What do you think of the new tech tree ?

[SkyRex94]

" The tech tree is just as bad as before. "

I would like to attract anyone's attention on this suggestion, support it if you are interested.

What it is about :

- A "Tech-Explosion" where you get to chose parts according to what you need. (more fulfilling than grind and rigid bundle)

- RP cost would be adapted to Parts importances, yet be overall less grindy.

- Part evolution follow an intuitive technological progression

- Little to no interdependency (less grind).

- Technology are tiered to follow R&D building upgrade (no rushing best parts).

- Ladder and structure to be no more absurdly costly part.

The Schematic example was made a while back, before 0.90, but since SQUAD didn't really changed the tech-tree... it is still as valid.

Rough tree outline. Nodes need breaking up.

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

Although I like the Explosion aproach and the freedom, I would still suggest SOME interdependencies where it is logical:

example:

Ions also dependant on electrics

RAPIER needs rocket tech and jet engine tech

Antennas also need electrics

But you could lay the branches of combined technologies side by side, so explosion tree is still viable option

[monophonic]

I like this. I've not liked the current tech tree style since it was first introduced... it's just too rigid, random and grindy.

To me a tech tree should always be about making choices to proceed and not unlocking everything to proceed. For example, you should be able to play from start to end with only probes, or start to end with only aircraft, or rockets, etc. It adds to the variety in different playthroughs of the career too.

Pretty much how I think. A proper tech tree should look more like, you know, a tree than a fishnet. I imagine a short trunk of a couple of tiers consisting of most basic things, like starting liquid engines and tanks, a probe core, tail fins, a pod or cockpit, maybe a wing and fixed landing gear. Above that it would branch out to three distinct directions. You could continue towards unmanned rockets with more advanced probes and smaller and more efficient engines topping it off with ion tech. Or you could go manned and research bigger rockets, station parts and eventually nuclear propulsion. The third direction would naturally be space planes. Sometimes I have considered having the branches to recombine at the top into the most advanced stuff, but I am not completely sure how that would play out.

This idea would require a lot of refinement though. Structural parts like girders, science instruments, electricity generators and many other things would need to be unlockable independently of which ever branch you chose to pursue. Mostly like that anyway, instruments for example one might spread around the branches somewhat believably. Say atmosphere related instruments belong to the planes branch, goo and materials bay which need cleaning between uses go to manned branch, and pick the coolest from the rest for the probe branch. I would probably also swap the thermometer with the goo as the first science instrument owing to it's being the first more or less scientific instrument any one of us came in touch with as a kid.

Oh but I seem to be departing from coherent though and shifting towards random rambling, so I better send this out here and now.

[MaxxPower]

" The tech tree is just as bad as before. "

Rough tree outline. Nodes need breaking up.

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

This has the same problem, that you need to unlock multiple nodes for engine, tank, seperator,...

My suggestion is starting each branch with a basic set of one specific size or purpose.

For example a basic set for 2,5m rocketry:

• 1 x 2,5m engine
  
• 1 x 2,5m fuel tank (preferable not the smallest one)
  
• 1 x 2,5m cockpit
  
• 1 x 2,5m decoupler
  

This basic set then branches out to multiple extension sets and to the basic set for the next higher technology tier (in this case 3,75m rocketry).

Extension sets add more options to the corresponding basic set.

With this system you can relatively quickly unlock more advanced base sets, and ignore the extensions for the lower tier sets if you are not interested in them.

Some examples for different extension sets:

• advanced fuel tanks
  
• advanced engines
  
• advanced mechanics (decouplers, adapters,...)
  
• mobility (ladders, landing legs, wheels)
  
• advanced controls (cockpits, reaction wheels, rcs systems)
  
• advanced aerodynamics
  

Some examples for different base sets:

• 1,25m rocketry
  
• 2,5m rocketry
  
• 3,75m rocketry
  
• Mk.1 aeronautics
  
• Mk.2 aeronautics
  
• Mk.3 aeronautics
  
• unmanned flight (probe cores, ion engine, xenon tanks, 0,625m parts)
  
• space stations (docking ports, crew cabins,...)
  
• science (sensors, antennas, labs,...)
  
• mechanics (girder segments, base plates,...)
  
