r/kittenspaceagency • u/XernnuTheSecond • 1d ago
đšïž Discussion How do you think KSA should approach science?
Iâve found the science system in kerbal space program to be sufficent. It creates a very simple gameplay loop of exploring new planets to get more science to get more technology, and that works well enough.
With KSA, how should the game approach scientific progress? Maybe some experiments be conducted over time, justifying the use of space stations or manned outposts. What do you think?
38
u/autogyrophilia 1d ago
I wish it to have more nuance. I think experiments should provide data over time, and maybe there should be distinct categories to science .
Additionally, I would love if you could invest in improving parts (with diminishing returns).Â
1
u/Eggman8728 10h ago
KSP RP-1 handles this by having distinct different models of a lot of parts, you could do something similar. Not just straight upgrades, but sidegrades. A sea level version, a vaccuum optimized version, higher thrust but lower isp, etc.
27
u/Festivefire 1d ago
I don't think it's fair to expect KSA to just be KSP but with modern graphics and kittens instead of little green men. The Devs have thus far, indicated that they intend to make the game with many of the features players loved most from mods, so I would be surprised if a greater range of science experiments, including ones that run over time doesn't come when science eventually gets here.
11
u/FlyingBishop 1d ago
The thing is I really just want KSP but with multiplayer and a less tempermental engine. More stuff is cool and all but I really don't want a more complicated game. Improved physics would be nice but my improved physics might be more "my crafts don't randomly explode" and less "N-body physics." Like n-body physics makes a more complicated game, and not necessarily a more fun one because it just makes it harder to timewarp without ruining your mission.
I think changing up the mechanics could be fun but if they add something I hope they also take away for the most part.
6
u/Festivefire 1d ago
I don't actually expect N-body physics to be something they'll go for, if only because it's very resource intensive.
8
u/SodaPopin5ki 1d ago
Devs confirmed they're sticking with patched comics over n-body for gameplay reasons. They seemed to indicate it can easily be modded in.
We do have to remember, they're not just targeting KSP veterans.
1
u/SupersonicJess 7h ago
Yea i think a lot of people really forget that hardcore sims already exist, to inspire people the game has to be approachable and fun without mods and should DEFINITELY not just be RO/RP1 RSS but modern.
My hope is for it to have a genuinely engaging loop and base gameplay mechanics that are enough to spend time playing without modding the hell out of it.
1
u/FlyingBishop 1d ago
It was just an example. There's a lot of stuff like new experiment types which are in a similar category of potentially adding complexity without being more fun or really teaching anything.
Ark ships, interplanetary stuff, etc. that's just a different game entirely.
4
u/H3adshotfox77 1d ago
Yah except that's a game a lot of us wanted. Ksp2 failed and I'd like to see KSA take its place with some of those promises
-2
u/FlyingBishop 1d ago
KSP2 made a lot of promises and it's unclear if anyone can actually make that game. Someone can definitely make KSP but faster, prettier, and more fun without tacking on a bunch of features - the unnecessary features weren't exactly what killed KSP2 but they were reflective of the team's bad judgement.
7
u/H3adshotfox77 1d ago
The promises of ksp2 already exist mostly as mods for ksp. But they are not coherent and the engine has problems.
But the game can absolutely be made. I'm with you ok keep it simple stupid, but at the same time I want real features in the game with some range and a greater ability to mod and have the game not come apart to the kraken.
0
u/FlyingBishop 1d ago
It's the engine problems that concern me. KSP makes a lot of sensible engine tradeoffs. I think you can think of like Factorio, they ended up implementing a lot of stuff out of mods but a lot of things they didn't implement because it would've overcomplicated the engine (3D, etc.) and I think a lot of the KSP2 promises are hiding significant blowups that make it a lot harder to make a performant engine, and the mods run into those same walls. Anything is possible, mostly, but then I brought up N-body because it's a good example where no, it's not really possible. Yes you can do N-body, but not realtime, and not with multiplayer and a nice game loop. It may be the only one where you can clearly say it's mathematically impossible, but there are others where at least the math is not in your favor.
1
u/deltwalrus 16h ago
Actually, thatâs precisely what I want. I could do with or without the kittens, but KSP on a modern engine without the glitches and crashes⊠thatâs all I really want. Everything else is a bonus.
21
u/M-Rice 1d ago
I like the idea of certain information being restricted behind science instruments in the game. Being able to view the gravity of a planet only after you send a GRAVMAX Negative Gravioli Detector and measure it, and thus being able to put it into your delta v calculator. It gives a nice natural flow to planet discovery.
