The tech tree progression is ridiculous

[tater]

In stock KSP the NTR is not needed to do anything at all, IMO. If you are roleplaying the need for reasonable craft, then sure, but if you are content to play the game as-is, you can throw Jeb in a mk1 pod, and send him to Duna pretty much immediately with a slightly larger craft than you'd send to the Mun.

 

[Xavven]

20 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

I think that reorganizing the tech tree along these lines would not only satisfy the "simulator" crowd, but actually *improve* gameplay. Starting with simple sounders and progressing from there means that there are many more milestones to achieve in career, which ultimately means more fun.

Just my opinion...

-Slashy

Yes! One of those milestones would be getting a Kerbal into orbit. You would get your first"wow! awesome -- I did it!" moment when you set a probe into orbit, and a second "wow" moment when you send a Kerbal into orbit.

 

Starting unmanned also gives new players more freedom to experiment and fail, because people tend to (not everyone of course) be risk adverse when it comes to killing their protagonists (not looking at you, Danny2462) I believe the devs of Portal 2 realized this when they made humans the main protagonists in multiplayer mode and observed that QA testers were overly cautious. When they switched the characters to be robots instead, it changed how the players approached the problems, and they had more fun.

 

Another problem that we haven't tackled in this thread yet is this: how do the devs actually change the stock tech tree at this point without breaking saves?  Here's what I think can be done: refund all science points to the player and present them with a bare tech tree. Any existing vessels that were already launched with parts that aren't unlocked can stay, but you can't launch any new ones (kind of like how part test contracts work).

[tater]

I've never cared even a little about breaking saves. I start fresh every single update.

[KSK]

9 hours ago, James M said:

Definitely the same way I feel. People should first learn how flying works before you know, blasting out of the atmosphere and onto other planets/moons. While it is certainly fun to fly into orbit with tier two rocket parts, its just not realistic (Please don't misunderstand and think my whole point is realism. I'm just expressing myself here). Especially when most of KSP's population struggles to make efficient airplanes capable of traveling even halfway across Kerbin.  

Respectfully disagree.

The realism debate aside,  your last sentence means that your second sentence would make for a terrible gameplay experience, at least with the current approach to building rockets and especially with the lacklustre aircraft parts you get to start with and the strip of ploughed field you get that somehow masquerades as a runway.

Personally, I'd be far happier if aircraft / spaceplanes were removed altogether. I find them a pain to fly (OK that one is entirely my problem), they throw any sort of reasonable gameplay progression straight out the window and I dislike the way that they're effectively the go-to stock solution for getting more than three kerbals at a time to and from orbit. But that's just me and I accept that.

However, being forced to monkey around with aircraft before I'm allowed to launch rockets? That would be a sure-fire way of making sure that no copy of KSP ever sneaks onto my hard drive again. Nope - I'm with Veetch and others on this thread. Rejig the tech tree so that players can start with aircraft, uncrewed rockets, or crewed rockets as the mood takes them. Personally I don't have any problem at all with starting crewed - it's not realistic in the sense that it doesn't parallel our own spaceflight development but I see no reason why kerballed spaceflight should reflect human spaceflight anyway. 

But again, that's just me.

 

 

[Hevak]

My thoughts and opinions.  The tech tree is not "awful" but sure I suppose some things could be changed a bit. But I have no problem with the tech tree. But I've also switched to ctt which adds to it. Either way in stock I had no problem with it.

comments to what I've read here. 

No hard decisions with the tech tree? Really? I'm always thinking about how I want to progress through it, and have to make difficult decisions. Like do I go for more science instruments first to help with gaining ground science to progress through the tech tree. Or do I go for bigger better rocket parts? So decisions are there and decisions must be made. 

No X m sized engines when you unlock X m sized tanks. Really I get the frustration with this but seriously? So developing a fuel tank means you know how to make a bigger rocket engine suddenly? No sorry, it's not like that. They are two completely independent paths and should be. Also larger fuel tanks don't have to be used for larger engines. Yeah your craft might look weird, but still it's not required to have a larger engine. 

