia, they have only two?) but I'd like there to be more education mixed into the fun; I'd like to learn while I play, instead of being totally reliant on outside sources. I play in career mode. Maybe, when I unlock science after completing a mission and returning to the space centre, a chief scientist Kerbal pops up and tells me stuff related to what I've done (and maybe tips on how to make it easier in the future). I guess there are many possible opportunities to mix that stuff in there.

Lolwut? There is more than two people on the Dev Team, just read the Devnotes Tuesdays.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I actually think this is something that would be handy, though very hard to implement. How would it know exactly what or how you've done something? And how would a Bot know how to "correct" things, which may well be intentional? Simply, IMHO, this would be way too hard and way too innaccurate to implement.

[WinkAllKerb'']

actually (10 char) wink@dsalphanum

[LethalDose]

I guess the developers already have a lot on their plates (can't they just hire more people? According to Wikipedia, they have only two?) but I'd like there to be more education mixed into the fun; I'd like to learn while I play, instead of being totally reliant on outside sources. I play in career mode. Maybe, when I unlock science after completing a mission and returning to the space centre, a chief scientist Kerbal pops up and tells me stuff related to what I've done (and maybe tips on how to make it easier in the future). I guess there are many possible opportunities to mix that stuff in there.

The wikipedia is woefully out of date on a lot of topics, but yeah, it's a pretty small crew. I'm not sure what the status of KerbalEdu is.

Otherwise, don't underestimate the power of tangential learning. It's actually a pretty powerful learning tool because it plants the seed of curiosity, but then lets the recipient learn how to go find the information on their own. Being spoon fed information actually tends to have a negative impact on curiosity.

[MR4Y]

This is not a very wise marketing decision. Most people in general hate educational games and educational things in games.

[MKI]

Truthfully the key elements you learn form playing the game are the only ones anyone wants to learn.

The real science you do in the game really consists of managing space vectors and handling realistic space travel. Without learning any of it you won't get to orbit or anywhere.

Some more helpful tutorials is really all that is needed. Flying in space realistically is just as fun, or more fun than doing so in any other unrealistic game. As said above shoving raw scientific information into the face of players is not a good thing. The current way of presenting legit science to the player is only offered, never forced.

But if one wants to learn they will and will appreciate the hand of a solid tutorial of how to play the game.

Learning the game now, makes you learn some science in the form of basic orbital mechanics. Its simple, and very rewarding and what ksp is all about. That shouldn't need to change in the stock game.

[Stargate525]

As said above shoving raw scientific information into the face of players is not a good thing.

It is if that information can help you with the game. For instance, making the scientific equipment actually spit real data and base its value on the findings, rather than a generic 'you are here, have some points' scheme.

[MKI]

It is if that information can help you with the game. For instance, making the scientific equipment actually spit real data and base its value on the findings, rather than a generic 'you are here, have some points' scheme.

Ah but it doesn't do anything for the game itself. The current way of giving points to the player is pretty dumbed down and straight forward because that's what it should be, just a way to give points to the player. Yea it isn't very educational, but that isn't the point of playing the game.

I see no reasonable or practical way of making the science readouts more "scientific" without getting redundant. A veteran player wouldn't care or need any scientific readout, he just is there to get the points to continue building bigger and better rockets. A newer player wouldn't care or understand any given readout anyways. Throwing more numbers for the sake of authenticity is something not many people want or need.

Things such as giving out accurate readouts with the thermometer would be nice, but isn't necessary. Personally i would rather have more amusing messages, to replace the generic readouts many experiments give you. This still needs improvement overall, since having funny "Kerbal Science" messages is much more rewarding than hard data for a game that doesn't need it. (who cares how hot the Mun is if it isn't hot enough to do anything?)

[Josson K.]

