Vl3d

I added extra feedback in the OP: ASCM-A (Air Sniffer - 1 ton) should be unlocked in a node way before the ASCM-B (Little Sniffer -50 kg), just like with the "Science Jr." and the "Science Jr. Jr." What is the point of unlocking the Clamp-O-Tron (S size part) before the Mk1-3 "Gumball" command pod? Why is the RoveMax TR-2L (M sized wheel) unlocked in Autonomous Sampling, right after the RoveMax M1 (S sized wheel)? The TR-2L should come in a later node. Why is the FC-01 (XS Fuel Cell) unlocked in Tier 3 instead of earlier? Why is the LRW-375 (L Reaction Wheel) placed in the Large Aerodynamics node instead of inside the Enlarged Power Systems node? Consider that the MRW-250 (M Reaction Wheel) is unlocked with the Durable Power Systems node. Why is the CC375-D (L docking port) unlocked in Tier 4 instead of Tier 3? Also I am not sure about unlocking the HS-I Deluxe (M inflatable heat shield - 2 tons) in the same node as the HS-500 (XL heat shield - 4.8 tons). This would require some playtesting to check the balance. Any opinions? Overall I think there are some balance changes needed for the Tech Tree, but these are relatively minor. The biggest problem is with Tier 1 progression and the Starting Rocketry node.

I know, you're right, but both the Trip Planner and the orbital time warp speed limit imply that the way to do it is first to exit Kerbin SOI and then get / burn for an encounter. If the game tricked me, just think about what new players go through.

So you are saying that parts obstructed by a fairing are heating up because the total heat flux gets distributed to all the vehicle parts?

I feel like Dres used to look much better on EA release... ugh, forgot to deploy the antennas...

Hold on, the plot thickens! I managed to get a Dres encounter from Kerbin orbit for only 1600 m/s... but the Trip Planner said it would cost that PLUS the ~900 to escape Kerbin SOI. So actually I was using the Trip Planner logic to first escape Kerbin SOI and then burn. But burning near Kerbin saves me 900 m/s...

And you can time warp while burning if you select the maneuver SAS target. I do it all the time, it's a life saver.

Of course probes should come before crew. Same for SRBs. In a normal universe, in which the devs actually listened to the players and the N modders that came before (excluding @Nertea, for he is the Destroyer of Fun), progression would be something like this: You get the ability to "launch" a Kerbal out of a building. You learn to control the kerbal, walk with him, do a crew observation / soil sample of KSC; Next node you unlock is a Flea SRB, the Stayputnik, smallest antennas and the fairings. You launch the probe, you see how it goes when you have minimal reaction control in and out of the atmosphere and a very small internal battery. The "launch your first rocket" mission gets completed here and you get some more points. Unlock the Mk1 command pod, the parachute and the small stabilizer. You launch the kerbal in the pod on top of Flea, deploy the parachute, do science etc. Get the FL-T100 / FL-T200, the Swivel, the TD-12 stack decoupler. Now you can start testing two-stage designs with the Stayputnik before launching an actual kerbal out of the atmosphere without a heat shield, if you're so inclined. Unlock the heat shield, solar panel and / or battery, Science Jr. - now you can go orbital with a kerbal or a probe, maybe even do a munar fly-by or impact. Unlock all the other beginner parts progressively, 1-2 nodes at a time, as you feel the need for new parts because you're starting to understand the possibilities. Why is this actually so hard to implement? I don't know... it's like the KSP tech tree curse or something... But it's definite how I would like to play the game as a beginner. PS: Why, oh why do people not understand that the point of Tier 1 for veterans is not to land on Tylo with the first node parts, but to actually go through the historic progression of space flight and have fun around Kerbin? Just like a beginner would.

I understand and agree. It's very similar to the point I made above.

Started a new Exploration campaign on Normal - science points from first suborbital missions and experiments (using only starting rocketry node parts): 227. That's 227 science points just from taking a soil sample from KSC, pressing spacebar with an engine once, launching suborbital twice - landing on land once and in water once, pressing the Science button when in new environments. Everything I did is with a very small rocket, no min-maxing. So you go from having only the first parts available to this: Now I can basically do a Mun / Minmus landing and unlock all Tier 1. My point is that it does not give enough time for a new player to get accustomed to the parts in each node and learn what they are, what the do, how to use them. A regular player doing the most basic things can unlock too much using only parts from Starting Rocketry. The pleasure of unlocking nodes is having to look at the parts just ahead and realize that you can't really progress efficiently without them. You have to want to unlock the next node, you have to need those parts. This is missing in the Tier 1 progression, it just ruins the game for beginners. In Tiers 2+ I feel like I really have to work for every node and be strategic.. I can look ahead at parts and see what would be useful.. it feels much better.

