Science over time.

[JimmyAgent007]

So I've been thinking about how I would change research if I was in a position to do so. This is how I would prefer to play. It might not work for everyone. It might not solve all the problems. But I would like to share it in the hopes that it may be refined into something that could indeed work and maybe get incorporated. So let's keep things friendly and civil.

The first thing I'd like to get out of the way is that anyone who wants to cheat any science system can do so. With timewarp or simply editing the persistence file. So really it doesn't make sense to say no to a system because some people can cheat it. That being said, timewarp sees normal legitimate use so we don't want to have people 'accidentally' cheating because they were focused on a single long term mission and using timewarp a lot. So to solve this I would reduce any resource gained over time by the same factor as the timewarp. For example, x100 time warp would take your income and divide it by 100. (x/100 while Tx100) So your resource gain is always calculated in real time opposed to game time. This can apply to money, reputation, science, snacks, anything.

Second, I'd break down the tech tree so that each node is a single part. Only combining parts where they are useless without another. Such as ion engines without a xenon fuel tank.

Science itself I would break into two types of points. Science Points and Research Points.

Science points are collected as we always have. Doing experiments, reports, goo, measurements and so on. However instead of being used to unlock parts they are spent on attracting researchers. The idea being that your program is doing some interesting projects. (Look at this goo we sent into space!) Your reputation determines how big the pool of researchers is and how smart they are. Early game you would only be able to hire interns but working towards triple PHDs and Kerbin HawKing as your program reputation grows.

Research points come from those you hire and are produced slowly over time. (Assuming you have the money to pay them) The chief scientist you already have working for you has his hands full administrative duties so let's say he only produces 10pts an hour. (The actual rates would need balance and play testing so for the purpose of explaining my system lets assume they are balanced) You hire an Intern who produces 5pts so you have a rate of 15/hr.

The first tech node needs 100 pts to unlock. So with just your Admin it would take 10 hours to unlock. With the Intern it takes 6.6 hours to unlock. Once it's done it splits into several nodes. Each take a slice of your pts per hour. That really slows things down right? That's where part testing comes in. Take a contract to test a part and you get a boost to that part. Test a new engine and suddenly you get a 25% boost to any points applied to that part. Testing that part again in a different context gets you a 20% boost, then 15% and so on. For example, on the launch pad gets you the 25%, flying over kerbin gets you 20%, in orbit gets you the 15% and progresses from there. (or we can invert the process and give you 5% boost for the easy test on kerbin and 25% for testing it in deep space) To me the first test should be on the launch pad and the first test should always yield the most useful data. The way the boost helps is that if a part node gets 10pts an hour, and you do the first test, it gets boosted to 12.5 pts an hour. 75% being the most you can boost a part via testing, resulting in 17.5 pts an hour.

What then? Well science over time shouldn't just be limited to your scientists. All science experiments gain another option. Continuous transmission. Meaning they feed directly to your R&D building producing extra Research Points. Antenna would have a new use but also a limit. Communotron 16s can transmit to local orbit, DTS-M1s to deep orbit, and 88-88s to different planetary orbits. (Or they keep their unlimited range for now, as long as they can maintain the signal with power and line of sight) Each type of experiment produces pts/hour. Less than a researcher but more points depending on the type of experiment and its location. If a mobile processing lab is within range (assuming range of transmissions are limited) then the pts/hour get a boost. However! The lab needs to be staffed by researchers and not pilots. So the Kerbals you hire at the astronaut complex cannot man the lab. You need to send the scientists you hired but whom cannot fly the ship. (This would undoubtedly require you to pay them more money)

Finally, once the tech tree is unlocked then the research generated can be applied towards Pure Research (ie. More money) for now until they introduce something like part upgrades or whatever.

Hopefully I explained this well (and avoided the WNTS list) and it will get a lot of you thinking about science and maybe make it a lot more interesting. Please keep the demand for specific parts at specific points in the tech tree to a minimum. We all feel very differently about that.