Spaceplanes should come before rockets because that's how real progression is?No sorry not going to fly at all. I suck at spaceplanes and would have dropped this game quickly if forced to make them first. No, the rockets should be first, it makes more sense for the game. But I think that spaceplane tech and rocket tech should be completely separated as much as possible in the tech tree to give more people choices on this. And honestly they are already pretty separate, But I'm sure this could be modded to be even more so. 

Manned or unmanned first. As many mentioned there are mods that do this,and honestly that is the best way to approach this and many other aspects of ksp. It's the best because ill let you in on a little secret many here forget. You don't play like I do, and I don't play like everyone else. So a handful of people in a thread unhappy with the stock tech tree does not equate to its awful and squad should change it to suit you. I see close numbers of I don't like the tree and I have no problem in with the tree.  So why should it be changed just for you?  And guess what, just don't send kerbals in your first craft, use the stayputnik and other probe cores. There you go you have a much tougher career start, but it can be done in stock. 

And yes for most of you in this thread I know for a fact you are using PC, so yes you can mod it. And yes that is a valid answer. As Hodari said this is not something everyone wants, or even a good portion of the player base probably.  And not many will agree on how it should be changed, so yes it's better handled by mods, this game was meant to be modded to flesh it out.  Sorry if you don't like that, but it's the way it is and the way it will be. Maybe 10 mins of looking into a game before buying it will tell you this is the way ksp is setup.

for console users, sorry modding is not an option, that is really the fault of the choice you made though. This game doesn't lend itself to consoles well, because it's made to be modded. So there are two options, try to get squad or more importantly flying tiger to tailor the game better for console. Or try to make them allow mods on console, I mean Bethesda allows mods on console, so it can be done, if people want to make mods for console that is. This is a PC game ported to consoles, unfortunately this means it won't be the same and may have limitations, it's what happens. Just like when console games are ported to PC and not made to utilize the better aspects of the PC I'm stuck with an inferior product for my platform. 

Telling people that their thinking is "everything that is wrong with the game" is not going to help your argument either. And if you want to, I'll throw that statement right back at you, everything you proposed is wrong and you're the one trying to ruin the game. But how does that help anything in a discussion?

the game is kerbal space program. Not kerbal flight sim. And it's not meant to be realistic. Yes you are asking for it to be realistic no matter how much you claim you aren't. Because damn near every post is saying how it needs to be more realistic in X sense. I see very little proposed here that would really be of any benefit. In fact I see tons of contradiction, you say the stock tree is too limiting, yet your suggestion is to limit what players can do even more, forcing them to play how you want to play. In my stock tech tree, beyond the initial couple of nodes, you can go straight for the majority of spaceplane parts of you want before unlocking the bigger rockets, if that floats your boat. I mean I skip all the space plane part nodes, so you can just focus on them. 

This current system does allow for the best solution to all, the proposals in the pro change it crowd simply aim to force everyone to play the way they want them to. I'm sorry I just can't agree with that. And I don't want the tech tree shown in the op, sorry I just don't like it and don't think it improves the game in anyway. It just limits it evenmore. 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Hevak

[OHara]

4 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

 It [the stock tech-tree] was not made to "slowly introduce players to the game's concepts and mechanics". It's there to act as a foil [something against-which it is rewarding to struggle]. The intention is to limit what a player can achieve without stalling them, give them a reason to collect science, and gradually expand their abilities so that they always have new missions and destinations. This is what makes it a "game", and the fact that it is a game is what makes career enjoyable.

I chose to start playing in career mode because there were too many choices of parts in sandbox.  I have appreciated the way the stock tech-tree limits my attention. I trusted that the sometimes-strange grouping of parts would let me build what the developers found new players need to build, and have not been too frustrated.  

For my second career-mode game, the link at the top to pap1723's very logical tech-tree looks appealing.   After playing with it a bit, I think it gives more overwhelming choice than I would have wanted on my first play-through.  KSP seems to me exceptionally well-designed for configurability and expandability, with the tech-tree being defined in one configuration file, so it is easy to imagine the stock game with an introductory tech-tree for the first play-through and another for experienced players.

I do enjoy trying to find creative solutions with limited parts, and think that is generally the appeal of career mode.

