A more intuitive tech tree

[Wallygator]

This gave me an idea. Would it be possible to select the techtree-type / different techcharts at start (just like the difficulty settings)? If yes, then there could be a Career-Mode for beginners which uses the current techtree so you can get introduced into the game and get a feeling of what parts you want and need. Then there could also be an advanced Career-Mode which uses a different techchart and doesn't guide you like the current Career-Mode.

Although I think that this would be somehow "too much" or rather pointless at the end, as we have already 3 different modes to play. Hm, this requires further thinking.

I think you are on to something here.

[CaptainKipard]

This gave me an idea. Would it be possible to select the techtree-type / different techcharts at start (just like the difficulty settings)? If yes, then there could be a Career-Mode for beginners which uses the current techtree so you can get introduced into the game and get a feeling of what parts you want and need. Then there could also be an advanced Career-Mode which uses a different techchart and doesn't guide you like the current Career-Mode.

Although I think that this would be somehow "too much" or rather pointless at the end, as we have already 3 different modes to play. Hm, this requires further thinking.

That's not necessary. You have sandbox for getting familiar with parts.

[Kegereneku]

Cpt.Kipard, I talked of having the docking port at least one tier later (size 1, I mean) because you are expected to have basic propulsion anyway, making it "tier 1" nearly while it would be meaningless to have more than the dock-port jr (and even then) before you even get unto orbit (what basic propulsion is supposed to make normal).

Then there's the fact you put RCS there anyway and I would expect anybody to rush RCS once they start wanting to dock anything.

It's great to have "similar technology" on distinct route to be easy to pick, but both for Gameplay and verisimilitude you have to expect some to not be available without some prerequisite or imposed limit. For example : realistically we could get all science through unmanned mission more easily, in practice we want Kerbal manned mission to be useful.

Now, your idea of gendered docking port is a VERY BAD idea. Players already have enough problem docking, now you would break their ability to correct mistake for... FAKE-verisimilitude ? Gendered docking port were obsolete by Apollo, the rest is only anchor point (jr like) used because IRL we have the Canadarm and don't need more complicated system.

Then, its not like we don't have enough docking port available, they would just clutter uselessly the part list.

If I could give you a negative reputation point I would, two for bringing up your rep point.

[CaptainKipard]

I remade the tree in Dia, and added some of the suggestions in this thread (the ones that were relevant anyway)

Kegereneku,.. I have no idea what your point is, but the difficult you seem to be having (along with every other person who wants to impose artificial limits and progressions) is grasping the concept of an open tree. Openness is (or at least was) the main philosophy behind KSP, and the current tree doesn't reflect that in any way.

Now I put docking ports further along the structural branch, because like I said it has nothing to do with propulsion, and even if every single person researches propulsion before structural, it should be their choice.

Is it ok for people to make their own choices? Please, stop trying to tell people how to play the game. Most people want a choice, even if it ends up being the same as yours.

It might not even be. Don't you get a little bored of the first few missions in a game? I do. They're really grindy. I'd like more variety. More depth.

Gendered docking port were obsolete by Apollo, the rest is only anchor point (jr like) used because IRL we have the Canadarm and don't need more complicated system.

Then, its not like we don't have enough docking port available, they would just clutter uselessly the part list.

Whether or not they're obsolete is not relevant. It was just an alternative idea to give people docking ports early, without breaking immersion.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[KSK]

Nice. Looks like we'd need enough initial science to start progressing quite a few branches simultaneously. Almost everything is going to need propulsion, planes will then need wings, cockpits (although possibly not for extremely low tech planes ) and probably landing gear. Rockets are going to need tanks, pods (for crewed stuff) and some kind of guidance, whether that be reaction wheels or aerosurfaces.

About docking ports. I was wondering if we could prune that branch and then split the ports between the Cockpits and Pods branch and the Structural Parts branch? At the same point you unlock a pod, you unlock the appropriate size port to go with it. Clampotron Srs are then found somewhere in the Structural Parts branch.

One thing I've just spotted that I do like very much, is the ability to have early wheeled vehicles! If I want a science cart to drive around the KSC biomes right at the start - I can do it. If I want to roleplay a bit and have some recovery vehicles for my first crewed flights (assuming that I drop them somewhere near KSC ) - I can do that too.

