Potential Uses for Extra Science Points?

[NASAHireMe]

Ultimately though I think there should be a surfeit of science on normal difficulty to give the player freedom. Do you want to do a series of tried-and-tested Mun and Duna landings in the different biomes?

I agree with your ideas. Problem is there's TOO much freedom is one can satisfy all science requirements with just a few Minmus landings. I also agree that the science should decrease per biome you visit; first Goo study in the East Crater nets you 150 pts, but first Goo study in the next biome only nets you 120 pts, etc.

I like the idea of seeing Science Points as being the "High Score" of the game. Even to the point of once you get X amount of Science you've "won" (*)(**).

I did that for 0.23. I managed to collect every single drop of science in the whole game, but it wasn't fun, and would be even less so without MJ to do the landings and takeoffs, and with 10+ biomes on every body now. Obviously, you're not forcing people to go for all the Science pts, but even making it a "Score" would encourage people to waste their time tediously collecting all the science. As it is right now, 99% of players look at all the biomes they have to visit and immediately reject the idea of being a 'completionist' and instead build cool things or complete challenges, which is what we want to encourage, IMO.

[tater]

I have a potentially fun solution where you can spend extra science points into temporary 'buffs' for your rockets. For example, spend 500 science to buff this engine's TWR/tank's fuel capacity/etc etc... for this launch only. That way there's an endless sink for the science to go into that has a use and gives it an inherent currency value.

Yeah, because planetary science results in improvements to rocketry… that you forget the second Werner pushes the big red button.

[samstarman5]

At the moment Science>Funds or Science>Rep. The former one feels really rubbish to me, but if you've got no use for the science points anyway it could be worthwhile.

Remember, a lot of these issues should be fixed in the rebalance. We can definitely expect all costs and revenues to change. As for stuff beyond that, I'd like to see diminishing returns - first Mun biome gets lots of science, later ones get much less - to encourage exploration. I also think it would be useful to have strategies that affect the amount of sciece/rep/funds you have now, rather than just what you earn in future.

Ultimately though I think there should be a surfeit of science on normal difficulty to give the player freedom. Do you want to do a series of tried-and-tested Mun and Duna landings in the different biomes? Would you rather put space probes all over the system? Is ignoring the experiments and doing contracts your thing? For any one approach to give sufficient science, they must offer an excess in total.

Diminishing returns on visiting new biomes is not a good idea, as it does not encourage returning to a world. Right now there is a system of severe diminished returns on science on a current biome, which works just fine. But exploration is more than just finding that next world. Remember we are about to deal with mining resources for self-sustaining colonies and space missions. There should be emphasis on exploring a world for more than just one little biome, and if there isn't going to be a sizable return for science as well as other potential resources, it will actually discourage going to different places. The Mun alone is a treasure trove of awesome vistas and discoveries. But eye-candy alone will not satisfy the kerbonaut. We are in this for the science, and we want that payday.

It has been stated before that you can use science for other resources, especially funds which will always be necessary, and reputation which keeps the contracts coming which, you guessed it, keeps the funds coming in. And there will always be potential for new tech discovery, especially as extra-Kerbin colonies will gain in importance exponentially.

So what if your tech tree has been topped out? That isn't the end of the game. We are here to go into space and check out cool planets, moons, and planetoids, and go fetch the occasional stray asteroid(I got a contract just today to put a C-type in orbit around Eve. I am so tempted to take it on...just to do it. Heck with the science. And that is coming from someone who has his game geared towards gaining science. I love custom difficulty settings.)

It has been confirmed that engines are getting nerfed in 1.0, and I will tell you that left me biting my nails. Just today I actually managed to fail to get a craft into orbit after so many successes in my career. Now the difficulty is about to get ramped up to 11 and we are going to have a lot more to worry about than how soon our tech tree gets filled up. I will tell you something...it is definitely going to be slower than we are used to. So we best keep those science returns on new biomes just where they are. If I have to visit Minmus a dozen times to get the tech necessary to visit Duna or Dres, I will. And I am going to want the full bang for my buck. (Not that bang, Jeb. Sit down or I will send you to Eeloo without a good launch window.)

