What do you think of the new tech tree ?

[FlowerChild]

Frankly I'm a bit surprised that 2 whole days from release nobody's put out a tech tree modman config that moves stuff around a bit.

If my own experience in that regard is any indication, it might just be because there's too much to digest in the new release to dive right into modifying the gameplay-heavy aspects of it like career.

I know that's the case for me. I'm still puttering around in stock career assimilating all the new material, and don't feel comfortable diving right back into updating my mod until I have a better understanding of how everything works.

[Thomas988]

I really like the new tech tree, but I still feel the modes should be individual parts. To me, it just doesn't make sense my a handful of parts just come flying out of the R&D center all at once.

[zarakon]

I haven't gotten very far yet, but there are already a few things that don't make sense to me:

1. Rockomax Decoupler and Adapter show up before any of the 2.5m parts that you would use them with.

2. The wings in the first aviation node are weird. I would like to see some of the more basic shapes like Delta Wing, Structural type B, Connector Type C, or Small Delta.

3. 2.5m heat shield launch escape system, and Mk16-XL parachutes available before the 2.5m command pod that it makes the most sense to use them with.

4. Simple ladder rungs should be Engineering 101. The Kerbin EVA report contracts are kind of annoying with no good way to climb back into your plane.

5. The Illuminator Mk1 should be included in Basic Science

[FlowerChild]

I really like the new tech tree, but I still feel the modes should be individual parts. To me, it just doesn't make sense my a handful of parts just come flying out of the R&D center all at once.

I think that would be seriously terrible. IMO, one of the big problems with the tree right now is that there are far too many nodes that contain "useless" parts: essentially parts that do nothing to help you progress further, and thus are a non-option if you are aiming to move forward in the tree (which I would assume most career players are since that's really central to what you're trying to do in career).

That's what I was talking about above with me thinking this new tree is actually worse than the one in 0.9. More nodes = more non-decisions when there were already far too many. Making it a part per node would make this even worse, as there are sooooo many parts that do nothing to contribute to your ability to advance in career.

IMO, the number of nodes should be cut down and the parts redistributed until each and every node has at least one part that contributes to your ability to advance, thus making it a viable purchase decision. Every other part that may not serve an immediate purpose, thus gets properly assigned as "fluff" that only serves as an additional bonus to your purchase decisions and slowly broadens your vehicle design options as you progress.

If you are seriously committed to having only single parts come out of R&D like that, I'd suggest you try the career mode option to purchase individual parts out of nodes once the node is researched. I think you will find it seriously sucks as it essentially means that you ignore most of the parts even in the nodes you do purchase, only bothering with the ones you need, and your rockets end up looking very "samey" throughout the tree as a result, because it's unlikely you're going to spend the funds you are accumulating on what are essentially aesthetic options.

What "makes sense" in the consensus reality is often times what is worst for the actual gameplay experience.

Edited April 29, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Ridge363]

Considering what it was.. It's way better now. the decoupler thing and fairing placement are "odd" and could us a 1.0.1 touch up. I'll need to play around a bit more to add anything else.

[blackether]

I think that the game's career mode should be fundamentally changed, for a few reasons, and the tech tree is just a part of the reason why.

Right now we have a system that tries to wrap itself around key game mechanics in ways that are lost on most players. It is trivial for an inexperienced player to make so many mistakes as to make progression nigh impossible, and force them to have to restart. This isn't good. Even on easy the way things are set up makes the game challenging at the start (in arbitrary, non-fun ways) and become easier over time as you access better equipment. It strikes me as kind of silly to do things this way -- create all sorts of artificial barriers and road blocks at the beginning, and slowly take them away by giving the player access to the real parts later. It doesn't really make sense.

Instead, it would be much better to have a very focused and "easy" starting experience, that grows into an expansive and open "hard" one. It should feel more like a campaign mode and less like a "experienced players only" challenge mode that just gets easier as you get more and better stuff. I understand that making mistakes has been a fundamental part of the game, but it isn't really fun for a new player to experience that in the arbitrarily hard restrictions of career mode. Most of us learned how to play before there even was such a thing, so making career mode "easy" seems like a bad thing to us. We have already developed all the fundamental skills to get things to orbit or to transfer to the mun and back, but we learned them when the game was just a open sandbox. Trying to learn them in the claustrophobic career mode environment is way less enjoyable, and is ultimately frustrating for new players.