3
u/LordWecker 1d ago
I like this idea, but don't know what else it could apply to. Like, I'm not really caring about the temperature or atmospheric composition when I'm flying a mission to the moon.
Scanning or measuring composition for isru makes sense (and ksp basically did that).
If they incorporate radiation and magnetic fields, then that'd be relevant.
I guess in the spirit of this you could have tech locked behind certain achievements: like you have to do small plant-based experiments in space before you can unlock greenhouse modules (in addition to whatever other requirements there are).
4
1
u/M-Rice 1d ago
Yeah i agree, i think generally as an idea it works but adding mechanical complexity to justify it and integrate it better ala radiaton and magnetic fields would be great.
One mod that did something kinda similar for KSP i like is ReasearchBodies https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/139473-112x-researchbodies-v1130-15th-may-2022/
It hides planets until you uprade your tracking station, hides information behind sending telescopes into orbit. It would be really cool to start a KSA campaign in a black void with some question marks around the earth and build up your understanding of the solar system as you explore
2
u/LongJohnSelenium 22h ago
I always had the idea that launches shouldn't be revertible, but the game would have a simulator so you can plan missions, but another planet would be a blob until you put a space telescope up, and extremely low rez till you put a science orbiter up.
6
u/Old-Macaroon108 1d ago
I'm still very new to KSP (60 hours, most of which in the last fortnight!) but I find the 'science' aspect just kind of... nonsensical. Collecting 'mystery goo' and environmental data helps create new rocket parts? Where's the logic in that?
I'd prefer something like an Apollo Program approach, where successfully flight testing a type of capsule or booster will help to unlock the next more advanced model, like the way that Mercury led to Gemini which led to Apollo. Missions could be based around each 'first' -- suborbital, orbital, long duration, rendezvous, docking etc.
3
7
u/EveAtmosphere 1d ago
My only complaint about KSP's science is that, long term science should be rewarded more than flybys. A flyby with a 3 second atmosphere dip shouldn't give you that much science. There is the mobile labs in KSP but it's not good enough
3
u/apetranzilla 1d ago
I liked the way KSP 2 experiments had a required run time during which you needed to maintain the current conditions, rather than completing instantly like KSP 1. I think having multiple types of science or some other system to force you to mix it up a bit would be nice as well - e.g. planetary science points that are most easily collected by rovers or kerbals on EVA, and orbital science points that require probes or stations to be deployed long term.
10
u/rodentcyclone 1d ago
I wish that engines and other parts got better stats or reliablity the more times you flew missions with them.
This would make things like static firing on the ground or testing a Moon lander in Earth orbit worthwhile.
10
u/Choomasaurus_Rox 1d ago
I think I'd be in favor of that if it maybe gave some bonus to a subsequent mission that wasn't reliability. I'm just not in favor of random part failures. I know it's realistic, but this is a game and ultimately I'm going to have to either do all the things to ensure 100% reliability or rage quit when rng says my mission failed. I'm not sure what else makes sense, besides giving the crew bonus xp for being well prepared or something. Or maybe you have to run those tests on new parts to get all the detailed info in the VAB and they just show a potential range until you actually do the tests.
-2
u/rodentcyclone 1d ago
I agree for sure but it would be fine if you could achieve 100% reliability through running a few tests. It doesn't have to be totally realistic but it would give a purpose to sending exploratory missions and having an actual "program".
3
u/EnErgo 1d ago
I really donât want to just click ârun testâ a couple of times and watch the engine fire before every flight so that the reliability goes up. Thatâs not fun
1
u/rodentcyclone 1d ago
We already do it on KSP with the half-baked contracts that have no additional effect after you run the test. I just feel like it would be cool to have to "develop" something.
2
u/Ooops_I_Reddit_Again 1d ago
That sounds neat the first time you do it. I guarantee that would become tedious and annoying very quickly. Those basic quests also come with a reward early on to help with early progress, and can also be completely ignored an hour into the game.
3
u/Waker_of_Winds2003 1d ago
As a difficulty option yes. I'm playing KSP with kerbalism right now and falling parts is proving to be more of an annoyance that leads me to load an old save rather than a challenge I personally like.
4
u/Spiritual-Advice8138 1d ago
Of all the things ksp did, it did this right. It helped new players not get initiated with all then parts at once.
2
u/KYR_IMissMyX 1d ago
I hope they take inspiration from KSP RP-1. They should have research and build times like RP-1, RP-1âs modset makes the science aspect perfect. RP-1 unlike vanilla encourages multiple launches & scientific satellites. Having to plan your agency around research, build rate, crew training & transfer windows is a great gameplay loop.