As I stated, exploring is more than just finding the next planet. We want to explore each planet in eye-grinding detail. No doubt there will be yummy resources to be found on Moho, but nobody is going to want the Summer Resort option for the colony, so one will want to explore both poles and find the best canyons and craters to keep the colony out of the light of Kerbol the most. That would logically yield just as much science as the first place you touch down on.

I do like the sideways tech choices. A science module geared more for gas science wouldn't necessarily contribute to further tech advances, but would provide added benefit, and would definitely be yielded by spending science units on as any other branch on the tree.

Engines are going to be nerfed to a degree, but there has been mention of going overboard on that nerf. I disagree. But it would be cool if we could spend science to buff those engines and other parts to improve overall performance. Maybe even off-site with a leveled-up engineer. Would definitely allow for a colony on Eve, with the thought of providing upgrades to parts so said colony can send a craft back to Kerbin.

There are too many players who are not in KSP for the grind. Squad knows that since they kindly provided for the option to avoid it. But making it harder to avoid that grind overall, especially by nerfing the engines a crazy-ton, is a poor choice. If you are in it for the grind, then kudos! I have no problem with that. But not everybody plays the same as you and there should always remain the flexibility.

Science funds are fun to get, and fun to spend on the tech tree or to use towards funds or reputation. But it doesn't end when your tech tree is completed. Far from it. I am expecting to complete mine well before my first mission past Duna, and I am not about to let that stop me from visiting Eeloo and establishing a colony there. Because you never know if that might not just be the first stepping stone to beyond(imagine what using Kerbol for a gravity assist can yield). There is more yet to come, my fellow kerbonauts. Let's don't unused science stop us from finding out what else is out there.

[Tw1]

I still think this is a flaw in the game design.

I have a potentially fun solution where you can spend extra science points into temporary 'buffs' for your rockets. For example, spend 500 science to buff this engine's TWR/tank's fuel capacity/etc etc... for this launch only. That way there's an endless sink for the science to go into that has a use and gives it an inherent currency value.

That's not bad.

[SorryDave]

Usually when I play, I unlock the tech tree as quickly as possible. Then I start visiting places and biomes. I'm not trying to collect everything, but I like landing in new biomes and running science experiments. I like reviewing science I collectef in the RD center.

I do not agree that science needs to be rebalanced to encourage visiting beyond the Kerbin SOI. That is not very realistic or historic.

[Parkaboy]

I like the idea of being able to improve a part's performance, but I'd rather it were a permanent instead of a temporary boost. We could visit the tech tree and research improvements for certain parts - engines could have their ISP and thrust increased, science parts could have their science output increased, solar panels could generate more power, and most parts could have their dry weight reduced.

But in order to keep the balance, these improvements would have to be slight and very expensive. Something like 5% or 10% increments, leading up to a limit of 50%. If a part costs 100 science points to unlock, we'd pay 200 science for a 5% boost, then 300 for the next 5%, and so on. That way, we could invest in the parts we like to use most, and would have to play for years (in RL) to get everything maxed out.

[micha]

I also like the idea of (permanently) buffing parts - but instead of (for example) an LV-45 becoming 5% more powerful/efficient/whatever after the buff, it should be unlocking an LV-45 Mk2 (and then a Mk3, Mk4, ...). Possibly have each revision also become more expensive.

This way we achieve 2 aims which I think are critical:

1) existing craft aren't magically upgraded

2) everybody still plays in the same universe. (*)

(*) That is, if I share a .craft which contains some upgraded parts, then everybody can fly that craft as intended (assuming they have unlocked those part upgrades). There is no disclaimer "oh, btw, this will only fly if you upgrade this part to such-and-such a level" which was the major outcry over the buffing system originally proposed for leveling Kerbals.

[Parkaboy]

I also like the idea of (permanently) buffing parts - but instead of (for example) an LV-45 becoming 5% more powerful/efficient/whatever after the buff, it should be unlocking an LV-45 Mk2 (and then a Mk3, Mk4, ...). Possibly have each revision also become more expensive.

This way we achieve 2 aims which I think are critical:

1) existing craft aren't magically upgraded

2) everybody still plays in the same universe. (*)

(*) That is, if I share a .craft which contains some upgraded parts, then everybody can fly that craft as intended (assuming they have unlocked those part upgrades). There is no disclaimer "oh, btw, this will only fly if you upgrade this part to such-and-such a level" which was the major outcry over the buffing system originally proposed for leveling Kerbals.