I guess that the top post's quote of Stephen Sondheim, "I need that shoe to have a child", refers to the game of collecting science points.  There, I found the rules too silly to learn (measure temperature with a wheel touching each KSP building) and chose not to participate.  When I am satisfied with my achievements with a given technology, I defy the witch and alt-F12-cheat the next node.

If the implication is that we would earn each node in pap1723's tech tree by doing specifically related activities, testing ladders to get better ladders, for example, then I don't think researching specific parts makes a space-program game more enjoyable.   Any successful use of a ladder by the space program, to earn money, fame, or science, gives feedback and incentive to the manufacturers of ladders to design a better ladder.  And, successful uses of limited parts is the fun part of the challenge.

 

[razark]

51 minutes ago, Xavven said:

Another problem that we haven't tackled in this thread yet is this: how do the devs actually change the stock tech tree at this point without breaking saves?

Per-save tech tree options?

I also start over every update, but having the option for a different tree for each save should make it possible.

[Wjolcz]

59 minutes ago, James M said:

I think there needs to be a competing engine to the nuclear engine for a start to this whole collaboration. What I definitely noticed when first starting out (And watching Scott of course) was that in order to go to other major planets you pretty much have to have the nuclear engine. Without it you're stuck in Kerbin's system and once you work your way there, boom; all of a sudden you're a Solar System Explorer Extraordinaire. If not this, at least something a notch lower but capable of taking you to places like Duna without having to haul a ridiculous amount of fuel due to a massive lack of Delta V. Furthermore, this would give newer players with less engineering knowledge a chance to go further, and experienced players multiple options to choose between when preparing for their next mission. Maybe also as an alternative, they could implement the nuclear engine a little later down the road than it already is?

I feel like this one is mainly caused by the lack of information. You can go wherever you want if you know your exact dV, even without the NTR. It's just the lack of info. I actually had the same problem when I though the NTR is the only choice for interplanetary vessels, but once I installed KER I realized that LF+Ox engines are enough if you know how to balance the ships.

41 minutes ago, Xavven said:

Starting unmanned also gives new players more freedom to experiment and fail, because people tend to (not everyone of course) be risk adverse when it comes to killing their protagonists (not looking at you, Danny2462) I believe the devs of Portal 2 realized this when they made humans the main protagonists in multiplayer mode and observed that QA testers were overly cautious. When they switched the characters to be robots instead, it changed how the players approached the problems, and they had more fun.

That's actually a pretty cool piece of info. And I think it's actually true. I found myself killing kerbals and not enjoying it, but when I accidentally burnt a probe in the atmosphere I was like "meh".

But I'm still pro-choice. Let people choose the way they want to play the game.

44 minutes ago, Xavven said:

Another problem that we haven't tackled in this thread yet is this: how do the devs actually change the stock tech tree at this point without breaking saves?  Here's what I think can be done: refund all science points to the player and present them with a bare tech tree. Any existing vessels that were already launched with parts that aren't unlocked can stay, but you can't launch any new ones (kind of like how part test contracts work).

One way to do it is completely breaking the saves (something I'm 100% cool with if it's done well) and the other is simply keeping the parts available no matter if they are in a node that's been unlocked or not.

17 minutes ago, KSK said:

Personally, I'd be far happier if aircraft / spaceplanes were removed altogether. I find them a pain to fly (OK that one is entirely my problem), they throw any sort of reasonable gameplay progression straight out the window and I dislike the way that they're effectively the go-to stock solution for getting more than three kerbals at a time to and from orbit. But that's just me and I accept that.

I feel like this is mainly due to how the science system works. There's almost no science to gather around Kerbin (which is very untrue and completely opposite of how it works IRL; again: more of this in my sig).

18 minutes ago, Hevak said:

This current system does allow for the best solution to all, the proposals in the pro change it crowd simply aim to force everyone to play the way they want them to. I'm sorry I just can't agree with that. And I don't want the tech tree shown in the op, sorry I just don't like it and don't think it improves the game in anyway. It just limits it evenmore. 

