Seriously? over 30 KSC biomes?

[SkyRex94]

@skyrex94 i dont think there are enough biomes honestly. Look at earth, there are like 6-15 major biomes depending who you ask and many more minor ones. Given that i think 30 on kerbin is a nice compromise

I'm fine with the biomes on Kerbin. I was just speaking of the Biomes directly at the Kerbal Space Center aka all the different buildings.

[Higgs]

Skyrex94 i getcha now. Ya at the complex 30 is a bit much

[Unabled]

Exactly. Make science science-y, not collection-y. I should feel like I'm running tests in different environments, not picking up quest items found in the grass, which is what science is now.

Thank you! Well put!

I'm also starting to think that science needs to be disassociated with part unlocking as well. From forum browsing it seems that many would like the tech tree 'extended' or made harder so you can't unlock the tree prior to leaving the Kerbin system.

Why do they feel that way? The way it stands now, you collect science points to unlock the parts in the tech tree. That is your progression, and once your complete the tree they feel like they have completed the game.

I think this is a serious problem, it should not feel that way.

Science in KSP should be an end in itself. Scientific exploration and discovery should be the goal, not merely a means to an end (unlocking parts).

Edited October 17, 2014 by Unabled
I suck.

[Melfice]

The game's main focus should be on exploration and discovery, not unlocking parts.

I'm going to be an arse here:

Then play sandbox.

Here's your retort (I have a crystal ball, so this is 95%* accurate):

But I want to play a career mode instead!

Here's my retort:

Having any sort of career mode is difficult without somehow limiting you.

If you don't want your part selection to be limited by science, you'll have to work with a much stricter budget to give you that feeling of progression. Is that more fun and less grindy than science as it is currently implemented?

*no it's not. Psychics are phonies. Don't get duped.

[Sky_walker]

And there really is no point in sending probes, when you can get more science with manned missions. Not to mention the probe cores are so much further down the tech tree.

Yes, probes are down the tech tree for no logical reason (IMHO Stayputnik should be a starting tech just like the first pod is)

However I disagree that they're useless.... ok, I actually do agree, just in a different way.

If you don't care about fate of Kerbals - then you are correct, sending probes is a waste of time and resources. And sadly - game doesn't give you ANY reason to care about Kerbals, you can leave them on a planet forever with no consequences (this game begs for life support implementation).

However if you play in a way where Kerbals need to be returned back home as soon as possible - probes are a great alternative. I just completed 0.25 career without ever sanding a manned mission to the orbit (all were just suborbital flights) and not only it was doable but actually - it was more immersive than typical playthrough where you send immortal kerbals all over the place.

I'm going to be an arse here:

Then play sandbox.

Sandbox doesn't provide it either while it strips-down the game from major part of a challenge (ok, a challenge that at some point in future when they actually get around to balance the game).

People had incentive to visit other planets even before science gathering was implemented into the game. KSP is about exploration and this is why a lot of people still stick to sandbox.

What exactly you "explored" in sandbox? It's all the same in every direction. A flat texture on mostly-flat, sometimes angled, terrain in different colors. There are easter eggs, but finding them by accident is a pure luck (as there's absolutely no logic in their placement) and currently most of them are bugged to hell (such as being under ground, floating randomly in space, or not existing at all).

I can tell you what you didn't explore though - all of the more-or-less funny texts that appear when you conduct "science" in career mode. Thankfully enough this changed in current patch, so finally you can get at least some portion of a full experience that Career players get.

But well... we're drifting back towards a Career vs Sandbox discoussion - which is totally offtopic.

Exactly. Make science science-y, not collection-y. I should feel like I'm running tests in different environments, not picking up quest items found in the grass, which is what science is now.

Most of the time you don't even need to pick anything - you just click a button and you're done.

But yea - good post.

There was a whole thread in suggestions section full of ideas on how to make a science - science, something interactive and something being a challenge on it's own.

Sadly - devs rarely read suggestions forum (if at all).