I would be already happy with a science model that would allow for some 'real' simulated discovery. For example :

- The mun (or planets) could have a layered structure which could be discovered by seismic impact experiments. In craters the top layer would be thinner than on highlands and so on, making things a bit more varied. Based on the completion level (covered area, depth, which could in turn be based on impact energy, ie mass, velocity) the player would be awarded points. Bonus points if you find underground water deposits and so on. This would achieve two things - One: actually giving the player something to do with their toys (rockets) - ie set up a number of seismometers on different locations, based on how interesting they might be (crater, highland etc), giving a reason to use rovers, then prepare an impactor probe that has to hit an area within the seismometers proximity with a certain velocity and mass. Interesting anomalies could then be checked out further with a ground radar vehicle. This is a real multipart mission that needs some planning and is fun(crashing stuff) instead of just showing up at a place with the right equipment. The second thing is that if you stay somewhat accurate in the science you get a teaching effect about how real science is conducted (ie start out with hypothesis - "maybe ground composition in a crater is different", then prepare and conduct an experiment and possibly verify with another method) I think there are a lot of opportunities to model real life scientific experiments into the game like this without being overly difficult or complicated. KerbalEDU could complement this with an explanation how real seismic measurements work.

- Another thing are asteroids - they shouldn't just be revealed for free. Build a space telescope and assign an area of space for scanning (similar to how RemoteTech dishes work).

- Also planets. Don't show how they really look in the tracking center or the map view unless you've been close to them. Instead just show a colored ball or an 'artists impression'. Just the curiosity of players that want to actually see the planet will be enough incentive to go to those places.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Josson K.

[xcorps]

It is if that information can help you with the game. For instance, making the scientific equipment actually spit real data and base its value on the findings, rather than a generic 'you are here, have some points' scheme.

No. Just another screen to click out of existence so I can get back to the mission.

[Josson K.]

...Real Data...

No. Just another screen to click out of existence so I can get back to the mission.

I tend to agree. The "Data" you gather is pretty meaningless in the end anyway. What would be much more interesting to me would be if they modeled the scientific process of gathering the data. Showing up with the right equipment and getting some points for "data" gets boring soon. Having a process and stepwise goals to achieve what is necessary to gather the "data" could be nice gameplay IMHO. Maybe have the system flexible enough to give the player the freedom to vary the process too.(I did a small outline for an idea regarding seismic experiments above). This is actually more educational than spitting out some fictional numbers (if this is what you mean). The findings should be somewhat self-consistent though.

[Whirligig Girl]

I would be already happy with a science model that would allow for some 'real' simulated discovery. For example :

- The mun (or planets) could have a layered structure which could be discovered by seismic impact experiments. In craters the top layer would be thinner than on highlands and so on, making things a bit more varied. Based on the completion level (covered area, depth, which could in turn be based on impact energy, ie mass, velocity) the player would be awarded points. Bonus points if you find underground water deposits and so on. This would achieve two things - One: actually giving the player something to do with their toys (rockets) - ie set up a number of seismometers on different locations, based on how interesting they might be (crater, highland etc), giving a reason to use rovers, then prepare an impactor probe that has to hit an area within the seismometers proximity with a certain velocity and mass. Interesting anomalies could then be checked out further with a ground radar vehicle. This is a real multipart mission that needs some planning and is fun(crashing stuff) instead of just showing up at a place with the right equipment. The second thing is that if you stay somewhat accurate in the science you get a teaching effect about how real science is conducted (ie start out with hypothesis - "maybe ground composition in a crater is different", then prepare and conduct an experiment and possibly verify with another method) I think there are a lot of opportunities to model real life scientific experiments into the game like this without being overly difficult or complicated. KerbalEDU could complement this with an explanation how real seismic measurements work.

- Another thing are asteroids - they shouldn't just be revealed for free. Build a space telescope and assign an area of space for scanning (similar to how RemoteTech dishes work).

- Also planets. Don't show how they really look in the tracking center or the map view unless you've been close to them. Instead just show a colored ball or an 'artists impression'. Just the curiosity of players that want to actually see the planet will be enough incentive to go to those places.

RELEVANT

[Josson K.]

RELEVANT

Didn't know about your thread before, but you exactly described how I'd like the exploration of planets to be implemented.

[xcorps]

...Real Data...

I tend to agree. The "Data" you gather is pretty meaningless in the end anyway. What would be much more interesting to me would be if they modeled the scientific process of gathering the data. Showing up with the right equipment and getting some points for "data" gets boring soon. Having a process and stepwise goals to achieve what is necessary to gather the "data" could be nice gameplay IMHO. Maybe have the system flexible enough to give the player the freedom to vary the process too.(I did a small outline for an idea regarding seismic experiments above). This is actually more educational than spitting out some fictional numbers (if this is what you mean). The findings should be somewhat self-consistent though.