Ok, now how does having a choice is worse than having to play the current, linear tree? I get it, you like the current tree, but I thinj you misunderstood the point: everyone should be able to pick and follow their playstyle. The mod in the OP actually allows for that (partly, but it's still more pro-choice than stock).

[tater]

I never build any aircraft at all. I don't even upgrade the SPH more than once (I want the part count, as I use the "hanger" as a "garage" for rover and base designs, instead. I leave the runway dirt to test said rovers and bases.

The idea that tanks and engines are separate is kooky. Systems are designed to work together, and since KSP stock does;t have clustered engines that tank/engine separation is silly.

[Wjolcz]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

The idea that tanks and engines are separate is kooky. Systems are designed to work together, and since KSP stock does;t have clustered engines that tank/engine separation is silly.

I agree that the tanks and engines separation might be problematic, but I also think it all depends on how the research system works and how it's balanced, but you already know my opinion on that.

[tater]

Doesn't matter to me, I haven't used a stock engine since I started using SSTU, lol.  

[Hevak]

38 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

 

Ok, now how does having a choice is worse than having to play the current, linear tree? I get it, you like the current tree, but I thinj you misunderstood the point: everyone should be able to pick and follow their playstyle. The mod in the OP actually allows for that (partly, but it's still more pro-choice than stock).

First the only really beneficial choice I see from that tree is you could focus on spaceplanes more if you wanted. 

But the biggest thing is, the current tech tree is not as linear as that one you link. while the current tree may seem to just throw parts in random groups, which yeah it does, they unlock in a fashion in which you will use many of those parts at the same time. That tree you linked is much more linear, at least in the stock tree there are different ways to unlocking different nodes. Especially the farther you advance. Your tree is just straight lines, straight linear progression. And I see less choices being made there. 

Im willing to agree that spaceplanes, or more importantly atomospheric aircraft should be separated better, or more. I get that people like aircraft better than rockets. I think the current tech tree, except for the first intitial nodes, does a decent job of this already. But I could see more separation being to done to it. And also since almost every post mentions realism or IRL, what was first rockets or orbiter aircraft like space planes and shuttles? That's why I said atmospheric aircraft, because spaceplanes should not be first if you keep mentioning realism. Like I said i see lots of contradiction.

lets forget consoles for a bit, and honestly consoles have their own problems, and any choices made for consoles should be handled on their own. Really consoles should have their own builds, it's the only way they will get a good console version. Anything done to benefit consoles will most likely only be negative to the PC version.

so let's forget consoles, if I liked the stock tree, but wanted to flesh it out more and installed ctt to expand the stock tree into even more nodes and make even more choices for me and the way I want to play the game, then why can't those of you in this thread I know are PC players not do the same? You linked to a tree you like, so why not use the mod? Why does the game have to be changed to your way? Why not learn to mod and make your own tree exactly how you want?

few people are going to ever agree on how the tech tree should be. As you can see in this thread there is a pretty close ratio of who even wants it changed at all and those who want the tree unchanged. So the best approach is to keep the current tree and let those who can mod it the way they want. 

Consolse should really have their own builds as I said,because they have their own problems. They should be dealt with independently. 

The most I could agree with is this. Make it a difficulty option to start with airplanes that can't go to orbit. I'd even say hey let them do spaceplanes straight from the start. I could go for a difficulty option to start unmanned. But that is it. Forcing payers into either of those scenarios as has been suggested here is not good when you claim to want more choices. 

I do not like the tech tree you suggested with that mod link. I don't want it at all and much prefer the current tech tree layout to the one you suggest. Could some parts in the current tree be adjusted? Sure possibly, but I think currently as weird as they are grouped, it provides a decent progression. You unlock parts you will need to take that next step like better probe cores, better science stuff, better engines/tanks, better landing components to make better landers.  I have to work my way thoughtfully through nodes to achieve what I want. Trees like your idea lend themselves to neglecting whole areas and focusing on one, where is the decisions in that? I just see people focusing on one or two nodes in your tree, like jet engines and flight control. Or rocket parts. Maybe one or two points in electronics for batteries, but then they will inevitably be neglected until the other nodes are finished. 