Career should be less about "lets try and make a space program under these arbitrarily difficult and constraining conditions" and much more about "lets learn about getting to space and back in one piece and go from there".

The tech tree should be much less tree-like and much more linear. It makes 0 sense to separate 2.5m tanks and engines into separate nodes. They are essentially useless without one another (especially to a new player). Instead, I think career should start as a very linear system that focuses on having all the parts necessary for a specific set of missions. Once you satisfactorily complete those beginning missions (which guide you through the basics of spaceflight), you then unlock access to new missions, and new parts to go along with them. The missions/contracts -> funds -> science system "works" but isn't really very good in my mind. It doesn't make much sense in real life, either. I think a more focused and curated experience would be a lot better.

Real life missions see years of development, often requiring designing and building very specific (and typically unique) parts that cater to the mission at hand. Forcing us to complete early missions with extremely limited resources (part count limits, contract count limits, weight limits, no patched conics or maneuver nodes, etc.) on top of trying to learn the game just isn't fun. I think they are fundamentally missing the boat here on what a good gameplay experience is, especially for a new player.

The tech tree is just another part of the gameplay experience that really doesn't make sense to a new player, and feels like it is focused around creating specific challenges for experienced players instead. Of course kerbals would have inverted ladders before wings before rockets. The current state is not reflective of this, and doesn't make any sense.

[Gfurst]

Instead, it would be much better to have a very focused and "easy" starting experience, that grows into an expansive and open "hard" one. It should feel more like a campaign mode and less like a "experienced players only" challenge mode that just gets easier as you get more and better stuff. I understand that making mistakes has been a fundamental part of the game, but it isn't really fun for a new player to experience that in the arbitrarily hard restrictions of career mode. Most of us learned how to play before there even was such a thing, so making career mode "easy" seems like a bad thing to us. We have already developed all the fundamental skills to get things to orbit or to transfer to the mun and back, but we learned them when the game was just a open sandbox. Trying to learn them in the claustrophobic career mode environment is way less enjoyable, and is ultimately frustrating for new players.

Completely agree, as one other commenter mentioned, I can see a movement going this way.

Career mode should be easy, tutorial like for the first set of missions and then get more open to player choice and possibilities.

Progression shouldn't be about limiting parts, but instead let us be creative and give progression as sets of parts that gets better from one step to another.

Right now indeed it feels more like a challenge for we experienced players.

By the way, did you notice the new module manager came out allowing for the modding of techs.

[AbacusWizard]

Why do we get a probe before we can even get a fairing to launch it ? U_U

Wait, why is a fairing necessary? I just landed* a Stayputnik-operated probe on Mun without any fairings.

* okay, not so much "landed" as "catastrophically crashed," but the important thing is it got out of the atmosphere all right

[SkyRender]

The new tech tree has some questionable decisions (quite a number of parts seem to be placed too late on the tree for when they'd first be useful versus when they get outclassed), but overall it's pretty good.

[Geschosskopf]

Me no likee the new tech tree. It took all that I disliked about the original version and made them worse.

Allow me to explain. First off, my goal is to burn through the tech tree as rapidly as possible so I can end up with essentially a sandbox game that has working science, inexperienced Kerbals, etc. I neither want nor need to learn how the game works, I want to conquer the universe. Thus, I only play on Easy Mode with its higher science rewards to reduce the amount of grinding out Mun and Minmus biomes to the bare minimum. Prior to 1.0, I could finish the tech tree (except for a few airplane things I ignored until later) with just 1 landing each on Mun and Minmus. But now in 1.0, even in Easy Mode I'm having to grind out multiple biomes on each again.

Of course, the tech tree isn't totally to blame. They also took nearly all the science rewards out of the contract system. Used to be that was quite lucrative but now it's rare to see any science rewards at all, even with major stategies buffing science, and those you do see aren't worth the bother compared hitting yet another biome.