Edited October 17, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Wanderfound]

I know what you mean. You can unlock the tech tree without leaving the Kerbin system. There needs to be another incentive to go to other planets. They are bringing in resources so that's a good thing.

Remember that Fine Print is being integrated. Satellite deployment, aerial and rover waypoint exploration, space and planetary station building. Contracts for all of 'em.

[Unabled]

I'm going to be an arse here:

Then play sandbox.

...

Here's my retort:

Having any sort of career mode is difficult without somehow limiting you.

If you don't want your part selection to be limited by science, you'll have to work with a much stricter budget to give you that feeling of progression. Is that more fun and less grindy than science as it is currently implemented?

I do play sandbox, mostly...

No worries, I guess I wasn't too clear then.

I do not disagree at all! I am well aware career mode needs limits and this is fine! It's how it should be.

I am not saying that I do not think there should be any part unlocking at all, I just don't know that collecting samples on the Mun should lead to unlocking new engines. It has never felt quite right to me.

You are right about the budgets if part selection wasn't limited by science, but soon we will have to pay to upgrade buildings so we are already going to have stricter budgets with that. My only idea on this would be to maybe link the part unlocking to the building upgrades. You would still have a tech tree like progression, but made much more flexible.

Want probe bodies? Upgrade the Comms Center.

New science parts? Upgrade the Research Center.

I don't know, just a thought.

Basically I meant that Science in KSP should be an end in itself. Scientific exploration and discovery should be the goal, not a means to an end (unlocking parts).

Its not my business how others enjoy the game, but it does sadden me a bit when some think the game is over after they unlock the tech tree instead of continuing to go out and explore the solar system!

Remember that Fine Print is being integrated. Satellite deployment, aerial and rover waypoint exploration, space and planetary station building. Contracts for all of 'em.

Fine print will go a long way towards improving science & career mode overall, and I cannot wait to see how this goes.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Unabled

[Sky_walker]

You can actually unlock the tech tree without even leaving LKO. And I don't remember when you get access to the testing contracts - if you can get them without completing "Get to space" and "Achieve orbit" contracts, then you can complete it even without leaving Kerbin itself.

That is correct.

Remember that Fine Print is being integrated. Satellite deployment, aerial and rover waypoint exploration, space and planetary station building. Contracts for all of 'em.

Yea, Fine Print will be probably a best addition to the whole matter of "science" since science was even implemented into the game.

Though it hardly fixes anything - it just adds alternative, more interesting way of obtaining science points.

And the funny part being that the first serious fix to the science mechanics implemented into KSP wasn't actually made by SQUAD.

[magnemoe]

I think those were meant to be more of an Easter egg than a serious data source. After all, my drive all over KSC with a pile of scientific instruments only got me like 15 points (although I may be able to do better if I try again). Perhaps SQUAD wants to have a bunch of little mini-biomes for people to discover as they explore the game to make them feel like they accomplished something.

yes, add that you need an rover to do this effectively and they are medium in tree, also the seismic and gravity sensors who is late.

Only real reason for this is to fill out some missing nodes fast without sending an new mission to Mun.

[Tw1]

Haha. I was thinking the same thing. It's fun tho to run science for the heck of it and notice it... I was like... what what ? Biomes here ? Oh another there... it's all over the place. Nice touch.

I agree, it makes it interesting.

If they had this density of biomes on all planets, it would go quite some way towards making it an exploration experience.

The problem is the way they've set it up, where you get points for returning collected science. Adding so many could be overwhelming, if it wasn't adjusted so you could bring back a lot. But then, that could be motivation for more complex, long term missions? If done right, it could be a natural reason for establishing bases, stations to help, etc.

This could be a lot of work, but could be done more effectively if they added more situations- on a steep slope, on a gentle slope, at night etc.

I think encouraging completionism is/was not the best choice for KSP. I'd like to see more interaction between science contracts and normal science- biomes could become valuable again over time, making re-visits useful.

I'd also like to see little graphs, or something added to the flavour text.