[regex]

I don't like your "real time" science gain one bit because ti relies on me having the game open and running rather than me doing things in the game, like launching rockets and landing on other planets; it's a bad idea and there are better ways to balance use of timewarp. Bad as the stock system is it relies on your achievements within the game, not on leaving the game running.

What's your in-game timeframe for complete tech tree unlock? For a complete newbie? For a veteran who knows the system inside and out, and can properly game it?

[JimmyAgent007]

Not sure why you seem to think my plan involved you sitting at KSC twiddling your thumbs. If you are launching rockets and landing on other planets like you said, then you would be gaining science the whole time. My plan for dealing with timewarp was that if say you wanted to send a probe to Duna and it takes a year that you timewarp at x100000 for. I just didnt want the whole tech tree unlocked by the time you get into your next mission. But if the whole process took you two hours or so of real time then you got two hours or so worth of research. The research done in those two hours or so would depend on your achievements in the game. As for leaving the game running, thats just silly, if you want the tech tree unlocked without effort then just edit some files.

As for a time frame for newbies and veterans it would really need play testing like i mentioned. A difficulty slider could adjust the rate of research to suit the player.

[regex]

Not sure why you seem to think my plan involved you sitting at KSC twiddling your thumbs. If you are launching rockets and landing on other planets like you said, then you would be gaining science the whole time. My plan for dealing with timewarp was that if say you wanted to send a probe to Duna and it takes a year that you timewarp at x100000 for. I just didnt want the whole tech tree unlocked by the time you get into your next mission. But if the whole process took you two hours or so of real time then you got two hours or so worth of research. The research done in those two hours or so would depend on your achievements in the game. As for leaving the game running, thats just silly, if you want the tech tree unlocked without effort then just edit some files.

My point really being that system doesn't rely on you actually doing things in the game, it relies on the time you spend with the game open and poses no real challenge or impetus to do anything. Again, bad as the stock system is, at least you have to get out and do something to get your science; you have to play the game, not just leave it running. You are correct in that I could simply edit a text file and call it good, but at that point why am I even playing the game? The mechanic is not interesting and timewarping is better handled by things like budgetary concerns or life support.

[JimmyAgent007]

Sandbox doesnt rely on you actually doing anything. Have people stopped playing that? I also mentioned that researchers would cost money, if you just left the game running it would run out and nothing would happen. So you would still need to do things for the money to pay for the research team. All the while you are doing experiments and tests to increase the rate that research progresses.

[Kasuha]

Honestly, I don't like the science system at all. The idea that you gather some "science points" wherever you're willing to go (if you weren't there before) and then you decide what you'll discover based on that information is completely unrealistic to me. I said it once the science system came out and I still think it would be better if science points were completely removed and technical progress was quest-based. Circumnavigate Kerbin in atmosphere to develop better jet engines. Build orbital station to discover new materials and e.g. better solar arrays. Or at the very least, perform these five specific scientific measurements to get a new rocket engine. Every time you could have multiple such quests (contracts) available and it would be up to you which of them you decide to do. Their hierarchy could even follow a graph similar to the current tech tree but tasks necessary to open individual nodes should be of corresponding difficulty. I don't think heaviest rocketry is fitting reward for picking a few rocks on Mun.

[JimmyAgent007]

@Kasuha I agree to a point. Mun rocks shouldnt help make an SLS rocket. But getting too realistic would be too tedious to be fun. Thats why I suggest that science points act as a type of bait for the researchers to come work for you. Once they are there then they can get to work on a new engine. Part testing would help move things along but you dont need to circle the globe for it. Just test it under specific conditions. Plus you can invent a part without having tested it for its specific use. NASA didnt need to send a probe with the Lunar lander landing legs before Apollo 11 used them. Though it may have helped.