But back to the tech tree. The main issue I have with it is that it spreads the parts you need to go to the next bigger size of rocket over a bunch of nodes; engines, fuel tanks, decouplers, nose cones, and fairings of a given diameter are each on separate nodes, included with stuff you really have no use for. Thus, you have to buy the same sized rocket 3-5 times. Ridiculous. Surely the entire range of parts were designed as a system, not spread out as random byproducts of unguided development.

So, more nodes to buy so you need a lot more science overall. And a decided lack of science to be had except by just grinding out biomes. Not my idea of fun, even on easy mode.

[Renegrade]

Allow me to explain. First off, my goal is to burn through the tech tree as rapidly as possible so I can end up with essentially a sandbox game that has working science, inexperienced Kerbals, etc. I neither want nor need to learn how the game works, I want to conquer the universe. Thus, I only play on Easy Mode with its higher science rewards to reduce the amount of grinding out Mun and Minmus biomes to the bare minimum. Prior to 1.0, I could finish the tech tree (except for a few airplane things I ignored until later) with just 1 landing each on Mun and Minmus. But now in 1.0, even in Easy Mode I'm having to grind out multiple biomes on each again.

Um, it would be fairly easy to calculate the total sum of all nodes' science value, and then editing your persist.sfs to have EXACTLY that amount, and then buying all the nodes. Or heck, just editing the persist file to have all the nodes already unlocked.

That way, you could have a running total of science collected, funds tracked, and kerbal experienced tracked properly right from the get-go, without the preparatory missions interfering with said things.

the line in question will be the first "sci =" line you find, it will be in the ResearchAndDevelopment stanza, like so:

	SCENARIO
	{
		name = ResearchAndDevelopment
		scene = 7, 8, 5, 6
		[B]sci = 128.7238[/B]  // change meh~!
		Tech
		{
			...

Or if you don't want to bother calculating how big the tree IS, just put 100000 there, and then zero it after you've bought all the nodes (that'll also tell you how big it is for your next playthrough).

[magnemoe]

Tree is far better, also feels more logical,more advanced tech is higher up, this was not always the case in 0.90. Still has some issues like the fairings who fit better with pods than aero.

[Geschosskopf]

Um, it would be fairly easy to calculate the total sum of all nodes' science value, and then editing your persist.sfs to have EXACTLY that amount, and then buying all the nodes.

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.

But regardless of my personal preferences, the tree is still bad. Its arrangement makes no sense and speaks of deliberately spreading things out so it would be more of a grind. It was better before, when you could play it any way you wanted. If you wanted to grind, you could. If you didn't, you didn't have to. Now everybody has to grind, it's just a question of lots or way lots. Bad decision.

[passinglurker]

Um, it would be fairly easy to calculate the total sum of all nodes' science value, and then editing your persist.sfs to have EXACTLY that amount, and then buying all the nodes. Or heck, just editing the persist file to have all the nodes already unlocked.

That way, you could have a running total of science collected, funds tracked, and kerbal experienced tracked properly right from the get-go, without the preparatory missions interfering with said things.

the line in question will be the first "sci =" line you find, it will be in the ResearchAndDevelopment stanza, like so:

	SCENARIO
	{
		name = ResearchAndDevelopment
		scene = 7, 8, 5, 6
		[B]sci = 128.7238[/B]  // change meh~!
		Tech
		{
			...

Or if you don't want to bother calculating how big the tree IS, just put 100000 there, and then zero it after you've bought all the nodes (that'll also tell you how big it is for your next playthrough).

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

[Musil]

Maybe it is possible (by mods e.g.) to make a node require a soil sample from a certain planet or moon to unlock or something.

Uh, that's a really nice idea. What I don't like about the tree is that it's basically what drives the game, giving you a reason to do missions, but it's pretty much done once you finish exploring the Mun and Minmus. Only being able to get some parts with experiments done at certain biomes would be very cool.

I don't see the problem in what everyone else is saying. So what if decouplers, tanks and engines are on different nodes? Unlock all of them, duh... And I have yet to find a node with no useful parts whatsoever: I still needed the 2.5 tacks node to get fuel lines, and then got the engines to make bigger rockets. I got the adapter with the spare science.