Basically, I meant that Science in KSP should be an end in itself. Scientific exploration and discovery should be the goal, not a means to an end (unlocking parts).

Its not my business how others enjoy the game, but it does sadden me a bit when some think the game is over after they unlock the tech tree instead of continuing to go out and explore the solar system!

I agree. It's a bit of a flaw, the tech tree unlocking distracts from science for its own sake.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Tw1

[FleetAdmiralJ]

I guess my thought on this is this:

1) If someone wants science to be grindy and take time to collect all of that, they can be my guest, but no one is forcing anyone to collect that data. If you want to ignore KSC biomes, go ahead and do it!

2) It CAN be useful if one needs science in a crunch. I had largely ignored KSC Science (as I usually do) but at one point I needed some science for a part that I really wanted at the time, so I went around to every building and got enough science that I needed (just the large buildings and runway). At this point I probably have enough science that I won't need to worry having to do that again.

I think people are somewhat looking at this different. People play the game differently, and have different goals for the game. Because you don't or don't like walking all over KSC for science (then don't!) doesn't mean someone else doesn't want to do it. That's what's so great about the game: you can play it however you want!

[KerbMav]

.

Put it back, put it back!!!

Completionists will have a nervous breakdown if there are hundreds of biomes in the completed game.

It's worth 15 science points. You can get that on your first launch. Just ignore it and treat it like the optional easter egg that it is.

BAM!!! Has anyone visited any easter eggs in .25 yet and done a science something next to it???

[superm18]

if it's really that big an issue, then just don't go for those easy points

[Levelord]

What exactly you "explored" in sandbox? It's all the same in every direction. A flat texture on mostly-flat, sometimes angled, terrain in different colors. There are easter eggs, but finding them by accident is a pure luck (as there's absolutely no logic in their placement) and currently most of them are bugged to hell (such as being under ground, floating randomly in space, or not existing at all).

I can tell you what you didn't explore though - all of the more-or-less funny texts that appear when you conduct "science" in career mode. Thankfully enough this changed in current patch, so finally you can get at least some portion of a full experience that Career players get.

Funny science text isn't a driving force to launch rockets at other planets and having imaginary science numbers go up isn't a driving force either.

I've visited Mun craters and the strange topography of the north poles of the Mun, drove rovers down impassable trenches and skid across the massive flat ice lakes of Minmus. I've visited the red planet and attempted to land spaceplanes on its uneven terrain. I've dived probes into the sun to see how far you could travel before overheating.

I've attempted land speed records on the sands of Duna and flown drones between its deep trenches. I've launched Constellation-type missions to its surface to investigate the feasibility of such a project and to challenge the technical aspects of fitting different crafts into a single ship. I've visited Jool and discovered the existence of what I call the "Black Kraken" that resides in its green clouds, and made suborbital skips in its atmosphere to see how far I could go without getting trapped.

I've visited the endless seas and shores of Laythe only to discover that it mysteriously has oxygen, and pondered the existence of microbial life on the surface, for which I've launched numerous floating bases to its surface. I've flown SSTOs around its landscape and visited small isolated ponds of water in search of life.

I've established permanent colonies in the space around Jool and its moons which allowed for unrestricted travel between moons for refueling. I've visited Moho in my Moho Mofo mothership, protected from the sun's harsh rays with heat shielding, discovering (what was back then) an atmosphere that overheated and burnt out engines. I've launched to the farthest reaches to rendezvous with Eeloo and conducted robotic rescue missions. I've roved its surface discovering that the surface sank a little and the interface between brown and white areas was incredibly gradual, suggesting mixing of ice and dirt. Sometimes my Kerbals stand and look up into the black sky with the Kerbol sun shining faintly in the distance admiring the vastness of what we call space and how if something were to go wrong, help is around 8 years away. I've flown ships from the impossibly large to the incredibly small, from the sleek to the asymmetric and ugly.

... and this is only a snippet of my adventures inside KSP over the years of playing.