I see less choices, and less control over my progression there, not more. and I really see less hard decisions, there are less decisions anyways. Plus I have to unlock all electronics in a linear progression. Whereas in the current tree I can weave my way thru it in different ways, considering every node after first two tiers tends to have two previous nodes that can be used to get there. And each choice I can branch off up or down to get to a node farther down the tree.

so modding is simply the best way to address this issue. 

Anyways, ive stated my desire to keep the current tree, and my opinions as to why. This is a thread where little agreement is going to happen from both sides. So I'm not going to go round and round with this. We disagree on the majority of it. 

Also don't take my console comments and twist them. I'm not into the PC elitism, this game was just made to be modded from the start, and as such it doesn't lend itself to consoles very well. So because of this fact, they really should be developing them independently in most aspects. Sure you can make one main build, and then tweak the console side to better serve that player base.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Hevak

[Wjolcz]

21 minutes ago, Hevak said:

First the only really beneficial choice I see from that tree is you could focus on spaceplanes more if you wanted. 

And that's somehow bad? The hell? First you say "I don't want to play the game your way" and you're like "the tree is fine play it the way it is and stop whining".

Yeah, thanks for that. The word of the day for today is "hypocrisy" apparently.

I'm Goerge Clooneying the rest of the post since it seems to be some unrelated rambling anyway just like before.

[GoSlash27]

51 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I feel like this one is mainly caused by the lack of information. You can go wherever you want if you know your exact dV, even without the NTR. It's just the lack of info. I actually had the same problem when I though the NTR is the only choice for interplanetary vessels, but once I installed KER I realized that LF+Ox engines are enough if you know how to balance the ships.

^ I agree with this. Nuclear engines don't really become worth the weight penalty until the 2km/ sec mark, and aren't cost effective until much higher than that.
 LF&O engines are not only practical for Duna and Eve, but are actually preferable.

 And on top of that, there's enough science in the Kerbin system to unlock the entire tree without going beyond Minmus.
 Another gameplay problem IMO...

Best,
-Slashy

[tater]

The gameplay issue of not going past Minmus to unlock everything is also predicated on lack of information. I think many players are unaware of the required geometry for interplanetary flights, frankly. Combined with no dv data, it's no wonder apparently many (most?) KSP players never leave Kerbin SoI.

It's also part of the problem that "science" in KSP is almost entirely planetary science, and planetary science has exactly nothing to do with building spacecraft.

[GoSlash27]

Also...
 I propose that we don't get mad at each other (or give others a reason to be mad at us) over this. It's just a minor disagreement over a video game

Best,
-Slashy

 

[Wjolcz]

21 minutes ago, tater said:

It's also part of the problem that "science" in KSP is almost entirely planetary science, and planetary science has exactly nothing to do with building spacecraft.

True. The science experiments should actually contribute to parts's research and grant reputation (Why must I go to the Mun to unlock bigger wings and the RAPIER?).

[KSK]

@Hevak

Forget realism, forget spaceplanes vs rockets, modded vs stock, or starting crewed vs uncrewed. They've been perennial talking points for years on this forum and I see no signs of them going away. The main problem I have with the tech tree and science system as they stand is that it they offer a very linear gameplay experience. Now that's great for the first two or three Career games, where some guidance and structure is useful but after that it's frankly boring. 

OK, I've made it to LKO (again). I've farmed as much science from KSC as I can stand, I've grabbed all the EVA reports from orbit (again), stared into the Goo until the Goo stares back into me and hauled a couple of Science Jrs into orbit just because. I've even lobbed a couple of capsules into polar orbit just to grab those extra EVA reports.

What do I do now? Well the obvious choice is to head to the Mün or Minmus and go biome hopping. Heck, this is my fourth run-through now - I could mix it up a bit by lobbing an MPL into Minmus orbit and get all my science points in one go. Grab the low-hanging science, clear the tech tree, do what I want. Simples.

But I've done all that before. This time, I want to build a nice big space station in LKO. I'll fit it out with an MPL and get my science in slow time, whilst I'm stockpiling funds and building up some infrastructure. I've seen 2001 - I want a logistics hub in orbit and a cis-munar shuttle running between LKO and the Mün. A bit of an overcomplicated solution but hey - Rule of Cool. Plus I've done it the easy way already.

