Spoilers for .26!

[Hannu]

This pass adding biomes to other bodies could be the precursor to new planets.

(fingers crossed)

One part of it, but just biomes is not enough. Now most of them are just named areas with exactly the same functionality. There should be more different environmental conditions and different science in different places and that needs huge work, both physics programming and artistic graphics. But there is one thing which would be easy to add and which would bring a new kind of challenge. Axial tilt and inclination. Either in form of new "colored ball with smaller colored balls as moons" -type planet or modifying orbits of existing planets. If we had a planet on inclined orbit (let's say 30 degrees) it would need careful planning of when to launch or need extreme dv. And if we had axial tilt it would also need more precise planning on arrival if player want to avoid large plane change burns.

PS. I cant believe, but axial tilts and larger inclinations are not on "do not suggest" -list as all other reasonable ideas. That must be a severe mistake which should be fixed as soon as possible.

PPS. In my opinion that biome thing would be the greatest improvement after introducing of science.

[SkyRex94]

Biomes on all Bodies sounds great. Maybe they'll do the hole Science System Overhaul!!! More things to do, or actually things other than click on part things to gain science. And If you read this Squad: Decrease the Science per Biome per Body: I mean first landing first biome: you get 100% Science like it is now. 2nd biome were you gather Science only 70 % , third 50 %, 4th 30% , 5th 25% .... and so on. That encourages for exploring new worlds but doesn't punish you if you wish to research a certain body more

[No one]

Am I the only one who sees a downside to this? Science will be even more of a tedious clickfest than it already is.

[Hannu]

And If you read this Squad: Decrease the Science per Biome per Body:

I agree. I suggest model, that you get some base points per experiment per biome and bonus, which decreases every time you do that experiment on the same planet.

[MidwestB]

Hmm, adding all the biomes and the fact that destructible buildings in .25 are supposed to be ground work for something that may be in .26 as well? Sounds like a lot of fun

[regex]

Am I the only one who sees a downside to this? Science will be even more of a tedious clickfest than it already is.

How so? If they reduce science gains per biome then, yes, it will become even more of a tedious click-fest because you'll be required to visit more. If they leave the rewards the same and add more biomes you'll be able to tailor your progression through the tech tree based on where you want to go in the game and won't have to click any more than now.

[Franklin]

And If you read this Squad: Decrease the Science per Biome per Body:

I agree. I suggest model, that you get some base points per experiment per biome and bonus, which decreases every time you do that experiment on the same planet.

The problem isn't how much Science Money you get from each action, it's that we don't have a reason to explore science beyond part unlocking currency. It's all the same, and serves the same function (and so ultimately, the same excitement). Testing goo in orbit around Kerbin is testing goo in orbit around Jool. You get a little flavor text and a number goes up, ho-hum.

[tater]

Science vs tech is kind of ridiculous, IMO, and in fact backwards. The technology of spaceflight has not increased due to planetary science missions, but often the technology has improved in order to DO planetary science. You should commit to a mission, say landing on Duna, then accepting that mission opens up new tech appropriate for that mission (by giving you points to spend on tech that is in a better laid out tree). If you fail, you take reputation/funding hits, and perhaps get offered less challenging contracts with fewer points to buy tech with.

The cart is before the horse science wise in KSP.

[r_rolo1]

Even taking that in account , regex , there is definitely too much science around ,especially in contract games ( you can even make the full tree without making to Kerbin orbit :/ ) . Even with the current setting you could cut the science output by 10% or 20% and you would still be not very challenged to get enough science to make a full tech tree easily from the Kerbin SoI ...

[regex]

Even taking that in account , regex , there is definitely too much science around ,especially in contract games ( you can even make the full tree without making to Kerbin orbit :/ ) . Even with the current setting you could cut the science output by 10% or 20% and you would still be not very challenged to get enough science to make a full tech tree easily from the Kerbin SoI ...

That's still not a balancing problem, but a personal one; that is, you need to set some goals for yourself and not take the low-hanging, newbie-oriented fruit. Certainly difficulty options will help tailor the experience, but at the end of the day it's up to you to use the game in the way you want to.

Edited October 3, 2014 by regex

[Franklin]

Science vs tech is kind of ridiculous, IMO, and in fact backwards. The technology of spaceflight has not increased due to planetary science missions, but often the technology has improved in order to DO planetary science. You should commit to a mission, say landing on Duna, then accepting that mission opens up new tech appropriate for that mission (by giving you points to spend on tech that is in a better laid out tree). If you fail, you take reputation/funding hits, and perhaps get offered less challenging contracts with fewer points to buy tech with.

The cart is before the horse science wise in KSP.