As for the fairings, it makes perfect sense for them to be under the avionics part of the tree, because they are research into aerodynamics, not engines or science.

I only ever send probes to planets, not Kerbin's moons. So it doesn't bother me that they are a bit further up on the tree... The Stayuptnick can be useful for tourists and such, but you really don't want to use it for anything serious.

Why is it so hard to get bigger tanks? Because gameplay, that's why: if you have to use more tanks in your rocket, you can't make it so big without getting over the part limit, so you really can't go to the Mun on tier 2. I really think it's a good game mechanic.

Anyways, it doesn't make sense to get too many parts before you upgrade the VAB. I just decided not to get thermometers and batteries, for example, because my rocket's already have 30 parts, so I would not be able to use them.

The new tree is really working for me. Don't see a real problem in the early stages.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Sepatrons are definetly too far down the road

But i like the new layout.

[LadyAthena]

Problem I'm finding is what alot of people have said.

* Parts that make no sense. Getting Fairing or couplers for larger sizes than you have

* Unmanned tech starting so late

* No clear or proper progression between high altitude - low orbit, high orbit, etc. etc.

* rocket parts seemingly randomly put in with plane parts

* Science parts separated too much.

[Xavven]

I think that the game's career mode should be fundamentally changed, for a few reasons, and the tech tree is just a part of the reason why.

Right now we have a system that tries to wrap itself around key game mechanics in ways that are lost on most players. It is trivial for an inexperienced player to make so many mistakes as to make progression nigh impossible, and force them to have to restart. This isn't good. Even on easy the way things are set up makes the game challenging at the start (in arbitrary, non-fun ways) and become easier over time as you access better equipment. It strikes me as kind of silly to do things this way -- create all sorts of artificial barriers and road blocks at the beginning, and slowly take them away by giving the player access to the real parts later. It doesn't really make sense.

Instead, it would be much better to have a very focused and "easy" starting experience, that grows into an expansive and open "hard" one. It should feel more like a campaign mode and less like a "experienced players only" challenge mode that just gets easier as you get more and better stuff. I understand that making mistakes has been a fundamental part of the game, but it isn't really fun for a new player to experience that in the arbitrarily hard restrictions of career mode. Most of us learned how to play before there even was such a thing, so making career mode "easy" seems like a bad thing to us. We have already developed all the fundamental skills to get things to orbit or to transfer to the mun and back, but we learned them when the game was just a open sandbox. Trying to learn them in the claustrophobic career mode environment is way less enjoyable, and is ultimately frustrating for new players.

Career should be less about "lets try and make a space program under these arbitrarily difficult and constraining conditions" and much more about "lets learn about getting to space and back in one piece and go from there".

The tech tree should be much less tree-like and much more linear. It makes 0 sense to separate 2.5m tanks and engines into separate nodes. They are essentially useless without one another (especially to a new player). Instead, I think career should start as a very linear system that focuses on having all the parts necessary for a specific set of missions. Once you satisfactorily complete those beginning missions (which guide you through the basics of spaceflight), you then unlock access to new missions, and new parts to go along with them. The missions/contracts -> funds -> science system "works" but isn't really very good in my mind. It doesn't make much sense in real life, either. I think a more focused and curated experience would be a lot better.

Real life missions see years of development, often requiring designing and building very specific (and typically unique) parts that cater to the mission at hand. Forcing us to complete early missions with extremely limited resources (part count limits, contract count limits, weight limits, no patched conics or maneuver nodes, etc.) on top of trying to learn the game just isn't fun. I think they are fundamentally missing the boat here on what a good gameplay experience is, especially for a new player.

The tech tree is just another part of the gameplay experience that really doesn't make sense to a new player, and feels like it is focused around creating specific challenges for experienced players instead. Of course kerbals would have inverted ladders before wings before rockets. The current state is not reflective of this, and doesn't make any sense.

This is completely spot on. Hope Squad reads this.

I don't see the problem in what everyone else is saying. So what if decouplers, tanks and engines are on different nodes? Unlock all of them, duh... And I have yet to find a node with no useful parts whatsoever: I still needed the 2.5 tacks node to get fuel lines, and then got the engines to make bigger rockets. I got the adapter with the spare science.