[CaptainKipard]

Nice. Looks like we'd need enough initial science to start progressing quite a few branches simultaneously. Almost everything is going to need propulsion, planes will then need wings, cockpits (although possibly not for extremely low tech planes ) and probably landing gear. Rockets are going to need tanks, pods (for crewed stuff) and some kind of guidance, whether that be reaction wheels or aerosurfaces.

Yes... I'm wondering whether it might be a good idea to add a thermometer or something to the Start node

About docking ports. I was wondering if we could prune that branch and then split the ports between the Cockpits and Pods branch and the Structural Parts branch? At the same point you unlock a pod, you unlock the appropriate size port to go with it. Clampotron Srs are then found somewhere in the Structural Parts branch.

What's the reasoning behind this? If it's a gameplay matter then I'd point out three things:

• The science requirements for each node can be tweaked to not be too expensive, allowing you to get the early nodes more easily if you need all of those parts.
  
• Nodes don't all have to be progressively more expensive. They can have prices appropriate to the technology, or number of parts in a node.
  
• The outline I made is very rough. Most of the nodes outside could and should be expanded to have more nodes containing progressively larger and more advanced parts.
  

With those in mind, you could get your tiny docking port relatively easily if you wanted it early, but you'd still need to play the game and put some effort into it to get the larger parts.

One thing I've just spotted that I do like very much, is the ability to have early wheeled vehicles! If I want a science cart to drive around the KSC biomes right at the start - I can do it. If I want to roleplay a bit and have some recovery vehicles for my first crewed flights (assuming that I drop them somewhere near KSC ) - I can do that too.

This is exactly what I was thinking

I tend to do rocket hops all over the KSC and the surrounding biomes, and it would be a lot easier with a rover.

[Superfluous J]

I've been waiting for the gui program for the new tech tree mod to start working on my own tree*, but a lot of what you guys are talking about I want too. I want earlier access to a set of wheels (the crappy little ones are fine) and a docking port (I'm thinking Jrs). Early wings aren't critical in my mind but those two are. Its a a bit ridiculous when you can't do an Apollo style Mun mission until you've either sucked Mun of all science or sent ships to other planets.

I don't see the need, though, for a community backed "officialish" tech tree. As you've seen nobody's going to agree on what goes where. The best we can do I think is to have a collection of tech trees so people can pick the ones they want.

* I know there is a gui program but I've not had a chance to try it since really early on and it was a bit too new for my tastes.

[KSK]

What's the reasoning behind this? If it's a gameplay matter then I'd point out three things:

• The science requirements for each node can be tweaked to not be too expensive, allowing you to get the early nodes more easily if you need all of those parts.
  
• Nodes don't all have to be progressively more expensive. They can have prices appropriate to the technology, or number of parts in a node.
  
• The outline I made is very rough. Most of the nodes outside could and should be expanded to have more nodes containing progressively larger and more advanced parts.
  

http://i.imgur.com/o4kK56c.png

With those in mind, you could get your tiny docking port relatively easily if you wanted it early, but you'd still need to play the game and put some effort into it to get the larger parts.

Ahh OK. That makes sense and sounds like it should work.

My reasoning was largely personal, cloaked in a thin veneer of gameplay considerations. I would like earlier access to docking ports so that I can run Gemini style docking and rendezvous missions if I'm feeling a bit historical, or so that I can build and crew a primitive space station whilst I'm working my way up to Mun/Minmus craft. The Clamp-o-tron Jr is tailor made for the Mk1 Pod, but at the moment it comes quite far the tech tree, and I'm normally flying with Mk1-2 pods by then.

Some more options for early LKO missions basically, beyond a quick science grab.

Edited November 14, 2014 by KSK
Moar thoughts

[John FX]

This gave me an idea. Would it be possible to select the techtree-type / different techcharts at start (just like the difficulty settings)? If yes, then there could be a Career-Mode for beginners which uses the current techtree so you can get introduced into the game and get a feeling of what parts you want and need. Then there could also be an advanced Career-Mode which uses a different techchart and doesn't guide you like the current Career-Mode.

Although I think that this would be somehow "too much" or rather pointless at the end, as we have already 3 different modes to play. Hm, this requires further thinking.