• electrics (batteries, solar cells, lamps,...)
  

Some specialized parts or extension sets could be made unlock-able from the start, without a parent-base set. (launch clamps, for example)

Or you only need one of multiple base sets to unlock the extension. (for example the rapier could be unlocked from Mk.2 aeronautics or from some advanced rocket engines node)

Edited April 30, 2015 by MaxxPower

[fairytalefox]

The actual problem is, the part set we have just won't work well with any tree-like structure. There are virtually no parts that render earlier parts deprecated and useless. We need them all even in the endgame. It is not how technologies progress - in the real world, we don't fly Vostok-1 spaceships anymore, and we don't put our state-of-the-art fancy communication satellites on the top of good ol' R-7's.

In my opinion, what we need is multi-tiered parts. Like, LV-T30 (basic edition, heavy as heck and whatnot), LV-T30 Mk. II (less weight, better Isp), LV-T30 Ultra (the best of it's kind, maybe even gimbaled so we don't need LV-T45 anymore); same model, slightly different textures (or even different color decals over the same basic texture). At the beginning, we get or easily unlock most of the parts in their crappy versions and then gradually unlock the upgraded ones.

This approach gives us a natural line of progression, which allows tech trees to be built in an easy and logical way. It also isn't that model- and texture-consuming, just more decals and cfg-files. It also provides us with (kinda) more parts (which is good for diversity) and less parts (which is good for not to be confused) AT THE SAME TIME.

[monophonic]

The actual problem is, the part set we have just won't work well with any tree-like structure. There are virtually no parts that render earlier parts deprecated and useless. We need them all even in the endgame. It is not how technologies progress - in the real world, we don't fly Vostok-1 spaceships anymore, and we don't put our state-of-the-art fancy communication satellites on the top of good ol' R-7's.

Oh but we do! From the ever-so-(un)reliable Wikipedia comes two quotes:

According to the European Space Agency, the Soyuz launch vehicle is the most frequently used launch vehicle in the world.

The Soyuz family is a subset of the R-7 family.

Well, of course the current Soyuz launcher have as much common with the original R-7 ICBM as a a 2015 Toyota Corolla has with a 1966 Toyota Corolla. But they are still the same family.

[Falkenherz]

I think there is consensus that the logic of each tech node should be about things actually fitting and working together. One "exotic" piece thrown in the mix does not harm, i.e. a piece which will become useful in context with other and/or later tech nodes (makes you review your options which is a nice thing now and then).

Possible groupings:

- engines with the range of fitting standard fuel tanks (minitiature or jumbo versions should come later

- command pods with landing equipment like ladders, struts

- remote stuff (already reasonably well grouped)

- groups for the fiddler type of gamer (e.g. struts, structures, etc.)

- electricity (already reasonably well grouped)

- airplanes (already reasonably well grouped)

- utility for spacecrafts, e.g. cargo bays, docking ports, lights

- science stuff and habitation modules

[Johnny Wishbone]

This thread is 6 pages long by the time I'm posting this, so I admit I've not read everything yet. If someone already said what I'm about to say, due credit to them.

The big thing missing from the KSP tech tree is actually something very simple. If it was included, I think it would solve a majority of peoples issues with the current tech tree. What is it? The ability to unlock a piece of equipment from more than one tech node.

Take a look at the tech tree from any other game: Age of Empires, Civilization, etc. In those tech trees, you have the ability to unlock some skills or units or whatever in multiple nodes, so if you choose to go down one branch of the tree, you're not missing out on basic things that help all branches of the tree. Things like fairings, structural girders, parachutes, and even some basic engines and fuel tanks should be unlockable from two or more different nodes in the tree. That way, if I'm focusing on spaceplanes, I don't have to worry about going 6 nodes into the rockets part of the tree in order to get that one basic fuel tank I want for my plane. The way the KSP tech tree is laid out, parts can only be unlocked from the one specific node that contains them, which means you end up having to work your way through the whole tree as it widens out instead of being able to go just down the branches that you want. That leads to the grinding that people hate, as they slog their way through unlocking nodes of parts they don't care about just to get to the node(s) they do.

[fairytalefox]

Well, of course the current Soyuz launcher have as much common with the original R-7 ICBM as a a 2015 Toyota Corolla has with a 1966 Toyota Corolla. But they are still the same family.