Yeah, when I say upgrade existing parts, I don't mean the parts on existing vessels, only the ones built from then on. But I like the idea of changing the part name with each upgrade - although I don't think it would be feasible to have its model change visually with each new version, if that's what you mean.

[QPDO]

I also like the idea of (permanently) buffing parts - but instead of (for example) an LV-45 becoming 5% more powerful/efficient/whatever after the buff, it should be unlocking an LV-45 Mk2 (and then a Mk3, Mk4, ...). Possibly have each revision also become more expensive.

A nice idea. Should work on a diminishing return scale of 10xsp/10% boost - 100xsp /5% boost- 1000xsp / 1% boost- 10000xsp /0,5% boost etc.

[cicatrix]

I saw an idea of 'retrofitting' the parts in KSPI. Upgrading the part costs science points but this upgrade applies to this particular part only. If you crashed or recovered it you have to start from the original (not upgraded) part and upgrade it again. A computer core upgrade cost is 1000 science points. Enough to inspire you to go looking for 'moar' science.

[MartGonzo]

I don't like the idea of using science points to increase engine efficiency, everything already seems overpowered and cheaty in KSP

magical hyper efficient engines would just make it worse.

In my view, the tech tree should be unlocked by money and science should control income, like a government grant, that way neither becomes redundant and it's closer to how real world space agencies work.

[DocMoriarty]

I agree with OP that the inflation of science points made them pretty easy to get. Currently in a normal game it's harder to get funds than science. Therefore i wish the science tree would be rebalanced and stretched some more and take more points. In my 0.90 career game i didn't even seriously go to Mun or Minmus to get science points, i did most just from missions. Also some parts such as the "composites" should be available much earlier in the tree since those are very basic construction parts. Right now they come alltogether past the claw which doesn't make sense.

[tater]

I think the map zoom level should be changed with science points (ideally science from the body in question).

This allows later game players to do more precise landings as they can zoom in closer to see the relative position of the target area (creating large bases, or perhaps more specific contracts (missions) in terms of location (seismic readings, etc).

[Odielthen]

I throughly agree with the idea of being able to upgrade parts with science, within reason. For balance reasons, there should be an absolute maximum that something can be upgraded.

I think that there is also an opportunity here to consider redefining what science is as a currency. The different scientific experiments should contribute to a specific type of science, which could then be spent on upgrading a subset of parts.

For example, the Science Jr. would contribute to Materials science, which could be spent on upgrading things like the wet/dry mass ratio of a fuel tank. The mystery goo container could contribute to Chemical science, and be spent on improving the efficiency of engines. Experiments should contribute to multiple science pools, but should contribute to some much more than others.

There should be different attributes of a part that should receive an upgrade. For an engine, the ISP, mass, thrust, and gimbal range, should all be upgraded separately.

[tater]

Buffing stuff with "science" is… no. Just no.

How does planetary science lead to more efficient engines, exactly?

[Odielthen]

Buffing stuff with "science" is… no. Just no.

How does planetary science lead to more efficient engines, exactly?

First, how do you explain planetary science being used for the initial development of components?

I have a hard time justifying things like crew reports, but most of the other experiments could return usable data. I already mentioned some of these in my above post. The thermometer flavor text could be rewritten to say that it is the controller for a large number of thermocouple measurements which have been placed throughout the craft. Accelerometer data is directly applicable to determine the performance of engines or parachutes. It could be rewritten to allow in flight measurements to reflect this. Pressure data is very important for analyzing aerodynamic stresses. The gravity detector... I've got nothing.

[tater]

I don't like the interaction between science and the tech tree, period.

I would much rather have science actually do something useful for gameplay. Hence my suggestion about it "buffing" map view. The more data you get on a world, the more data you have available in map view to accurately fly.

[Techpriest93]

Spend Science to upgrade individual kerbals? 10-20-50 Science per exp? (don't know on the numbers).

I like the idea of using science labs to upgrade individual parts, and would encourage keeping a "Mother ship" around to send tankers up to and refuel.

Edit:

The people talking about "Sideways techtree nodes" where it makes a LV30 to a LV32 or LV30 Mrk1 to a LV30 Mrk2 have a really good idea.