I think that stock should have 3 tech tree choices (unmanned, manned or flight) which you place in the order you like which decides the tech priorities and lets you fly unmanned probes, planes or manned rockets as the first craft. It would be good to be able to put the three choices in order you like so you could have flight,unmanned,manned or as currently : manned, unmanned, flight.

You could have the choice between

manned, unmanned, flight (the current tech tree)

manned, flight, unmanned

unmanned, flight, manned (a reasonable alternative tree)

unmanned, manned, flight

flight, manned, unmanned

flight, unmanned, manned (the `realistic` tree)

Or custom of course. (this would include other styles and layouts of tree, like the explosion tree)

New users need guiding through a tech tree IMHO, it helps them learn the parts without being bombarded with `All The Parts`

I like the `explosion` tech tree but I feel it should be for advanced users.

With a properly designed backend there is no reason this type of tree and also all the types suggested so far could not be all included as options in a tree menu...

If you don`t like a particular suggestion for a tree, remember these are all just ways of showing data (the part list) in a particular format (a tech tree with nodes) and if written well the future tech tree code should be able to display (and play) all of the trees suggested so far.

There is no real reason why there has to be a choice, we could have all of them.

I tried to think of the `simplest complex`tree configurator which was three sliding buttons, `flight` `unmanned` and `manned` and you get 9 trees depending on the order they are in.

I really think the most important thing the new tree system can have is the option for `custom tree` with a graphical editor and the ability to load and save trees (for sharing). One not fixed in `left to right` or `down to up` but one where node links can go anywhere you like.

If that is in there then discussion about the exact placing of parts or nodes becomes moot, we can fix it later if it is not exactly how we like.

EDIT :

I don't see the need, though, for a community backed "officialish" tech tree. As you've seen nobody's going to agree on what goes where. The best we can do I think is to have a collection of tech trees so people can pick the ones they want.

Exactly, nobody will agree on the `best` tree as everyone has a different valid idea of what that should be.

There *should* be an initial tree that you go through when learning the game though for new users that guides them and introduces features to them in a logical way.

The rest of us should have a really really easily customizable tree interface though so then everyone can put stuff exactly where they like and then share the tree they made on the forum like a craft or mod.

Edited November 14, 2014 by John FX

[CaptainKipard]

Yes. Easy tree modability is a must, but what would that backend look like? However hard I try I can't think of a simple way for stock and mod parts to be automatically placed in appropriate places for all potential custom trees, without a ridiculously long MM configs.

One partial solution could be adding the ability for mods to append nodes to existing trees.

Say for example you play with the tree in my diagram. It would be the best tree for this because it's intuitive and tech oriented. A mod like Interstellar for example could use some of the "stock" nodes, and dynamically add new nodes for other technologies. The player would be able to easily install the mod and uninstall it, without having to use a custom tree.

The nodes then would have to be moved around dynamically in the tree view.

New users need guiding through a tech tree IMHO, it helps them learn the parts without being bombarded with `All The Parts`

I get a feeling like the only reason this might be true is because the current tree is such an unintuitive mess.

I like the `explosion` tech tree but I feel it should be for advanced users.

I think the opposite. I think an intuitive tech-oriented tree would be much easier to navigate. Players would be able to predict to a greater degree which direction to research for their needs, compared to the current tree.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Superfluous J]

One partial solution could be adding the ability for mods to append nodes to existing trees.

I like that idea. Another idea is allow mods to state where to put their parts based not on the node, but on an item in the node. So (for instance) a docking port mod that allows them to rotate could define the node their docking ports are in based on where the stock docking ports are. Or a mod that gives more structural parts could place them in whatever node similar structural parts are in.

[CaptainKipard]

I like that idea. Another idea is allow mods to state where to put their parts based not on the node, but on an item in the node. So (for instance) a docking port mod that allows them to rotate could define the node their docking ports are in based on where the stock docking ports are. Or a mod that gives more structural parts could place them in whatever node similar structural parts are in.

Not bad. A combination of both of those could work well. The parts could have a new variable containing an arbitrary user-definable "partType" string used for the comparisons.

This would let people easily organise addons for mods too.

[LitaAlto]

Are we loyal to a tree in the first place? Would it make sense to have three or more start nodes to start with, instead of one?

