The Career-motivator -- The SCIENCE System

[SkyRex94]

Science on a click of a button - The Motivation for big career missions

In Sandbox we play for Roleplay Reasons and do what we want to do. In Career we want to run our own Space Program ... for some sort of reason. Right now that Reason is Science. Yes we need Rep to get Contracts to get the Funds to pay for our Missions but these Missions where needed for Science in the First place. Thats the Reason right now for doing these missions anyway ( apart from doing Contracts just for the Contract-Fun and again Roleplay) .

And i think everybody agrees that there is currently not so much to do on the surface of your choosen target ( apart from simply clicking on experiments), not to mention any reason for Rovers or Bases or Stations.

Some time ago i posted a Thread about what KSP needs IMO to be called finished and i metioned a lot of things there, but i think the Science related stuff deserves its own thread. Let me quote the relevant ideas:

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.)

But of course that is just MY imagination how Squad could make the Motivator of Career more fun to play. Basic idea is just that you have to do a lot more and different things in different enviroments before you get your Science. And not just more biomes, that would just be a lot more places with nothing exploration-like to do.

But this is not a Suggestion (of course Squad if you read it and like it then use and implement it)

Its a question for and Discussion about the Motivator of Career.

Which is Science right now but not have to be Science forever.

For me the way to take Science as a Motivator is totally fine and i really like the general idea as it is the same Motivator as in our Real Life Missions.

The hole Science System just needs an overhaul to make the Exploration and discovery of the unknown actually fun and not just clicking a button. The way to get there is already fun and challenging but the reason you get somewhere isn't that fun after all.

What do you think? Does the Science System needs an Overhaul? Or do you like it exactly the way it is now? or something in between? Would you even want something else as the Main Motivator (e.g. Ressources instead of Science)?

Or do you don't give a **** about Motivation or Sense behind your Mission as you always go for what you feel you want to do now?

TL;DR : Science Motivates the main Career Missions as it is in Real Life. IMO clickfest Science is boring and could use change. You like Science as the Motivator? You like Science System as it is right now? Discuss.

(Mods: I thought about putting this in Sugesstion-Discussion, but since its also about how it is right now and how people like or dislike the status quo it felt more fitting in General discussion. If you feel different move it)

Cheers

[TimberWolffe]

I'd like to see a balancing for Science mode too. As it stands, I'm having to launch missions to minmus just to get the actuators node in the tech tree, whereas I've seen others in career mode do their missions and get actuators just by orbiting around Kerbin with the gravioli detector

[nohelmet]

I like what you are suggesting. Theycould be missions, too - these are fun things to do, varied, and they match stuff we'd do anyways.

[tater]

Well said. I agree completely, that you should have to "do stuff" to generate "science." I've also suggested splitting out planetary, medical, and spaceflight as different sciences, with possibly different rewards (since the rewards are all in the "tech tree."

There is a mapping mod, for example, where you fly passes, and create maps in swathes of the terrain. If mapping Dres is worth 100 points, then if you cover 13% of the planet with mapping, you get 13 points, etc. You then need to build an orbiter, and get it in a polar orbit. A nice challenge (good gameplay). If you botch that, you still get something, too.

[SunChaser]

Well for me, career mode was great--I started playing just last patch and it was a good way to slowly get to know all the stock parts. Now, the science system isn't perfect, as you can easily achieve LKO with Tier 0 parts, and if you want, you can finish the tree without even leaving Kerbin's SOI. I would like the contracts to be 'balanced': it doesn't make sense to get like $200,000 and 140 Science for testing a decoupler, while I get pocket change and very little science for the 'Exploration' contracts and such.

Edit: Funds in general I think need to be more balanced: I looked at my manned Sun Diver rocket that I used to get close to the Sun and return to Kerbin (using a Hohmann Transfer, aka the inefficient, faster way) and the thing cost less than a tenth of my current budget. Funding is never a problem because no matter how many rockets I blow up, I can always rig a cheap number designed to fulfill like five contracts in one launch and be swimming in kash again.

Edited September 6, 2014 by SunChaser

[Stratzenblitz75]

I completely agree that science system needs a revamp. Right now, it feels way too grindy and it just boils down to a giant clickfest. None of the science instruments are actually interesting or unique, they are just there for you to click on and bam! There's your science. I think that the experiments should have more setup like the impactor experiment from KSPI. I ranted about this subject a while back.

I would really like to see the science archives fleshed out a lot more too. Instead of having a giant list of experiments you did, it could contain maps and interior "cut-outs" of the planets accompanied by fun facts and other information. The fun in this system is that as you perform experiments, gather data and learn more about the Kerbol System, you would fill in this graphical catalog of the planets.

Anyways, just my 2 cents...

[Liowen]

In someways this sounds fun, but in other ways it would feel kind of forced also. While I do agree the current system needs some attention it should also not force players to play a certain way to gain things, that would defeat the open-endedness of the game as a whole. More biomes would be one thing that should, and most likely will, be added at some point, and a rebalance of the science tree and science points as a whole (I thought I saw this part in the .25 thing but could be wrong). The player should use there imagination while playing more than letting the game tell them how to play, at least this is how I feel anyways. I like the idea of the big dish having a point, but on the same not look right on certain crafts either. If I am forced to use one on long distant missions I will just leave an antenna off completely than have something that does not fit the look I want, which means that changing the rules of antenna's was a moot point (unless you are force to have it on there to do missions beyond Kerbin's SOI then it is just forcing a player to use a part for the sake of using it).

As I see it players should make their own rules as to what to do and when, and not worry what this player or that player did to get x part faster. Even in my new save I have yet to get to Minmus, in fact my first probe is on its way there now. In the mean time I have done a probe landing on Mun (with only a few bits of science), a manned Mun mission, a high orbit Kerbin satellite, a rescue, and started work on my space station (the first of many). I do limited contracts to keep my funds in check and I try hard not to muck things up too bad, and even made a rule that goo and mat bays cannot be transmitted they have to either be returned or collected and returned. Once you force players to play a certain way it becomes less open world and more linear, from what I read anyways.

A lot of the problem is caused by players wanting to be "first" to get to a goal, in this case we will use the techtree, in order to provide how good they are, to me this would seem rather boring if this how one measures being good at a game. To me to be good at a game is to have fun and not rush through the enjoyment of the game, not "oh I did the whole thing in two launches".

[SkyRex94]

Liowen: Caring about other players achieving things has nothing to do with the topic... That would be exactly the same as it is now, KSP is an offline Game so you only compete with the achievments of others if you read the community pages and decide to do so, but that has nothing to do with the science System. or i did't got what you were trying to say. And players making their own rules is possible everywhere. You are forced to click on a button to get science right now. I think thats not fun. You have to be 'forced' to do something for your Science nevertheless, otherwise the Career would just be Sandbox as you'd getting all whenever you wnat it. And Sandbox is already there as a no forced things mode. Its about making the necessary 'forced' action to get progress in career a fun gameplay element too. the game wouldn't tell you more how to play as it does now.

It could be just me, but the stuff you said with 'forced' gameplay and 'problems' caused by players caring about what other players do, doesn't make any sense at all to me.

Maybe i got it wrong, if someone understood it different than that person could maxbe say what you were trying to say in other words, but as i understand what you're saying it doesn't make sense to mee.

[Vanamonde]

Suggestions and discussion of game development both go in Suggestions and Development. And so, moved.