The only thing flat here is your imagination and sense of adventure. You seem to forget that there was a time where the only playable mode in KSP was the sandbox, and it was still a blast to launch ships and explore the planetary systems because people enjoyed the exploration and experimentation of what was the universe of KSP (and its unique quirky physics). Thinking that having imaginary 'science' numbers go up as an incentive to fly to other planets is downright wrong to the nth degree and isn't the main reason why we fly rockets. If the game has to spoon feed you reasons to get you to fly a rocket then I have to question why you even bought this game if you're not enjoying launching stuff into space.

P.S. I actually play career mode, in case you didn't notice from my other posts.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Levelord

[Unabled]

Beautiful post Levelord, an inspiring tale of adventure and exploration. 5 stars.

I think encouraging completionism is/was not the best choice for KSP. I'd like to see more interaction between science contracts and normal science- biomes could become valuable again over time, making re-visits useful.

I'd also like to see little graphs, or something added to the flavour text.

Great idea!

I thought they could use reputation to achieve this... Sort of like public interest in your program's activities. Too many missions to the same planet, and public interest wanes until you go somewhere new. Then after a while, you could head back after interest is rekindled

[tater]

Actually, I could not possibly disagree more with levelord. Sandbox is already a thing. The only reason to spend even 5 minutes working on "career" from a game design standpoint is to create limitations, a story, challenges, etc that the player might not think of. That's the point. It's why I never played microsoft flight simulator, for example. Instead, I played numerous combat flight sims (prop sims). Even within those, you could play "instant action" single player or multiplayer, or campaign play (online or offline). I always played scenarios, in a context. Yeah, I wanted a better plane sometimes, but I was the RAF in Malaya in December, 1941 sometimes… hard cheese for me, but immersive.

Story and immersion are the point of campaigns, and immersion requires the kinds of limitations we expect from the real world. Some randomness, too. All this helps with replay.

[Stratzenblitz75]

snip

This. To much This.

KSP isn't fun because of the clickfest "science" (if you could even call it science) system and its occasionally funny flavor text. To me, KSP is fun because it lets you build the creations of your dreams and send them out into space to explore the planets of the Kerbol system. If all the planets in KSP were just grey spheres that gave you "science" every time you landed on them, I wouldn't be playing.

[Superfluous J]

If all the planets in KSP were just grey spheres that gave you "science" every time you landed on them, I wouldn't be playing.

Me either, but the reverse is also true for me. If they were exactly like they are now and there was no in-game reason to go to them, I wouldn't be playing. I know this because before the version with the first career mode in it (0.22?) came out, I *did* quit playing. I was sad about it because I wanted the game to have just that extra little thing and it didn't. Then career mode happened and I've been happily playing almost daily for over a year.

[tater]

This. To much This.

KSP isn't fun because of the clickfest "science" (if you could even call it science) system and its occasionally funny flavor text. To me, KSP is fun because it lets you build the creations of your dreams and send them out into space to explore the planets of the Kerbol system. If all the planets in KSP were just grey spheres that gave you "science" every time you landed on them, I wouldn't be playing.

I don't disagree with "clickfest" science not being fun. I agree completely. The idea that the only alternative is unrestricted sandbox is what is wrong. The clickfest is bad game design. Much of KSP is very well designed, IMO, just not career play. That we are having this discussion is not proof that the only true way to play is sandbox, it's that they are unclear on game design. I'm italicizing because there is a difference bewteen the simulation, interface, and "game" design in the traditional sense. Some of us grew up with both computer games (though some of you might not be huge fans of nethack, etc ) as well as board/miniatures games. There was no possibility of making a model of physical reality, then just "going with the flow," you have to set a goal, plan out what the scope of play is, what will be concentrated on vs abstracted, how you win, etc. It's complex.

The nature of their development has clearly been exploratory… which is great, but means that there is no clear "end game."