[Superfluous J]

Are we loyal to a tree in the first place? Would it make sense to have three or more start nodes to start with, instead of one?

3 start nodes is so functionally similar to a tree with 3 initial branches that the differences really don't matter.

[DuoDex]

I feel that a Civilization:Beyond Earth style tech tree would make for some interesting gameplay. You could have nuclear engines but no wings.

[CaptainKipard]

I feel that a Civilization:Beyond Earth style tech tree would make for some interesting gameplay. You could have nuclear engines but no wings.

Why don't you describe it for those who haven't played it?

Edited November 15, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Binary_Digit]

Migrating my post here from a new thread I shouldn't have started:

A frustrating thing about the current science tree is that essential parts are spread all over the place. I often find myself purchasing a certain science tech just for one of the parts in the set. The others that come with it, I don't care about so much. And in some cases the part isn't even usable without researching something else too:

- It's cool that we can get a Science Jr. early on with Science Tech, but adding it to your craft pretty much means you can't EVA to collect surface samples and return to the vessel unless you research Space Exploration to get a ladder.

- Spaceplane parts are mostly available through the middle of the tree, but if I want landing gear for them I need to go down the science part of the tree. Huh?

- It's very difficult to rendezvous and dock without lights, even in sunlight. But the first access to a docking port is in Specialized Construction, while the lights needed to make them effectively usable are way down in Electrics.

Speaking of Clamp-O-Tron docking ports (Specialized Construction), they are only usable if you can put a self-sustaining vessel into orbit. To do that, you also need the following:

Batteries (Science Tech)

Solar panels & lights (Electrics)

Radial decouplers (Stability)

Strut connectors (General Construction)

External fuel ducts (Fuel Systems)

In addition, you probably want RCS thrusters (Advanced Flight Control) and an advanced SAS (Specialized Control). Not to mention whatever techs are necessary to get engines with enough power and fuel tanks with enough fuel. In short, it only makes sense to have docking ports after you've already researched half of the tree! But if you want radial attachment points from Advanced MetalWorks - a useful part that has applications other than on a dock-able vessel - you have to buy the docking ports first.

Don't get me wrong, I can tell that a lot of thought went into organizing the science tree as it is, and it couldn't have been easy. The way it's organized does make sense for the most part, but I think these problems are unintended side effects that cannot be adequately solved because not all parts fit neatly into a specific category like the tree tries to do.

What I propose is to allow us to spend science points to research specific parts, instead of categories of parts. Each science purchase would "research" a certain part and make it available (for building in science mode or for purchase in career mode). Some parts should have their minor counterparts as prerequisites (Clamp-O-Tron Sr. requires Jr. and regular size first, or Gigantor XL requires OX-STAT and OX-4L/W first, etc.), while other parts should be available from the beginning but with a cost that makes you save up a bit for them (struts, fuel ducts, radial attachment points, HubMax multi-point connector, other tangental parts that have no particular category or other upgrades). If one of these parts is considered "too powerful" to have at the beginning, then either its science cost can be made prohibitively high, or a technology that costs science points, but unlocks no parts directly, could be required to unlock the ability to research the part.

I think that would add a lot of customization to our space programs. We could focus only on spaceplanes, stations, or bases, without having to buy virtually every other tech in the tree just to get essential parts for our focus.

[Superfluous J]

A frustrating thing about the current science tree is that essential parts are spread all over the place. I often find myself purchasing a certain science tech just for one of the parts in the set. The others that come with it, I don't care about so much. And in some cases the part isn't even usable without researching something else too:

Actually I think in general this is a very good thing. There is one specific case (well 2, but they did the first one already) where I agree with you but for genereal parts, I LIKE that you have to fish around for what you want.

- It's cool that we can get a Science Jr. early on with Science Tech, but adding it to your craft pretty much means you can't EVA to collect surface samples and return to the vessel unless you research Space Exploration to get a ladder.

The vast majority of planets in the game have low enough gravity to jet pack back to your hatch. This includes all 5 of the most common early targets: Mun, Minmus, Duna, Ike, and Gilly. By the time you've gone to those you should be able to research ladders.

- Spaceplane parts are mostly available through the middle of the tree, but if I want landing gear for them I need to go down the science part of the tree. Huh?