Sooo, what do I need to make this happen? That big Rockomax hub would be nice, and those big solar panels. Hmmm - those are both pretty far down the tech tree. Time to scale this back a bit. Lets go for the smaller folding solar panels and I can kludge a station hub together out of a structural fuselage, some spare Clamp-o-Trons and a bunch of radial adaptors. Still need that MPL though. OK, so for that, I'm going to want Specialised Construction at 160 science points, plus whatever else I need to get that far down the tech tree. Also, Advanced Electrics at another 160 science points plus. Oh yeah, and Advanced Exploration for that MPL at (another) 160 science points. Hmm, this is starting to add up a bit. I need to scale this plan waaaay back, or find another way of grabbing some science. 

*lightbulb moment* I'll go interplanetary!

What can I strap onto an interplanetary probe without spending too many science points?  I've got this thermometer - that's a good start. I'll just ignore that warranty - insurance company never pays out on those anyway. Better pack a bunch of them to get some readings from deep space though. Hmmm, that barometer isn't too far out of reach. Not much good in space mind, but if I can bodge a lander together... Got me some Goo (ohhh, the Goomanity) - can I use that without sending a kerbal along for the ride? It's a long way to Duna in a Mk1 capsule for poor old Jeb and I'd rather not have my number one pilot go (more) bonkers by the time I can get him home again. Same applies for that handy-dandy Science Jr. So lets take a look at some fancier science instruments. Bah - Tier 7 for the accelerometer - which doesn't work in orbit anyway, so that's a one-shot deal on a lander. Ravioli - sorry Gravioli detector is even worse at Tier 8. So much for this as a source of science points.

Back to Minmus it is then. *sigh*

 

What I would like is a tech tree and science system that gives me options. I may have been exaggerating just a touch above and in practice, maybe a quick Mün run might be necessary to bootstrap my interplanetary probe program or my LKO space station (the KSS Hopeless Folly). But I don't see why I need to slog my through quite so much tech tree cruft to get there.

Edited August 7, 2016 by KSK

[Hevak]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

And that's somehow bad? The hell? First you say "I don't want to play the game your way" and you're like "the tree is fine play it the way it is and stop whining".

Yeah, thanks for that. The word of the day for today is "hypocrisy" apparently.

I'm Goerge Clooneying the rest of the post since it seems to be some unrelated rambling anyway just like before.

Wow really? Are serious right now? This is why there Is no point to discussing this with you.  I conceded many points to you. I don't like your tech tree idea. But yeah forget my whole post that explains I'm fine with making an option to go unmanned or space planes first.  Just not your tech tree way of doing.  You are the hypocrite, and you constantly contradict yourself. And if you want to get that way, you're the real whiner here.  Waahhhhh  it's not the way I want change it now. Like a petulant little child not getting his way. Can't have a decent discussion with anyone who thinks different than you. Just insult them, so right back at you.

You want your way and screw everyone else.  You won't concede anything in anyway at all. And i said use the mod you linked, you've been here a long time, your a PC player, you can mod it just like I did. So learn to comprehend what you read instead of getting upset and insulting people who disagree with you. I never once insulted anyone in my post.. So you can go shove it you know where.

 

@KSKIt kind of sounds like you want a whole different mode of gameplay designed altogether, not quite career. Not quite sandbox but in between.  And you make many fair points. I don't really have the issues you have with career mode, and I've started many new saves. I wouldn't want all that you suggest though. the realism I mentioned is because that it what others mentioned in almost each post for changing it, make it more realistic. I don't care one way or the other about realism vs ksp, it's a game not a simulator to me. Also it seems this discussion has branched into not only changing the tech tree, but science generation, or how it's used as well. It's really looking to change the whole way career mode works, which I why I say it seems you want more of a different mode of gameplay altogether.  But there is not point in having a dissenting opinion that conflicts with veeltech in anyway, he just insults people because he wants things his way only. Best of luck

Edited August 7, 2016 by Hevak

[KSK]

Well yes I do but it would be a complete from-the-ground-up rethink which I accept is not going to happen at this point in KSP's development.   And besides, my idea of a good rethink may or may not jibe with anyone else's.