While I agree, I think it was designed this way because the order of interest in the game is building rockets then exploring planets, not exploring planets and building what's needed to get there like in reality.

Also as it is, the planets are dead, so even if they flip it (which I could see being enjoyable), we'd need more reason to wanna explore the system.

[CptRichardson]

You'll see the fruits of their labor in 0.26, but no, it's not planets.

Of course not, since you guys accidentally leaked that the .26 main feature is an outgrowth of the reconstruction system at the KSC.

You're working on Kolonization.

[Franklin]

Of course not, since you guys accidentally leaked that the .26 main feature is an outgrowth of the reconstruction system at the KSC.

You're working on Kolonization.

[citation needed]

[CptRichardson]

[citation needed]

When the youtube version of the video they put out yesterday is up, I'll timestamp link it. They talk about how the reconstruction feature is the foundations for the much larger .26 secret feature. Add in biomes on all planets, and it becomes absolutely clear exactly what they're up to, not that it's a bad thing at all.

After all, kolonizing Laythe would be the ultimate endgame.

[r_rolo1]

That's still not a balancing problem, but a personal one; that is, you need to set some goals for youself and not take the low-hanging, newbie-oriented fruit. Certainly difficulty options will help tailor the experience, but at the end of the day it's up to you to use the game in the way you want to.

It might be a balancing problem if there is too much low hanging fruit, even for newbies. And given that the complaints about difficulty on getting science are rare in comparison to complaints than there is too much science, there might actually be too much low hanging science ( or atleast badly distributed one: as a example, munar polar science, that is actually harder to get due to the needed polar orbit, the low illumination and the challenging terrain, is not exactly 2 or 3 times more valuable than the munar science of the flat equatorial munar craters, as it probably should be ... ).

But , even disregarding that, as a rule of thumb, if a player needs to force itself to not do X to not win fast in a game, the game is suffering of a balance issue. It might be intentional or even beneficial, but it is a balance issue in the same way ...

[KN_Namida]

I actually... would like it if Squad changed the name of the "biomes". Not the individual names, those are fine. I mean, the term biome. Biome means there's life there, in that place. And if we're talking about Kerbin, fine. But is there life on the Mun, Minmus, or any other celestial bodies? Sure, we can speculate on Laythe, but you know what I mean.

Just call them... Science Zones. Science Areas. Or just zones/areas, would be fine. Biome worked for Minecraft, because there was a BIOLOGICAL difference between biomes, there. In KSP, it is more of a geological difference, right? A mountain range is not a biome IRL, tundra is a biome, savana is a biome. Not "shores", and specially not "runway" and "launchpad". Those are just ridiculous, if you insist in calling them biomes. Please, change their name before adding them to all the bodies, before people get used to it. KSP is supposed to teach how rockets and space science gathering work, right? It is in your best interest, Squad, to use appropriate terminology, so to not confuse people.

[KasperVld]

When the youtube version of the video they put out yesterday is up, I'll timestamp link it. They talk about how the reconstruction feature is the foundations for the much larger .26 secret feature. Add in biomes on all planets, and it becomes absolutely clear exactly what they're up to, not that it's a bad thing at all.

After all, kolonizing Laythe would be the ultimate endgame.

So what you're saying is you're deducing something from the information Squad has given you. Which means that they've not confirmed it. Which means you should clearly state that this is what you think it is instead of what it is - just to avoid confusion

[CptRichardson]

So what you're saying is you're deducing something from the information Squad has given you. Which means that they've not confirmed it. Which means you should clearly state that this is what you think it is instead of what it is - just to avoid confusion

Why exactly would we need an expanded version of the building construction/reconstruction tech? Especially in combination with expanding the biomes? Add in maybe coming up with buying Karbonite, and they have a simplified resource system to make Kolonization worthwhile, and everything comes together, and probably brings it close to feature complete.

[Hannu]

The problem isn't how much Science Money you get from each action, it's that we don't have a reason to explore science beyond part unlocking currency. It's all the same, and serves the same function (and so ultimately, the same excitement). Testing goo in orbit around Kerbin is testing goo in orbit around Jool. You get a little flavor text and a number goes up, ho-hum.

What else it could be in computer game? All things are clicking fests, if you think so. And every games will be "ready" or boring, if gameworld is practically infinite. I feel that KSP begins when tech tree is nearly full. Then I start to build stations and bases. Collecting science points is interesting rolegaming. However, I feel that all technology should need much larger part of all available science points and first planetary probes must be very primitive flyby-probes. I hope that new difficulty adjustment panel gives possibility to do that.

[regex]

But , even disregarding that, as a rule of thumb, if a player needs to force itself to not do X to not win fast in a game, the game is suffering of a balance issue. It might be intentional or even beneficial, but it is a balance issue in the same way ...