I see KSP as a sort of 1950s-on hard sci-fi combined with NASA and other space programs' plausible plans for future manned exploration. The end game to me would be the cusp of actual colonization. This works well for KSP as part counts for that sort of thing would kill us anyway. The follow on title (assuming a KSP 2, for money) would be a colonized Kerbol system, that or an explored one, with perhaps appropriate "science" bases here and there. Such a follow-on would need resources, and would be more strictly science fiction, though nothing past plausible technologies (fusion being the limit, really).

So what do we do with the exploration game that makes it interesting past playing with rockets like lego? I should add that I happy play with rockets like lego. Still, I'd like some more interactive, immersive world/solar system to interact with so that I can be surprised every so often.

As it stands, even with FP integrated, the goal of KSP career is to unlock the tech tree. People can say otherwise, but they are wrong. Anyone can have other personal thoughts about how they play, but the game design has one meaningful reward, and that is new tech. The reward system is by definition the goal of the game, like it or not.

A better career needs top either change this, add some other rewards that matter (rep/funds don't matter, even on "hard" your only limit is if you are missing a part you need/want).

New rewards should then be a primary goal. Rewards that players actually want to get. "Buffs" to the crew are ridiculous, IMO, at least in terms of adding Isp, dv, or whatever magic is being considered---if two people can push the same button and get different results…. I'm not interested unless the kerbals can actually function autonomously so I can send some missions I don't care to micromanage, and know that my skilled crew has a reasonable chance of not crashing. Note that "courage" then has meaning, as some missions might do better with a stoic guy who won't balk at that sorta iffy landing planned .

So kerbal autonomy with skill being a reward can be a decent reward. People will definitely work for that reward.

Real science. Not science to unlock tech, but science that actually tells you something that will make it easier/possible to do some missions.

Other ideas?

Edited October 17, 2014 by tater

[Dwight_js]

I don't mind the use of science points to unlock parts, but I agree that the click-click nature of science makes it boring. In addition to that, what bothers me is how the experiments, research contracts, science points, and unlocking process each exist in a vacuum. For example, I can do a Crew Report (basically looking out the window) and then use the resulting increased knowledge (science points) to develop an ion engine. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

I wish that you could do research and run tests in a particular environment, with particular types of instruments, and that the resulting technological developments would be in related fields. So that when I gather science in the upper atmosphere, I can develop technology that is related to that environment (heat-shields, wings, jet-engines, etc.). Maybe even set it up so that initial versions of a part are inefficient, or slightly ineffective, but with the possibility to improve this with testing and research. That way, your mission design will determine what technology fields will open up as a result.

[Superfluous J]

Real science. Not science to unlock tech, but science that actually tells you something that will make it easier/possible to do some missions.

There's one huge problem with this:

We (Humans on Earth) do science to learn about the world. We roll balls down slopes to see how gravity works. We send probes to Jupiter to see what its moons are like.

You don't need to do any of this in KSP. Every piece of information is readily available about everything. We know Pol's mass. We know its composition (it's made up of indestructible stuff that we can't interact with. And it's brownish). We literally can't glean any information from it by going there.

An alternate option is to actually hide information in the game until you go there, but then anybody who's played the game before (and there seem to be quite a few of us) will just know this stuff by heart and still just do the "science" by rote because they need to to unlock things.

I don't know a better way to do it than the way they're doing it now (except to remove 90% of the clicking and 100% of the EVAing to take science out of a goo container) that doesn't just devolve into "do science to gain stuff" in some way or another.

[Pixel of Life]

A minigame type thing would be interesting. I'm thinking some kind of material and data requirements for the tech tree nodes. Experiments, EVA reports and soil samples could be saved as items in the player's inventory (data, materials, maybe something else?) and the player would have to do the actual research by combining certain items to create more advanced items, and these would then be used to unlock parts of the tech tree.

I don't know what role Science would play in this though. Surely there's some way to make it have an effect on things?

[SkyRex94]

There's one huge problem with this:

We (Humans on Earth) do science to learn about the world. We roll balls down slopes to see how gravity works. We send probes to Jupiter to see what its moons are like.