[No one]

So what in this system doesn't encourage the player to just get enough money to pay the researchers for a long time, then leave KSP running overnight while they go to sleep?

[Red Iron Crown]

I've been against science over time generally speaking, mostly due to time warp exploitability and the science for nothing issue that regex mentions. So I don't really think that a science over time should be the primary mechanic for gathering science, but there might be room to include it somehow. Anything to reduce the clickfest mechanic that is the current system.

I definitely agree that the antennae in stock need some differentiation; as it is now there's no need to use anything other than the first one unlocked. Range seems like an obvious choice for this.

The suggestion of dividing science gained over time by the time warp factor is a good one that will reduce the exploitability of the system.

I'm not sure I like getting science for just hiring and assigning kerbals; to my mind it would be better to have to station them in a space station or base so that the player has to do some spaceflight to start earning the rewards. It's probably a good idea to introduce some kind of specialization for kerbals as right now they're completely interchangeable, scientists and pilots seem like the obvious choices.

Another refinement might be some limitations on the rate at which the science over time can be gathered (to prevent lab spamming) and perhaps a per-biome lifetime limit; i.e. a lab on Duna's surface gains x science per hour for the first 10 hours, x*0.75 for the next 10 hours, x*0.75^2 for the following 10, and so on. This way, the amount of science diminishes over time without ever reaching zero and encourages players to establish facilities in other biomes.

[JimmyAgent007]

@No one Leaving the game running before going to sleep is still a cheat and would take less time to just hack. Save you some money on your electric bill at the same time. That being said, it would depend on how expensive the researchers are. Properly balanced, by the time you made enough money to just let them finish the tree you have played long enough to unlock everything anyways. My system might not work the way things are now, but after things are balanced then it might.

@Red Iron Crown For your first point, the research would require funds like a rocket needs fuel, if it runs out it stops or at least slows to a trickle. Glad we agree on the antenna and timewarp, should that apply to physics warp? As for science to hire, I thought about using it as reputation in the scientific community and use finds to hire them. But we already have a reputation resource. Maybe a combination of paying science and money to hire them. Either way you need some in the lab as KSC and some in space. JPL vs Scientists on the ISS. They would sill need to do spaceflight to hire them in the first place. Lastly I totally forgot to include limits per biome and thank you for pointing that out. How about a single lab per planetary system? Or would that be too simple? The smaller experiments would likely fall under the biome of the body. One of every experiment in any biome on the Mun gets an x value (lets say 100) over time, but setting up repeating experiments in every biome would boost the yield. So if you got 100pts from the east-side crater and set up the same stuff in the midlands you would only get 125 pts instead of 200 despite doubling the scientific equipment. But all the science from the mun can only be processed by a single lab so that original 100pts becomes 115 (assuming a 15% boost by the lab) and that extra 25 pts becomes 28.75 so you get a total of 143.75 per hour. Your solution could be expressed as crew fatigue and the only way to boost it back to 100% is to rotate out the science team.

Edited August 21, 2014 by JimmyAgent007

[Red Iron Crown]

Your solution could be expressed as crew fatigue and the only way to boost it back to 100% is to rotate out the science team.

That's even better, reward the player for crew change by resetting the science rate.

[JimmyAgent007]

Yet at the same time, not forcing you to do so.

[Superfluous J]

For me the problem with "science over time" plans isn't (necessarly) the "over time" part (you can mitigate that by having a budget so you can't just time warp and make a billion science, because you'd lose 10 billion dollars paying to keep your doors open for that time) but the "science" part.

Right now, science points are as bountiful as water on Laythe. What we need to do is LIMIT science, not make more ways to get it.

And regarding the clickfest I agree. This game should be about getting to a cool place to do the science not running your Kerbal around your ship trying to find where you put the thermometer so you can "take the science" out of it so you can use it again.

I understand the desire to have some sort of research facilities, or orbital labs because that would give us cool things to do. However, you don't have to do it because you're getting so much science from everything else in the game that by the time you can build a lab you're done with the tech tree.