Not an unsound concept, but I don't want to do science. I want to do rocket. Pointy end up, fire out the back. Doing science to advance through a tech tree is fine, you get the illusion of progress. Doing science for the sake of doing science is a no go in my opinion.

Respectfully, you are describing science metagaming which I think is way out of the scope of KSP.

[Josson K.]

I can understand that, but I think you are wrong (for the career mode) In my opinion in this mode KSP is a space program simulator, which involves - among other things such as operating a communications network, space station, deep space probes - doing science (with rockets. in space). And you wouldn't actually be doing science for the sake of science since there is no actual research or data analysis involved in the process I described. You'd do science to enhance gameplay - by actually using your rockets and probes and rovers to do something.

In the sandbox mode you don't have to do all the science related stuff.

[THX1138]

Not an unsound concept, but I don't want to do science. I want to do rocket. Pointy end up, fire out the back. Doing science to advance through a tech tree is fine, you get the illusion of progress. Doing science for the sake of doing science is a no go in my opinion.

Respectfully, you are describing science metagaming which I think is way out of the scope of KSP.

Respectfully, you already have your sandbox mode to play in. Why not allow others who like to play differently have their idea of a good time also?

[Darkstar616]

Maybe a tucked away feature that gathers relevant findings to paint a larger picture of something. Say you gathered some surface samples from the mun, it would show a blurb describing the results but not in an overly complex way, like how they describe science collecting but with a bigger description for people with a knack for reading. The more data you receive on the subject would reveal crap relevant to what was gathered and in turn would generate something like this http://newscenter.lbl.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2011/07/cutaway-Earth.jpg but with descriptions and such. Science gathered from deep space, asteroids, orbits etc would slowly reveal the inner-workings of the Kerbol system and show a similar graph but of the galaxy and not just a single planet. It doesn't need to show absolutely everything but enough to cover scientific findings and give the illusion of Kerbals learning about space.

And who knows, maybe this data could be useful from a gameplay point of view and not just be paragraphs of fictional data for Squad to poop out.

[Tortoise]

I agree with the lethal dosage.

People should learn to learn independently.

[GalaxiesFinestToday]

I guess the developers already have a lot on their plates (can't they just hire more people? According to Wikipedia, they have only two?)

-modsnip-

lolwut.jpg

Back to the idea, i think that would be great for people who have just started and existing players.

Edited July 6, 2014 by vexx32
Reaction images. Really?

[RiggerLee]

Most of this game is about rocket design. The "Science" is just a point system at this point. I tossed out some ideas in another thread about how it might be more fully integrated.

But if you want to increase learning. I think you might be able to do some thing with the design and flight modes. Right now in the stock mode you are kind of in the dark unless you get out a pad of paper and try to run the numbers your self. The Engineer mod goes a log way towards putting actual numbers to your designs and orbital paths. But what if you could open up some kind of calculator that you could use as you build your rocket. One in which you could drop in the numbers into the real equations and watch those numbers change as you change parts around for the different stages. I'm not sure exactly how you would go about it. Next to each stage a button. It opens up something that looks like a note pad. With the equations, elements labeled, where you could see what was going into that stage. Click on the corner of the paper and flip to the next page with graphs of what happens as the stage burns it's fuel. It would be nice if it could predict drag and elevation. It would be nice if you could set a power curve for it to follow and when to throttle up, so that you could see the change in over all performance, rather then just stumbling along through it guestimating when to throttle down and up. That's asking quite a bit more but it would be very helpful and I think it would teach people a lot about the give and take in a design. I for one would love to be able to plan a more accurate liner tangent launch trajectory.

Lee

[pxi]

I know very well that I've learned various things while playing KSP, and I'll be one of the first to jump on the "it's educational" bandwagon.

But at the same time, I have a hard time pinning down exactly how or where the game itself educated me. In fact it seems to me that I have relied on the community that has built up around the game to do the actual educating, much more so than the game itself.

For that reason, although I do agree with the sentiment expressed in the OP, I would caution that exactly how it is done is crucial. KSP is already educational. Could it be more so? Maybe. Does it need to be? Not necessarily.