The discussion can evolve as more features come online. But for what we have now, there are things that can be improved. Can you be a little more clear about what you mean? I agree that "strap on more boosters" is not the ideal way to play the game, but the improvements to heating force you to consider TWR and velocity in the atmosphere more than before. But this doesn't seem to be a tech tree balance issue.

We need a place to centralize our feedback about the tech tree balance, node order, which parts should go in which nodes, science points costs etc. You can be very specific about details of particular parts, part types, grouping etc. Please stay on topic. Tier 1 nodes are unlocked too quickly (only 2-3 flights), they should require more science points. A regular player doing the most basic things can unlock too much using only parts from Starting Rocketry. My ideal starting progression would be: "launch" a Kerbal out of a building / unlock Flea SRB, the Stayputnik, smallest antennas and the fairings / unlock the Mk1 command pod, the parachute and the small stabilizer/ unlock the FL-T100 / FL-T200, the Swivel, the TD-12 stack decoupler / unlock the heat shield, solar panel and-or battery, Science Jr. etc. Stack decouplers, fairings and adaptors of a certain size should unlock very close to the first fuel tanks of that size. Otherwise we end up with weird looking rockets - it's a forced, unnecessary limitation. RA-100 and Communotron 88-88 antennas should not be unlocked in the same node. The bigger / heavier one should be unlocked in a node before the deployable one. ASCM-A (Air Sniffer - 1 ton) should be unlocked in a node way before the ASCM-B (Little Sniffer -50 kg), just like with the "Science Jr." and the "Science Jr. Jr." What is the point of unlocking the Clamp-O-Tron (S size part) before the Mk1-3 "Gumball" command pod? Why is the RoveMax TR-2L (M sized wheel) unlocked in Autonomous Sampling, right after the RoveMax M1 (S sized wheel)? The TR-2L should come in a later node. Why is the FC-01 (XS Fuel Cell) unlocked in Tier 3 instead of earlier? Why is the LRW-375 (L Reaction Wheel) placed in the Large Aerodynamics node instead of inside the Enlarged Power Systems node? Consider that the MRW-250 (M Reaction Wheel) is unlocked with the Durable Power Systems node. Why is the CC375-D (L docking port) unlocked in Tier 4 instead of Tier 3? Also I am not sure about unlocking the HS-I Deluxe (M inflatable heat shield - 2 tons) in the same node as the HS-500 (XL heat shield - 4.8 tons). This would require some playtesting to check the balance. Any opinions?

Having tutorials and QoL tools is not the problem. We are not elitists, as long as the game is the same difficulty as KSP 1, it's great that new players can learn directly from it instead of just searching the web. But maybe you were trying irony and it's hard to read. Anyway, the actual problem is that while the gameplay is hardcore, the game has no grin, no edge, no real personality in it's presentation. It's just wrapped in "happy, silly, cute and colorful". It uses the most basic dopamine addiction mechanism on the market. There are some peaks of sarcasm and astronaut / engineer humor, but few and far between. It's like the devs are making gameplay for fast hardcore professional StarCraft 2 players, but take advice from 4 year olds and wrap it in rainbows and glitter without the specific KSP tongue-in-cheek humor. Squad, why don't you say anything?! There's not enough edge! @nestor Happy holidays! 100% agree with this - it's usually a forced size limitation, it's not very fun and doesn't make you particularly creative. It just makes the rockets look weird.

Also please consider that the burn starts exactly where the maneuver node is placed. So if you want to burn half-half of PE for efficiency of if you want a circular orbit you have to move the maneuver node back so the PE splits the red line in half. It's different from KSP1, in which this was done automatically.

I support this and agree with @Pthigrivi. That being said.. I feel like the devs read and listen to player opinions, but they don't confirm it. Slowly I see that gameplay decisions are made, the items on the wishlists are getting added and some things seem to be well thought out. We're all starting to have an idea about what this game wants to be. But the dev - player interaction is minimal at best. Good thing we have the CMs to talk to. Anyway, when you as a player feel like life is not fair.. remember that @Nertea's Discord handle is Destroyer of Fun. That should tell you everything you need to know.