Nonsense. This is a sandbox game and you have always needed to set and meet your own goals, not those that the game hands out to you. There are no mandatory contracts, there are no mandatory visits to other planets, there is no mandatory science to gain, there is no "win" condition. Because of that, giving the player more tools and ways to go about their business and do what they want to do is generally a good thing.

Also, difficulty options are coming, so you should be able to make the science gains as hard as you want.

[tater]

While I agree, I think it was designed this way because the order of interest in the game is building rockets then exploring planets, not exploring planets and building what's needed to get there like in reality.

Also as it is, the planets are dead, so even if they flip it (which I could see being enjoyable), we'd need more reason to wanna explore the system.

Imagine the flip I suggest...

New career, and you have nothing. No tech at all. similar to a current start, you have a contract available to launch a rocket. When you take it, you might get some tech automatically, and some budget to spend, we can call what are now "science" points, "tech" points for clarity. You might be given another few goals (really aimed at training new players) in contracts, some of which might give a few tech points. Tech points might be offered upon acceptance of a contract, but could also be given as a reward for completion… An orbital flight gives data about living in space, which gives tech points...

Science data points can change the types of missions you are offered, which indirectly adds to your tech (take Jool mission because your unmanned probe worked, get tech points to spend).

[SkyRex94]

What else it could be in computer game? All things are clicking fests, if you think so. And every games will be "ready" or boring, if gameworld is practically infinite. I feel that KSP begins when tech tree is nearly full. Then I start to build stations and bases. Collecting science points is interesting rolegaming. However, I feel that all technology should need much larger part of all available science points and first planetary probes must be very primitive flyby-probes. I hope that new difficulty adjustment panel gives possibility to do that.

It could be something more interesting 'to do' like the impactor experiment from KSPI, or a big Science experiment that needs to be assembeld first out of modular big parts, or an experiment that needs to be manned, giving some purpose to manned missions, or an experiment that needs you to find something (other than a biome) not on any map, but randomly scattered, giving the game a more Explorationary taste , there are a lot ways to make it less of a clicking fest

[Renegrade]

A mountain range is not a biome IRL, tundra is a biome, savana is a biome. Not "shores", and specially not "runway" and "launchpad".

Actually shores are a biome (littoral), and there are mountain-specific biomes. They are indeed abusing it on non-living worlds, but the other suggestions kinda lack the ring of 'biome'.

Besides, it's not any worse than the absolutely idiotic gaming term of "mobs" for NPCs.

It might be a balancing problem if there is too much low hanging fruit, even for newbies.

It's definitely a balancing problem when you have to force yourself to skip entire classes of gameplay like oh, I dunno, part testing contracts?

They need to take science out of ALL contracts save for the "Explore Planet X" ones, dammit!

Biomes on all Bodies sounds great. Maybe they'll do the hole Science System Overhaul!!! More things to do, or actually things other than click on part things to gain science. And If you read this Squad: Decrease the Science per Biome per Body: I mean first landing first biome: you get 100% Science like it is now. 2nd biome were you gather Science only 70 % , third 50 %, 4th 30% , 5th 25% .... and so on. That encourages for exploring new worlds but doesn't punish you if you wish to research a certain body more

Yeah, I've seen that one in the Suggestions forums (possibly by you even); and I definitely support that.

[Superfluous J]

Well, even if they don't do that I don't think science rewards should be reduced. One of the great things about KSP is how you can direct the flow of your experience, so if I want to get all my science from Duna, or Eeloo, or where ever, I should be able to. Being able to unlock the entire tech tree from within Kerbin SOI is not a balancing problem, it's a personal problem for people to overcome. It also makes it easier on new players to progress within the game, which I think is a fantastic thing.

With the new setup, we both get what we want (Well, I don't. I want more granular control but I always want that). You can crank it up to the max so taking a crew report on the launch pad unlocks your tree (well maybe not that but sufficiently high that you don't have to worry about it) and I can crank it down to the point where I have to choose between fuel lines or solar panels for my first Duna mission.

I have a hunch that "big art project" will be about Kerbals Girl Kerbals, more detailed models, improved faces and expressions, new spacesuits. Maybe even reworked IVAs?

And exploding buildings paves the way to girl kerbals how? EXPLODING KERBALS.

Am I the only one who sees a downside to this? Science will be even more of a tedious clickfest than it already is.

ScienceAlert and Science Containers (with a simple modman config to add its functionality to command pods) are a must-have mods, IMO. They're stock as far as I'm concerned.

[Caelib]

If they do this, the unlock costs in the tech tree will likely need to be re-thought.