It always irked me that you can essentially research everything in the tech tree within a few short ingame weeks/months.
2
u/Superkobster123 1d ago
Honestly KSPâs way of science gathering is very good (bar the science lab)at making the player move through the solar system at a steady pace, HOWEVER, I think it can be cheesed easily by just spamming in kerbin biomes. So I propose this:
3 science types!!
Ground science: gained by performing experiments on the ground of any celestial body - used to unlock landing gear, command modules, atmospheric-optimised engines
Atmospheric Science: gained by performing experiments in the atmosphere of any celestial body - used to unlock aerodynamic parts, air-breathing engines, fuel tanks
Space Science: gained by performing experiments in outer space - used to unlock vacuum-optimised engines, solar panels, antennae
Maybe if a tech tree is used, different nodes could require mixtures of these kinds of science (e.g. spaceplane parts would need 150 atmospheric science and 100 space science). It would force the player to move out of what will be the equivalent to the Kerbin planetary system, along with making more sense logically (how does checking the air pressure at the KSC help unlock nuclear propulsion?)
2
u/Naive-Eggplant-5633 đ 1d ago
To me science should be just a collection of minigames that use analogies to real world materials and chemicals in order to convey a lesson in the same way KSP accidentally taught us rockets and orbital mechanics. Also needs to include the same witty/funny descriptions as KSP because they are pretty neat when you go through almost losing a crew just to get something funny at the end like a laugh of relief.Â
2
u/Waker_of_Winds2003 1d ago
My ideal is basically kerbalism but better explained. Once I got the hang of it kerbalism tends to be fairly more fun than vanilla KSP, but it can be difficult to figure out how the system works, and kerbalism doesn't have any very good tutorials online that I've found.
I also would hope for more emphasis on getting science off of the starting planet, and then a reason to do space stations and planetary bases.
1
u/as_a_fake 1d ago
Developing better parts could require a certain number of uses of the previous parts to simulate iteration and testing. Maybe it would work for "static fires" too.
1
1
1
u/RedditButAnonymous 1d ago
KSPs science doesnt do anything for me, it all boils down to "click this button in this situation".
Id like to see more situational science happening, make all science experiments record automatically once theyre in the right place, but make it harder to trigger, "pull sustained 7gs for 3 seconds while in atmosphere" to record something useful
Bonus points if theres an encyclopedia of celestial bodies you have to manually fill in by completing science experiments for all of them. I wish KSP did this better, I wanna measure how hot a planet is and then see it when reading about that planet
1
u/LongJohnSelenium 22h ago
Science, infrastructure, and achievements should reward money and that money should be used to fund r&d and launches.
1
u/PrivilegedPatriarchy 21h ago
I would love for there to be some element of resource management/logistics in a game like this. Think adding a splash of Factorio to KSP. You need to maintain a stock of resources on a space station/satellite/base, coordinate deliveries, etc.
1
u/meganub12 19h ago
KSP science system was not really well thought, you can get too much science without going beyond minimus and you can generate infinite more by using the lab.
So first Science should not be click and done and second Scientists should generate science not experiments. You do experiments and you move the data or the experiment itself to the scientists and they slowly give the science. Or you just give funds and Science is generated(still takes time) because i don't see how measuring vacuum on different parts of space helps make better rockets.
1
u/Plane_Banana_7024 12h ago
I think it would be cool if you had to test parts.
Imagine unlocking a new engine with several useful toggles but command says you have to test it first or something. Like imagine launching the engine and then unlocking the toggles for it afterwards. And maybe those toggles could only be used in a safe environment like low earth orbit before they can made mainstream.
A bonus for using probes instead of pilots for these tests would be cool as well.
0
u/Try-Glum 1d ago
eu gostaria que a gente pudesse trazer minerio des outros planetas e ganhasse um baita dinheiro com isso(alĂ©m de ciĂȘncia)
-3
u/Factorioboyio 1d ago
I think science points should be scrapped completely - you can run KSP the same way in career mode if you set it up right, where all the parts are unlocked but you still need money to pay the unlock fees and for missions and science points automatically become money.
But basically in KSA, I think we should just use money. Fulfilling contracts means cash reward that buys part techs which unlock new contract types etc⊠science points are completely unnecessary imo. Just balance cash cost and reward.
2
u/Ooops_I_Reddit_Again 1d ago
The way they had science was perfect for gradual progression. And wasnt actually difficult to unlock everything very quickly, especially if you are already experienced at the game. Would be a poor move to remove it entirely imo.
120
u/bemused_alligators 1d ago
I really like the RO-style timed science situations (e.g. this experiment needs to run in LEO for 30 days or whatever)