[JimmyAgent007]

Well the overall science available could be reduced, it would depend on how my system handles in actual practice. That would be part of the balancing process. Or the player can adjust their own research costs when they start a new game. If you are a newbie you can make it low. A veteran can make it harsh. So yes, you can gobble up ten thousand SCIENCE in your first mission but you cant unlock the whole tree right away no matter what. We dont want to punish people for never leaving Kerbin SOI by not having enough science for them. By the end game when you do have everything unlocked the extra research goes right into cash. Assuming by that point contracts are balanced, you cant just spam science reports from Duna (like i do now) for unlimited cash. By then you want to be able to get money for all the crazy stuff you just want to do for fun.

[Red Iron Crown]

What we need to do is LIMIT science, not make more ways to get it.

Definitely agree that there's a lot of science easily available to a competent player. Any changes to the science system would have to involve a rebalance of the rewards and node costs, which will have to be done anyway if new biomes ever arrive.

[No one]

@No one Leaving the game running before going to sleep is still a cheat and would take less time to just hack. Save you some money on your electric bill at the same time. That being said, it would depend on how expensive the researchers are. Properly balanced, by the time you made enough money to just let them finish the tree you have played long enough to unlock everything anyways. My system might not work the way things are now, but after things are balanced then it might.

The problem with assigning things the label of "cheating" is that when you apply it to anything other than exploiting glitches, the debug menu or save file editing then really all you're doing is telling other people that their way of playing the game is invalid because you said so. (The exceptions are because the debug menu is labeled "cheat", and also because debug menus are generally agreed to be cheating, because save file editing is near universally cheating across all games, and exploiting glitches is a bit of a grey area) Also it's very subjective. Personally I think that certain mods are cheating. Other people think they aren't. Some people think that Asparagus is cheating because it doesn't work as well in real life. Also, where do you draw the line? Once I had one mission which took 50 years thanks to Laythe accidentally slingshotting me out of the solar system. I left KSP running while doing other stuff while I waited for the ship to get home. Is that cheating? Under your situation it would give me massive science profit for not doing much, but I needed to warp through that time anyway because I was returning Kerbals home.

You're turning a clickfest into a wait-fest. Even if you're doing something while waiting you're still waiting, and your primary goal is to pass the time.

[JimmyAgent007]

@No one, It is true we all have different definitions on what cheating is. We agree that the debug menu and editing a file are cheating. I see starting a new game and just letting it run to unlock everything as being a rather pointless cheat. Maybe it was my mistake to assume you were thinking of that. Your scenario is a good example of a situation where the intent isnt to cheat but rather just a long wait. Personally i would like a higher time warp factor because 50 years even on 100000x time warp would take a long time. My timewarp solution does fall short in a situation like that. But that is a rather rare scenario. Perhaps science is suspended, costs nothing and produces nothing, when you are at max timewarp. Since you generally only use it for situations like that.

I dont think it would be a wait-fest since you could adjust the research rate to suit your play-style as a difficulty setting. Isnt playing KSP at all just a way to pass the time? Obviously like with any system it would need to be tested and balanced so we could avoid that pitfall.

@Red Iron Crown, I agree but not everyone who plays is competent. So the available science should scale in difficulty to the player. Give them the power to decide how much there is. Just include a few presets.

I am aware my plan doesnt cover everything. Thats why I posted it here. Hopefully you can help me fix its faults and get a really good system figured out.

Edited August 22, 2014 by JimmyAgent007

[tater]

First post, be gentle.

I'd divide science/research/tech tree in a different way.

Planetary Science

Spaceflight Science

Medical Science (assume the kerbs get life support at some point).

The Tech Tree would be completely revamped. Each tree component would have some or all types of points to progress. So new lander pod tech would be say 60% Spaceflight Science Points, 20% Medical Science Points, and 20% Planetary Science Points (made up %s ). Most rockets engines might have just Spaceflight Science Points, for example.