Thinking about, most of what I'm talking about in my last post could be achieved by making Goo and Science Jrs into remotely operated instruments. Think of it as fitting them out with a camera and watching the Goo or materials bay at a distance, rather than needing a crew member on-site. Do that (please tell me this isn't possible right now!) and going interplanetary becomes a viable source of early game science as an alternative to Minmus hopping.

[GoSlash27]

10 minutes ago, KSK said:

The main problem I have with the tech tree and science system as they stand is that it they offer a very linear gameplay experience. Now that's great for the first two or three Career games, where some guidance and structure is useful but after that it's frankly boring. 

Yeah, I'll agree with this as well.
 I find that while I enjoy the process of unlocking the tech tree, I don't need most of what I unlock at the time I unlock it and the game progression becomes pretty linear as a result. I'd prefer to have more options, both in what I can unlock and how I can develop my career,

 Plus... it'd be nice if it took longer than a few days game time to get from the start to interplanetary flight. IMO the most enjoyable part of career is over almost at the start.

I'm probably in the minority on this, but I think it'd be seriously fun and rewarding to have a whole list of "firsts" I could accomplish before putting a Kerbal in orbit. 

Best,
-Slashy

[Hevak]

14 minutes ago, KSK said:

Well yes I do but it would be a complete from-the-ground-up rethink which I accept is not going to happen at this point in KSP's development.   And besides, my idea of a good rethink may or may not jibe with anyone else's.

Thinking about, most of what I'm talking about in my last post could be achieved by making Goo and Science Jrs into remotely operated instruments. Think of it as fitting them out with a camera and watching the Goo or materials bay at a distance, rather than needing a crew member on-site. Do that (please tell me this isn't possible right now!) and going interplanetary becomes a viable source of early game science as an alternative to Minmus hopping.

I actually agree more with what you suggest, if it was done as another game mode though. I feel many people are happy overall with career mode, at least a close ratio of those that are happy with to it to those that aren't,  and as such I feel it shouldn't be completely redone. 

But I could see and accept a new game mode being added and tweaked more to yours, and others liking. Changing the way things are researched or the way research is generated, sure that would be fine. And I think if a it was done as a new game mode it could be easier for those that want a complete change to career to come to a consensus, because it's not ruining a whole mode for those who like the current one. 

11 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Yeah, I'll agree with this as well.
 I find that while I enjoy the process of unlocking the tech tree, I don't need most of what I unlock at the time I unlock it and the game progression becomes pretty linear as a result. I'd prefer to have more options, both in what I can unlock and how I can develop my career,

 Plus... it'd be nice if it took longer than a few days game time to get from the start to interplanetary flight. IMO the most enjoyable part of career is over almost at the start.

I'm probably in the minority on this, but I think it'd be seriously fun and rewarding to have a whole list of "firsts" I could accomplish before putting a Kerbal in orbit. 

Best,
-Slashy

I also understand this viewpoint, though I don't agree completely. I have changed my progression through the tech tree in other game plays. But again you make fair points here. 

But really the point of ksp is going to space, and exploring other planets and moons. And I, myself personally, feel that making this take longer is not very good for most players, especially newer ones. The fun is launching those interplanetary craft. As it stands now I feel it takes long enough to get to the point where, for the average player, it's already hard and long enough getting to where you can do that.

i know ksp isn't like an mmo, or sub based game. The goal isn't so much to keep players playing as it provides no financial gain to sqaud. But it seems this discussion hinges on the fact that more accomplished, longer playing players want a different challenge after several years. 

This is why I don't think current career mode should be totally changed to the way some want. But as I said above I think some of these ideas, if people could have a reasonable discussion and come to a consensus, could be beneficial to those long time payers who have done 10's to 100's of career run throughs already.  but only as a new game mode beyond the 3 modes we have. But I'm not for gutting and redoing career mode, as I like it. Sorry others can't accept that. 