I totally agree with this one. Not putting landing gear in a "basic planes starter pack" would be like not putting a parachute in the first tier. Except you can actually land a rocket without a parachute.

I won't point-by-point the rest because they all conform to our basic disagreement about the tech tree. I like being forced to unlock most everything and fish around for the pieces I need.

[Wanderfound]

Actually I think in general this is a very good thing. There is one specific case (well 2, but they did the first one already) where I agree with you but for genereal parts, I LIKE that you have to fish around for what you want.

The vast majority of planets in the game have low enough gravity to jet pack back to your hatch. This includes all 5 of the most common early targets: Mun, Minmus, Duna, Ike, and Gilly. By the time you've gone to those you should be able to research ladders.

Point one: a fair proportion of players (especially amongst spaceplaners) spend a lot of time travelling about on Kerbin before ever going beyond Minmus. The inability to get in and out of a ship designed to fly on Kerbin is absurd.

Point two: the fact that we have to research "ladders" at all is daft. Super-duper ultra high tech folding lightweight space ladders? Okay, maybe put that somewhere early in the tech tree. But plain basic ladders should be in the starting node (as should basic wheels, and some heavy low-quality batteries, and...).

Basically, if it's a bit of tech so old that the Romans had it, then it shouldn't require research at all. Having to "research" these things is nothing but an immersion-breakng irritation to me.

I totally agree with this one. Not putting landing gear in a "basic planes starter pack" would be like not putting a parachute in the first tier. Except you can actually land a rocket without a parachute.

I won't point-by-point the rest because they all conform to our basic disagreement about the tech tree. I like being forced to unlock most everything and fish around for the pieces I need.

I'd be another vote the other way, however. Being able to direct the tech tree into the channels I'm interested in, to me, feels like I have control of the game and is fun. Having to unlock nodes from all over the tree just to build a basic aircraft feels like grinding; not fun.

Under the proposed "explosion" tree, those that want to continue wandering all over the tech can; spread your research around, be a generalist. But it would mean that the specialists don't have to grind past a dozen useless nodes to get to the thing that they actually want.

-

And for obligatory spacelane nitpickery ( ) you can land a plane without wheels;'make some skids out of girders. This doesn't mean that you should need to do that, however.

Again: you shouldn't have to research tech that predates written history. Even the Flintstones had wheels.

[CaptainKipard]

I LIKE that you have to fish around for what you want.

That's a first. I'm guessing by now you know what nodes contains what parts, but I can't imagine why anyone new to the game would want to blindly fumble through a disorganised mess like the current tree. Progressing through the tree shouldn't be a gamble.

The vast majority of planets in the game have low enough gravity to jet pack back to your hatch. This includes all 5 of the most common early targets: Mun, Minmus, Duna, Ike, and Gilly. By the time you've gone to those you should be able to research ladders.

This is an example of what I've been arguing against in this thread. You're forced to follow a specific path for arbitrary reasons, and this comment seems to simply rationalise the place that ladders are in, rather than arguing for it.

Point one: a fair proportion of players (especially amongst spaceplaners) spend a lot of time travelling about on Kerbin before ever going beyond Minmus. The inability to get in and out of a ship designed to fly on Kerbin is absurd.

Yes, this. I always have to make stairs out of the little girders. It breaks immersion soooo badly for me. Immediately I'm aware that I'm playing a game with a dumb tree rather than exploring my environment. I can't stress this enough.

I'd be another vote the other way, however. Being able to direct the tech tree into the channels I'm interested in, to me, feels like I have control of the game and is fun. Having to unlock nodes from all over the tree just to build a basic aircraft feels like grinding; not fun.

I'm in agreement here.

The analogy goes like this:

Collecting science points is like the scientific method. You don't always get the results you expect, so there may be an element or randomness or uncertainty

Unlocking nodes is RnD, or engineering and that is very directed. It's the application of the knowledge you already gained. You work towards a specific goal.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Kegereneku]

As pointed out, we will often disagree with what should come first, why, and other prerequisites. Even if we agree on the idea that a tech-explosion with parts research available individually (or close) would be a improvement.

So :

I would like to discuss the way of balancing the research gain & reward.

Especially since the system in itself is something some would like to see change, not just the disposition of nodes.