You worry less about where the Duna rover will land when you aim directly from Kerbin orbit and just send it. Spot on accuracy! Well.. almost - you have to account for planet rotation. Long live Trajectories mod - we NEED it in KSP 2. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/10573539.pdf

I can confirm this bug - it is terrible. It messed up my Tylo lander with 2 Thud engines and some spherical tanks attached, indicating ~3000 m/s when in fact it had ~1600 m/s. Jeb got stranded on Tylo... and he's mad!

Thud engine with spherical tanks has dV values bugged. So I did not have 3000 m/s.. I only had about 1500 in the descent stage. Thus, I landed the ascent stage instead of aborting.. and Jeb is marooned on Tylo. Minor spoiler below: This is the long-boy that got him there. I feel like there is no game penalty for building so long without a little bit of wobble.

If you aim for ~42 km you can do a safe direct Laythe entry at 8900 m/s in KSP 1. Have to retest for KSP 2.

So, you know how in KSP 2 there's a limit to how fast you can time warp while in low-ish orbit? Well guess what - I thought the reason for it was that the devs wanted to help us play the game better. But no, let me explain... Let's say I want to do a direct transfer to Jool. Because of the time warp limit in low orbit, in order to circumvent the limitation and not waste fuel circularizing in high orbit, for 150 hours, I've been (1) launching to LKO, (2) escaping Kerbin SOI and then orbiting Kerbol parallel to Kerbin and tine warping to get the correct encounter angle, after which (3) I do the transfer. Delta-V LKO -> Jool encounter.. ~3500 m/s. So I thought the devs were indirectly recommending we go to Kerbol orbit first, before time warping to a transfer window. Do you see why I've been wasting my life for 150 hours? Because if you burn directly from LKO (close to Kerbin) at the right time it only takes dV of 2400 m/s to get a Jool encounter. So now I realize that not only burning at PE and on close approach is more efficient to raise the AP, but also burning while in low orbit of a CB is more efficient to raise the AP than burning when in orbit around Kerbol. Which means that all along I should have time warped while landed.. and only launch at the correct transfer moment so I can burn to encounter from LKO. FACE PALM. The time warp speed limit in low orbit made me stupid. Also orbiting / landing on Gilly SUCKS for the same reason. Later edit: it's also the trip planners fault, see below!

You don't need to burn the fuel, just PE ~33 km, decouple before entering the atmosphere and watch the fireworks. Worry not, the shield can take the heat even when returning from Eeloo without the need to slow down.

What do you mean you're trying to do aerobraking in Kerbin's upper atmosphere engine first at interplanetary speed? Of course you're exploding!

I don't know, but I really hope not. And I hope combining antennas will never be a thing again, ever.

KSP should never have FTL drives. Scannable procedural scatter that's diverse enough to look interesting and unique, rare resources, static mesh anomalies like the current ones, discoverables that the kerbals can interact with more than just taking a sample and planting a flag, animated discoverables (like geyzers), unique visual weather effects that only occur in certain locations, diverse HQ terrain (was promised), forests / jungles / rivers / waterfalls / lava tubes / caves / crevasses / cliffs / rolling rocks / unique lakes or at least puddles / waterfalls / bubbles (sic) / debris fields / weird reflections or lights etc. Like a lot of the creative and unique stuff there was in KSP 1 and what they added in KSP 2 .. but more. So you always go "what is that in the distance?" / "I wonder what I'm going to find over the next hill top". When I land in a big crater and I don't find anything at the bottom.. it breaks my heart.

I do not agree with this. There's A LOT of stuff to do in the game, I don't want to waste my time landing 3 probes for every major discoverable and doing triangulation. The fact that missions point out their exact location is fine - the thing that's missing is a progression system for surveying celestial bodies (map "fog", telescopes, scanners), so that you have to discover the CBs, terrain, orbital, gravitational and atmospheric parameters first. I want that and I'm sure a lot of other players want that. I want both diverse procedurally generated scatter (some of which could be scanned with crew observation and soil sample), but I also want to see something in the distance and be very curious about it and drive there to actually interact with a dynamic object. If all the discoverable does is exist - so you can just plant a flag on it - then you can just look at it by zooming out and dragging the camera close to it. There, done. A big missed opportunity to stimulate the players curiosity and sense of exploration. It's basically 2024, damn it. Why is it such a big ask for a modern game to have celestial bodies with a lot of interactive creative content to explore?! I want a reason to drive to the next hill top and go inside the next crater. Why is this such a problem? Yes, most players will not discover 90% of the content. Other players will focus on a single CB that they love. Some will search the oceans, others will focus on driving rovers, others will explore debris rings, comets and asteroids. But that's what makes the experience unique for everyone! There should be something interesting to discover everywhere, constantly.