It should be a contract provided by the parts manufacture, and requires you to preform a series of tests with that part, like 5-9 tests at different biomes and orbits, like run engine test while in atmosphere above and below X meters on Kerbin, Duna, Eve, Jool, and Layth (basicly all planets with an atmosphere). Or test a lander engine or wheel while landed on over half the bodies of the kerbol System. Or test solar pannels while high above a planet on each planet (not mun) of the solar system.

Once these contracts are complete, a small token amount of resources are given, and the upgrade node for the part is unlocked. Then you sink a huge amount of science and funds into the node to get a 5% boost on certain stats, and you can do that 5 times.

each time replaces the part in the VAB and SPH with the new part, and maybe a small texture change!

Things to improve is drag, impact tolerance, mass, temp tolerance, etc etc. And that's across all parts, engines for example can have electrical generation, thrust, ISP at sea level, (I'm just listing off stuff that people don't normally think about, cause people have only talked about ISP in vacuum so far).

Edited February 5, 2015 by Techpriest93
MOAR IDEAS

[cantab]

I don't like the interaction between science and the tech tree, period.

I would much rather have science actually do something useful for gameplay. Hence my suggestion about it "buffing" map view. The more data you get on a world, the more data you have available in map view to accurately fly.

The big question here is how else do you do tech unlocks? Using Funds would make those way too important and Science and Rep both rather trivial. Using contracts or using exploration "milestones" would make the game a lot more rigidly structured. Using Rep would be even harder to justify ICly than using Science.

[tater]

Using Missions (contracts is a terrible word for KSC designed science missions) is not rigid in the least. There are already de facto science missions implicitly for every location/geome in game (same as contract, biome explicitly refers to areas with biologies). Complaining about requirements in CAREER mode is silly, IMHO. That's the point of career. If you want pure, unadulterated science, choose science mode, or sandbox. Career should be more directed… but I suggest the player directing it, only within a framework.

There is no reason not to tie space technology improvements to specific contracts or missions. Reasonable test contracts for every part, for example. Not "test huge booster engine landed on Minmus," but testing them in actual launches (and with needed parts like at least 1 tank type, and an adaptor in the case of large engines). Landers, and legs, or rover wheels… need soil samples, EVA reports, etc. Solar panels need science from orbit (micrometeorite testing, for a RL example). Crew compartments require sending crews to space for X amount of time to test new life support, food prep, waste management, etc. All this can be worked out, and a huge variety of contracts/missions would be created for virtually every contingency. Engineer specialists would multiply such spacecraft science gains, as scientists would multiply planetary science.

Planets would have map view POV capped higher than it is now, until you get some science from orbit, that lowers map view to what it is now, perhaps. Then all worlds would get a suite of visual survey type missions you can chose from. Pick what you like (zones required to fly above can be huge, or perhaps as simple as orbiting a craft below XX km in a polar orbit (that guarantees at least 74% coverage or whatever).

No limits is bad game design, period. Set up a framework that makes actual sense, then allow the players to drive the framework. Perhaps instead of the dumb currency "strategies," our programs could have space program strategies---"manned flight tot he Mun," or "long term orbital stations" or "Colonize Duna." (make many, many of these as broad mission goals).

Inside the box thinking is bad on this, I think.

[Slam_Jones]

(Probably already suggested, but) I would love to see part improvements. Using science, you can upgrade one specific stat for certain parts. The cost for improving them increases exponentially. (Example: 2, 4, 16, 256, 65536, and so on).

I don't think all parts should be upgradable for balance reasons (thrusters, mainly). Maybe, maybe a 1% increase in ISP or something. But only maybe.

Examples:

-- Strengthen structural plates (increase crash and heat resistance by 10%)

-- Cockpit systems efficiency (decrease overall electricity usage by 5%)

-- Streamline aerodynamics (decrease drag by 5%)

-- Stability improvement (Increase SAS strength by 10%)

etc. etc.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[dryer_lint]

Stock them up until you have enough for 100% science-to-funds conversion.

I haven't reached late-game yet, but the way I see it, early strategies should focus on getting science. Mid-game to late-game, you should get yourself a ton of funds through contracts and strategies. Once you've got enough funds to sustain your space program forever... I dunno, go for Reputation? Or just blow it all on an "interstellar" mission?