As said, my main problem with the actual tech-tree is that very simple -yet necessary- parts are hidden/stuck in costly bundle late in the tech-tree. But the problem worsened by the simplistic exponential cost increase and the lack of the right science parts.

From this it seem to me that the rewards from experiments on each planet and the cost in R&D of each parts/bundle would have to be balanced individually.

And for this we would need some criteria.

For example :

- Propulsion part that increase your deltaV are significantly more important than other (while fuel tank are neutral to me).

- Equivalently, planet that require more Thrust or DeltaV to explore or are hard for rover could bring more science.

- However, since the presence of an atmosphere can simplify landing but not relaunch there would be special case depending whether or not an experiment can be reset or not.

- Then small science parts are easy to bring in and transmit, at the opposite of one-use experiments.

- An atmosphere can simplify the landing of heavier parts thanks to parachute, but air-less planet with high gravity wouldn't.

- Atmosphere also allow more experiment as you descent.

And lastly : Splashed down experiment can also require different design (hard to mix with rover for example) so it should also influence the reward.

To me the ideal balance would be to allow several design philosophy to "progress" at an equal rate.

So, if someone have an idea on a process to rate parts and biomes for cost/reward balance, I think it would be interesting to discuss.

Reminder : I am pro-choice on the matter and would gladly be able to bypass manned capsule entirely to use the R&D points on better probes/propulsions. Optionally I would also like to bypass entirely some engines on an Isp vs Thrust vs Cost basis, but since only veteran and sim-player would know what to chose this isn't player-friendly.

Little note for Cpt. Kipard :

It's late to say that, but my remarks earlier (harsh in retrospect) were meant as a reminder that reputation point do not validate all aspect of your ideas in the eyes of other (you sounded cocky). So, about criticizing my suggestion of moving the Docking part 1 tier further (which you did, just in structural part, which is fine too) or me pointing the need of shaping players progression through parts prerequisite... remember that you are doing the very same yourself.

So let's avoid meaningless battle of opinion.

[Superfluous J]

That's a first. I'm guessing by now you know what nodes contains what parts, but I can't imagine why anyone new to the game would want to blindly fumble through a disorganised mess like the current tree. Progressing through the tree shouldn't be a gamble.

I will admit I'm weird. I actually miss a bit my first walk through the tree when I had no idea where anything was. Sadly, it was a quick walk because science - even back then - was ridiculously easy to get so I blew through it quickly.

This is an example of what I've been arguing against in this thread. You're forced to follow a specific path for arbitrary reasons, and this comment seems to simply rationalise the place that ladders are in, rather than arguing for it.

I'm forced to follow the specific path where I avoid landing on a handful of worlds for a short while. That's a pretty broad path to be called "specific." FTR, I'm not against moving ladders down in the tree and suspect my own personal perfect tree would have the simple rung ladders in the first node. But using "no railroading me to specific places!" can be used for almost every part. There's a mode for those who don't want any sort of thing to bar them from any sort of mission, and that mode does not have a tech tree.

[CaptainKipard]

So, about criticizing my suggestion of moving the Docking part 1 tier further (which you did, just in structural part, which is fine too) or me pointing the need of shaping players progression through parts prerequisite... remember that you are doing the very same yourself.

So let's avoid meaningless battle of opinion.

I'm forced to follow the specific path where I avoid landing on a handful of worlds for a short while. That's a pretty broad path to be called "specific." FTR, I'm not against moving ladders down in the tree and suspect my own personal perfect tree would have the simple rung ladders in the first node. But using "no railroading me to specific places!" can be used for almost every part. There's a mode for those who don't want any sort of thing to bar them from any sort of mission, and that mode does not have a tech tree.

I take the point. Any kind of tree shapes progression in some way. I'm just trying to figure out something that will make the maximum number of players happy. E.g. There are those who like the way the parts are arranged right now, well with the explosion tree they can still follow a similar progression if they want. The point is that others will be able to do thing differently with the same tree.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Probus]

I like what I'm hearing here. Good ideas.

[SheepDog2142]

I like the Engineering based tech tree he did a really good job on it.

I think Kerbals should start with at least a basic plane or something like that then move onto rockets and probes and a whole separate portion for life support needs to be added.

There needs to be a branch for life support, space stations, colonization, rovers, and drones.