Planetary Science (PS):

---Mapping (orbital flights)

---Surface samples

---Geology (seismic, etc)

These would give points mostly towards making better instrumentation for doing this kind of science. The mapping, combined with landers could map out resource areas (assuming this is added). This is a benefit outside the tech tree (you know where to build a mining base).

Spaceflight Science (SS):

---Space measurement sensors (orbital, the different distances, etc). The "environment" of space to make better stuff, in other words, these might give points to 2 or even all three branches of science).

---Returned craft (how they held up)

---Time in flight (just plain experience feedback from pilots (perhaps weighted by their stupidity?))

---Spaceflight milestones (orbiting worlds, first docking, etc).

This type of data gives points to virtually everything on the new tree.

Medical Science (MS):

---Time in flight (their medical condition over time, there can be experiments or station pods to test medical stuff)

---Returned craft feedback

---?

Medical is just "life support" issues. These points would go towards habitat tech, including any manned elements of spacecraft.

The tech would be more available than it is now. You'd not need to do major munar exploration to get the "science" in order to build.. a ladder, for example. Fewer brand-new branches, and more incremental stuff. Clunky, fixed ladder, then a later retractable one. Mk 1 pod might have a few days worth of life support, while the Mk1b has more, and the Mk1c even more. Retexture existing models and reuse.

Take command pods, since they use all 3 types of science. Start with a Probe body and a manned pod with almost no life support. That could branch. With some SS points, you can get maybe a 2 person pod, pods that are better at reentry (assume deadly reentry), less mass (carbon fiber or something), etc. Another command pod branch is for MS points. Spend those and get pods with more life support time, are more survivable at a slightly higher impact speed (they add seat cushions ). Lander pods would use more of PS stuff (improved storage space for experiments, etc). Combine the 2d level for SS and MS command pod improvements, and start getting habitats, etc. You get the idea need work, but it is more incremental.

I should be clear that I don't like automatic science points per unit time---unless they are linked to player actions. Mapping probes can generate science over time while they orbit. Maybe someday robot rovers would be possible, same thing, they slowly move, and check for minerals that are useful and prod cast back "science" over time.

For OP: think of it this way, the baseline of tech development over time is subsumed in the choice for whatever the tech tree order is. The "stuff" done by players is what drives the specific space tech (without a space program, there is no need for that tech).

Edited August 22, 2014 by tater
Merged multiple posts

[thereaverofdarkness]

Cool ideas!

I think limiting scientific advancement to a maximum rate of 175% is too low. If you have taken major strides in that direction, you should either get big chunks of research instantly, or have the research speed on a particular node increased by over +100%. I'd go with the second option mostly, though I may differ on a case-by-case basis.

Perhaps there could be "overachiever" goals which give you a more tedious and involved activity than unlocking the node normally, but give you a +300% bonus or higher to its research speed when completed.

Lastly, I don't know if this has been discussed yet (I didn't even read the entire OP) but science over time needs to be over some type of time frame that corresponds to player activity and not either game time or time spent playing.

[No one]

First, about the 50 year thing, I disagree that more time warp is needed. The way it is now, the game slapped me on the wrist and went "Bad No one. For your carelessness you must wait a long and tedious time", and I learned not to be so careless. Under your system it would say "You screwed up? Here, have some science!"

But the main problem with your system IMO is that the joy of playing KSP, at least in my opinion, isn't actually the gameplay itself. The joy of playing KSP is the feeling of success from accomplishing something. At the moment, science is (sort of) based on what you do. You get science from going to different places, and you get the science when you go/return, not when you wait. Science is thus an additional goal mostly aligned with the main goal rather than an annoying pesky obstacle overcome by waiting not doing. Yes, science is currently a bit of a clickfest I agree, but I have seen lots of good suggestions which would I think would change that for the better and this, imo, is not one of them.