It's exactly what I'm talking about. All the different LV-T30's I'm suggesting would be of the same LV-T30 family. The new ones will be better than old ones, though.

Because it's just weird to launch my Eeloo multi-microprobe mission with exactly the same engine Jeb went out of Kerbin's atmosphere for the first time.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hello,

I am gonna give up on it; it is getting worse now you cant even move parts around...I am just gonna voluntarily limit my use of parts I am tired of moving parts around; some things like the main stock engines, tanks...gads...

Some of the small stuff I gonna move..the rest...my MODS are already setup only about half of them tho...

Zeta

[tater]

The actual problem is, the part set we have just won't work well with any tree-like structure. There are virtually no parts that render earlier parts deprecated and useless. We need them all even in the endgame. It is not how technologies progress - in the real world, we don't fly Vostok-1 spaceships anymore, and we don't put our state-of-the-art fancy communication satellites on the top of good ol' R-7's.

In my opinion, what we need is multi-tiered parts. Like, LV-T30 (basic edition, heavy as heck and whatnot), LV-T30 Mk. II (less weight, better Isp), LV-T30 Ultra (the best of it's kind, maybe even gimbaled so we don't need LV-T45 anymore); same model, slightly different textures (or even different color decals over the same basic texture). At the beginning, we get or easily unlock most of the parts in their crappy versions and then gradually unlock the upgraded ones.

This approach gives us a natural line of progression, which allows tech trees to be built in an easy and logical way. It also isn't that model- and texture-consuming, just more decals and cfg-files. It also provides us with (kinda) more parts (which is good for diversity) and less parts (which is good for not to be confused) AT THE SAME TIME.

This, right here.

Almost the entire KSP is in fact virtually coincident if placed in a real life timeline. Yeah, yeah, this isn't RL, but it's hard to suspend disbelief when ladders come after photovoltaics, etc. Most everything in the entire tree was available for the first manned spaceflights.

[katateochi]

It is better, but it's still not great.

Starting with aircraft is still not an option which I think is a big pity.

Glad to see docking ports and also the strut cube available sooner, that helps a lot.

Also the round-8 is right at the end in with the xenon tanks. I think it should be with "propulsion systems" along with the oscarB. Is this because they had intended to make it into a Xenon tank and it's position in the tree didn't get revised after we rioted, or (and I mean this jokingly) is it payback for all the fuss we kicked up that they've stuffed it right at the end!?

[Calvin_xc1]

I'm in the 'better, still needs work' category. My biggest qualm is where the sepratrons are. They're pretty deep in the tree, given how useful they are for... well, pretty much all my craft!

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

To be honest, I never liked the tech tree. IMO it should have a separate progression for all the different radial sizes. Also I believe that some very basic stuff like small bateries, lights and a ladder should be available from the start. On top of that, I prefer to start unmanned.

[Gfurst]

Hey guys, I've made an additional suggestion thread for the career overhaul idea, please check it and support if you like: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118076-Career-mode-Overhaul-for-better-progression-wink

[Xavven]

Then you have to make better choices. Of those 3 nodes, the only one I unlocked just to make 2.5 rockets was the engines one: I got the tanks node for the fuel line and the one with the adapter for some other part, i can't remember what. Once I had those two, I said «hey, if I get engines I can make bigger rockets!». It all worked out very well and very intuitively.

Anyways, they made it so that the tech tree is easy to change now. I think the current form really gives the game an interesting mechanic, it makes you work for what you want... But if you don't like it, there seems to be a simple solution.

Sorry Musil but we're just not going to come to agreement on that. Are you saying that you already had the tanks and adapter, and by the time you cared for 2.5m engines, it was a meaningful choice because you already had the other two nodes? If that's the case, then you actually proved my point -- you had to unlock all 3 nodes before the engines would become a meaningful system. The fact that you hadn't had that goal in mind while you were unlocking the other nodes is irrelevant. I think the tech tree could be made objectively better by ordering the parts by what capabilities they will give the player.

And what do you even mean by "make better choices"? Tell me what choices you think a player should make, that I didn't make, that shows that having the tanks and adapter in different nodes from the engine a good game design. Furthermore, how do you know what choices I made? Your statement really does not compute...