You don't need to do any of this in KSP. Every piece of information is readily available about everything. We know Pol's mass. We know its composition (it's made up of indestructible stuff that we can't interact with. And it's brownish). We literally can't glean any information from it by going there.

An alternate option is to actually hide information in the game until you go there, but then anybody who's played the game before (and there seem to be quite a few of us) will just know this stuff by heart and still just do the "science" by rote because they need to to unlock things.

I don't know a better way to do it than the way they're doing it now (except to remove 90% of the clicking and 100% of the EVAing to take science out of a goo container) that doesn't just devolve into "do science to gain stuff" in some way or another.

It's right we do Science to learn about things, and new discoveries in knowledge of things lead to new technologies, so unlocking the parts with Science points is a good System i think. I agree that unlocking info about the planets doesn't really do anything especially if you know the planet before.

I think, as i pointed out in Suggestions several times (but Squad never responded to any of them), that the problem is in making getting Science points fun and maybe do 'more' with Science beside unlocking parts.

For example:

unlocking abilities:

like the ability to see and track asteroids after researching 'advanced telescopes'

or the ability to make maneuvour nodes after unlocking 'path prediction' (very early in tree)

or the ability to transmit data through a relay (if they ever add sth like atenna range) after researching 'network routing'

And making Science Explorative:

Have challenging Experiments, like a really big one when it deploys, or you have to assemble it first, so its preferable use is in orbit and its becoming a challenge to actually do this experiment.

And add more interaction, especially when landed, like setting up an experiment in a certain way (KAS-style) or rovering around before getting the Science.

etc. etc.

And maybe a Database for the Science-report-texts, so you can read the funny messages again and see again what your research on that specific location has brought to you.

But just adding more and more biomes won't make the Science system in itself more fun. I hope they revise the System too, when they make all the new biomes for 0.90.

And i hope upgrading buildings will also need Science, because that would be a step into the direction of other things than parts to spend the science on, and the Science System would become more independent from the current 'need-only-for-parts' use.

[Stratzenblitz75]

There's one huge problem with this:

We (Humans on Earth) do science to learn about the world. We roll balls down slopes to see how gravity works. We send probes to Jupiter to see what its moons are like.

You don't need to do any of this in KSP. Every piece of information is readily available about everything. We know Pol's mass. We know its composition (it's made up of indestructible stuff that we can't interact with. And it's brownish). We literally can't glean any information from it by going there.

An alternate option is to actually hide information in the game until you go there, but then anybody who's played the game before (and there seem to be quite a few of us) will just know this stuff by heart and still just do the "science" by rote because they need to to unlock things.

I don't know a better way to do it than the way they're doing it now (except to remove 90% of the clicking and 100% of the EVAing to take science out of a goo container) that doesn't just devolve into "do science to gain stuff" in some way or another.

I'd actually quite enjoy a system where everything is initially hidden and you have to discover it. There could be an interactive archive of the Kerbol System complete with maps, atmosphere layer charts, interesting facts, and possibly, interior "cutouts" of each of the planets.

Some of the information, such as atmosphere density and height maps combined with some, IMO much needed, in-game calculators, could be useful in planning your missions. For example, it would be helpful to know how thick Eve's atmosphere is so you can calculate an aerobrake, (because right now, its just guess work). Slope and height maps could also be useful for picking specific landing sites for your missions.

The other information, such as interior cutouts, interesting facts, anomaly maps, would be there to enrich the universe and make it seem more dynamic and interesting, like the planets aren't just collision meshes with textures, there's something more to them.

This way, science is no longer used for part unlocking. Instead, I think completing contracts and spending funds should unlock parts.

This idea isn't really fleshed out, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

[waterlubber]

I'd just let the biome counter be adjustable. Before Squad finishes coding, just put something akin to "level of detail"

Hard: KSC is one big biome

Medium: What it was in 0.24

Easy: All teh biomes

This would satisfy everyone's needs. More customization! MOAR!