[JimmyAgent007]

@tater The science over time would be linked to player actions. The player would need to set up experiments on other planet bodies. But also have the money to pay for the research on the ground. I like the rest of your ideas.

@thereaverofdarkness The rate of 175% is just a number i pulled out of the air, it would need to be playtested to figure out what would really be fun, and also subject to a difficulty slider of some sort i would suspect. I agree that testing parts and using them a lot should drive the research faster. Overachiever goals could come in the form of specialty contracts, and would be perfect for veterans or newbies looking for an extreme test.

@No One, Thats why i suggested the Max timewarp, whatever speed it is, would suspend science and its cost, so it wouldnt just give you science, maybe the max now is a good slap on the wrist like you said. either way you wouldnt get free science in your scenario.

I dont think my system would prevent any sense of accomplishment. You still need to go places to get the science to hire the researchers in the first place. Maybe each tier of tech requires a certain amount of science gathered before it can be researched? Or certain contracts need to be completed? Like landing a probe on the Mun before you can research the lander can. going places and returning would speed the research. the more you do the less you have to wait. What were some of the good suggestions you have seen before?

[No one]

I agree that in your system making you not get science while on maxtimewarp would be a good idea, or at least, would be more internally consistent and fair within the system.

I dont think my system would prevent any sense of accomplishment. You still need to go places to get the science to hire the researchers in the first place. Maybe each tier of tech requires a certain amount of science gathered before it can be researched? Or certain contracts need to be completed? Like landing a probe on the Mun before you can research the lander can. going places and returning would speed the research. the more you do the less you have to wait. What were some of the good suggestions you have seen before?

Your system would disconnect getting tech from accomplishments though. And if you're going to require people accomplish certain things before getting timescience, why not just give them the science/research/whatever for doing the accomplishments in the first place?

As for the other suggestions, I thought that this one was very good, other than the ideas about the mystery goo and the materials bay.

Also I take back what I said about "lots of". I thought there were a few more, but I could only find that one, and it was the only one which I remembered in detail. Well, there was one other I remember but it was more about what science did than how you got science.

[JimmyAgent007]

@No one I agree with the linked idea, much like you do. The reason my plan disconnects accomplishments from getting tech is because bringing back mun rocks doesnt help you make the SLS rocket. JPL doesnt need rocks from the moon to make a new rocket. but it sure did inspire people to work there in the first place. thats the angle im getting at for my plan. maybe its not the best but like Kasuha mentioned before, it seems silly for instant parts from doing things that have little to do with the part itself.

[tater]

You would gain engineering feedback from doing real world stuff. Making, then doing (even if it fails, or maybe especially if it fails) a mission will provide useful feedback to the engineering people. The "science" doesn't help (as you say, mun rocks don't help tech much (the dust might change future designs, though, so it adds a little)), the DOING of the science helps. That's why I suggest breaking it apart more.

I'm fine with budgeting money for research as a modifier that weights accomplishments, I suppose. If you have no engineering staff, no amount of "science" will help.

[No one]

@No one I agree with the linked idea, much like you do. The reason my plan disconnects accomplishments from getting tech is because bringing back mun rocks doesnt help you make the SLS rocket. JPL doesnt need rocks from the moon to make a new rocket. but it sure did inspire people to work there in the first place. thats the angle im getting at for my plan. maybe its not the best but like Kasuha mentioned before, it seems silly for instant parts from doing things that have little to do with the part itself.

But isn't that just realism for the sake of realism?

In any case, experimental parts prove that all the parts already exist, you just don't have access to them for whatever reason. If you want an excuse for the insta-parts, you could always just take your system except replace "you attract researchers who design parts" with "you attract companies who become willing to sell you parts".

Also, the parts are designed and made by companies other than you so if your researchers invented them that wouldn't really make much sense, would it? (Come to think of it, that's a hole in the current system as well)