And finally, your comment implying that I should just mod the tech tree, or just not play career if I find a problem with it (not sure which one you are trying to imply) doesn't help anybody. Here we have a thread with a lot of great suggestions from well-meaning players, myself included, that could make KSP a better game. Many of us hope that someone who has influence over the development of KSP can use these suggestions. Squelching constructive criticism is a bad thing.

[lajoswinkler]

As I'm tired of Career mode (did it three times), I haven't looked much about it, but I saw the RTG unit is one of the last things you get. That's just dumb.

[Renegrade]

Sure, but that's not my idea of fun. I prefer to unlock the tree so my game has a history it can look back on (I imagine some screenshots of low-tech missions on the desks and walls in the astronaut complex). I just like to unlock it without having to do the same thing over and over and over.

Ah, I must have misunderstood what you desired (some people seem to want basically true sandbox with the general science stuff working, no progression at all).

Would not then setting science rewards to 1000% be good there? (You might be able to edit the persist file to raise it even further btw; I've never looked into that though)

Its arrangement makes no sense and speaks of deliberately spreading things out so it would be more of a grind.

I don't mind the grind, but I do totally agree that the tree layout makes zero sense. Rover wheels are STILL a tier 7 technology dammit >.<

or just set all your parts required tech to "start"

True, that works too!

In fact, I think that would be....

@PART[*]
{
	@TechRequired = start
}

in an MM config..

As I'm tired of Career mode (did it three times), I haven't looked much about it, but I saw the RTG unit is one of the last things you get. That's just dumb.

That I don't mind - you have fuel cells prior to that, and RTGs only have limited uses in stock thanks to the ridiculous fake solar curve.

[DirkLarien]

my opinion:

I would like to have structural parts way sooner

you are building bases to do what ?

to research and refuel - by the time you get to the necessary parts to build your base from, you don't really need that research.

Same with small parts - i always first send some probe, then rovers and then Kerbals.

with current tech tree it just feels wrong.

I understand that its made like a tutorial, to not overwhelm new players with too many parts at once...

so i guess it will never be for my liking.

I would say make two versions of tech tree one for new players and second for more advanced. (could be set in menu)

Or just leave it as is -people will mod it anyway.

[katateochi]

Just noticed that the Rockomax Brand decoupler comes before you have any parts of it's size which seems kinda odd.

[Rickenbacker]

There's a difference between trial and error and having a part that you cannot use because you need another one too. In this case the "OMG so kerbal" is not even okay since you just cannot use the stayputnik without a fairing... wich is VERY far down the tech tree. Whats the point of even having it ? there is no way you can "do it differently" and thats what bugs me

I'm also not wild about getting contracts to test things that you haven't yet unlocked...

[AgincourtDB]

The thing that puts the nail on the head for me is ladders. They're probably a neolithic invention, but that's just a guess. Ladders should be available from the beginning.

Overall, I like the tech tree. Some of the transitions (the switch to Rockomax parts, for example) are a bit screwy as mentioned above, and I think it would have been better to have big, expensive 'all-at-once' unlocks at certain strategic places on the tree. But it's still very playable.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm also not wild about getting contracts to test things that you haven't yet unlocked...

I actually like this. It makes perfect sense. They're not 'production' parts yet, that's exactly why you're testing them. I think the requirements for many of those testing missions are silly: test conditions should more closely resemble actual mission profile conditions, or be ground-tests. But that's just me...

[ToddEth]

I actually like this. It makes perfect sense. They're not 'production' parts yet, that's exactly why you're testing them. I think the requirements for many of those testing missions are silly: test conditions should more closely resemble actual mission profile conditions, or be ground-tests. But that's just me...

[Hcube]

Also the round-8 is right at the end in with the xenon tanks. I think it should be with "propulsion systems" along with the oscarB. Is this because they had intended to make it into a Xenon tank and it's position in the tree didn't get revised after we rioted, or (and I mean this jokingly) is it payback for all the fuss we kicked up that they've stuffed it right at the end!?

Yes, the Round-8 is in the "ion propulsion" node... They must have forgotten to change it back after they decided it would stay LFO. I don't remember seeing this patched in 1.0.1