I accept contrary opinions here, it's sad some others can't. 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Hevak

[GoSlash27]

9 minutes ago, Hevak said:

This is why I don't think current career mode should be totally changed to the way some want. But as I said above I think some of these ideas, if people could have a reasonable discussion and come to a consensus, could be beneficial to those long time payers who have done 10's to 100's of career run throughs already. 

Yeah, this sounds fair. Plus the issue of changing the tech progression breaking game saves from previous versions. I would be cool with adding an alternate "timeline" career mode to keep everybody happy.

 Having said that, I disagree that interplanetary flight and exploration is the fun part, at least not in career mode. People have fun all sorts of different ways in KSP, and I'm not trying to dictate to others which parts of the game they should enjoy most.

*BUT*... (of course there's a but )

 Career mode is intended to focus on the challenges and rewards of developing and managing a space program, not merely launching Kerbals. That part of KSP can be enjoyed in any mode. Career mode is all about developing the tech, upgrading the facilities, keeping the accountants happy, and exploring strange new worlds. I don't think the folks who prefer to play KSP in career mode specifically *because* it is career mode would mind terribly having more challenges in the progression and more options AFA how to tackle them. It is, after all, those challenges and options that make career worth playing in the first place.

Best,
-Slashy

 

[Wjolcz]

27 minutes ago, Hevak said:

I accept contrary opinions here, it's sad some others can't. 

I actually went back to the post of yours I've decided to skip and yup, I consider it rambling. "Screw the console version, just mod the game".

[Hevak]

13 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Yeah, this sounds fair. Plus the issue of changing the tech progression breaking game saves from previous versions. I would be cool with adding an alternate "timeline" career mode to keep everybody happy.

 Having said that, I disagree that interplanetary flight and exploration is the fun part, at least not in career mode. People have fun all sorts of different ways in KSP, and I'm not trying to dictate to others which parts of the game they should enjoy most.

*BUT*... (of course there's a but )

 Career mode is intended to focus on the challenges and rewards of developing and managing a space program, not merely launching Kerbals. That part of KSP can be enjoyed in any mode. Career mode is all about developing the tech, upgrading the facilities, keeping the accountants happy, and exploring strange new worlds. I don't think the folks who prefer to play KSP in career mode specifically *because* it is career mode would mind terribly having more challenges in the progression and more options AFA how to tackle them. It is, after all, those challenges and options that make career worth playing in the first place.

Best,
-Slashy

 

I pretty much completely agree with this here. Which is why another alternate career mode seems it would best serve this. And maybe fun wasn't the best way for me to put, maybe intended way is better. Ksp is intended to be about rockets and interplanetary flight by its creator, that is what they wanted and how they sell it. but you're right others fun is different, some really like making planes on kerbin, others like trains and just crazy weird stuff. That's all good.

it seems though that you Slashy and @KSK are having more of an issue with how science is generated more so than how the tech tree is laid out. At least that's what I'm getting from many of your posts. Due to how science is generated to allow you to progress through the tree, you are sort of forced into doing certain missions, and then unlocking certain nodes before others or in a certain order?  This I feel is a different issue and changing the tech tree layout will not change this aspect of the game.

i could certainly see and have a discussion about changing how to generate the needed science currency to progress through the tree in a different manner, I think this could fix some of the issues people have. I could also see a difficulty option as I and others said to allow planes first, or unmanned first if some wanted to go that way.  But to me the linked tech tree in the first post is nothing but linear, and more so than the current tree layout. forgetting the science point generation issues for a moment, at least with the current tree you have a much more varied path to some parts. I could skip early batteries and do some other nodes first and then get some better batteries without having to do the first initial nodes. How is the linked to tree mod giving me more choices on my progression and play? I don't need the little batteries, but in that one I would have to unlock all early batteries and solar panels to get the better ones. 

Yeah it's more realistic to unlock that way, but I don't want realism like that, I want to get the parts I want and ignore the parts I don't at the same time, the current tree allows that much better in my opinion. There are nodes I never unlock because I don't want those parts at all, yet in the linked tree, I would have to unlock every single part I don't want just to get one part I do. At least with the current tree with multiple branches I don't have to unlock every part I don't want to, though I do have to unlock some of them.

 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Hevak