Yes, when parts that are related to one another are scattered across different nodes, unlocking all of the nodes is the only way to make that system useful at all. The best example I can bring forward is the 2.5m rockets. The engines are in one node, the tanks are in another, and the 1.25 - 2.5 m adapter is in yet another. When none of those parts are useful without all of them, the gameplay element of choice is removed, because the only choice is to unlock all three.

Some of the best moments in the KSP career progression are when I have to decide whether I should go for one node, which will allow me to complete a certain kind of contract, or go down another node which will allow me to complete a different type altogether, while I have limited science and can't get both. Think about the early 2.5 m parts and see if you can think of a way to improve the gameplay experience by creating more choice. I think I've got some good ideas on how to do that!

[stevehead]

I'm not a fan of how the science turned out in this game as a whole. I thought it was a neat thing when it was first introduced with 0.22, but at the time I figured it was more of a placeholder. I was really hoping they would evolve the science experiments into something more involved and fun, such as the impactor experiment from the Interstellar mod. Also spending "science points" to unlock parts in the current order is far from intuitive. I was hoping for a more XCOM style of research and development... using funds and time to research new technologies (not parts). Have solid fuel tech first, then LF/OX tech, and so forth. Maybe have technologies that improve the parts, such as slightly better ISP, lighter materials for fuel tanks, or make structural parts stronger. The point is that the most powerful single-nozzle liquid-fuel rocket engine (the Rocketdyne F-1) was developed in the 1950s... why isn't the Mainsail available early like the LV-T45? Funds should be what prevents me from using the large parts, not science (what makes a 3.75m fuel tank more technologically advanced than a 1.25m fuel tank?); the later stuff should be the ion propulsion, RAPIER, etc.

I'm currently looking at the tech tree, and I'm just disappointed that they allowed the tree to be released in its current state: rover wheels are near the end of the tree still (why can't we have these early? they are just wheels), fuel cells should be available at least before the majority of the solar panels, 550 science to unlock a single fuel tank (S3-14400) when I can just put two S3-7200s together, the toroidal fuel tank is under ion propulsion (umm, okay), the Jumbo-64 out of place with the 3 stack monopropellant tanks, the 1.25m and 2.5m decouplers are available before the stack separators of the same size but it's the reverse for the 0.625m parts (inconsistent), and I could go on...

I'm thinking of doing a mod that completely modifies the science stuff into something more XCOM like I stated above. I've been brainstorming some ideas and I'll create a WIP thread soon once I get something going on it.

[Musil]

Yes, when parts that are related to one another are scattered across different nodes, unlocking all of the nodes is the only way to make that system useful at all. The best example I can bring forward is the 2.5m rockets. The engines are in one node, the tanks are in another, and the 1.25 - 2.5 m adapter is in yet another. When none of those parts are useful without all of them, the gameplay element of choice is removed, because the only choice is to unlock all three.

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.

[Alshain]

It's an improvement, but as usual I don't like the plane arrangement. Plane stuff is still all over the place. You get swept wings in Tier 4, but the elevons that look good on them don't come until Tier 8. I mean really you should get all the Mk1 parts in the first 3 tiers, all the Mk2 parts in the next 3 tiers and all the Mk 3 parts in the last 2 tiers. It's not rocket science.

[Musil]

It's an improvement, but as usual I don't like the plane arrangement. Plane stuff is still all over the place. You get swept wings in Tier 4, but the elevons that look good on them don't come until Tier 8. I mean really you should get all the Mk1 parts in the first 3 tiers, all the Mk2 parts in the next 3 tiers and all the Mk 3 parts in the last 2 tiers. It's not rocket science.

That seems sensible. I don't use planes much, so I haven't noticed, but yeah.

[Aerindel]

The tech tree is better this time...

But it seems like any of us could fix it in about five minutes. It really boggles the mind that these people can't just look at how technology progresses in the real world and copy that.

How hard is it to figure out? simple probes, followed by simple manned missions, followed by better probes, followed by better manned missions...

How hard is it to figure out that an R&D team would invent decouplers and adapters at the same time they developed fuel tanks of a given size?

Is Squad run by Kerbals? Do they lack common sense? Have they never read a book on the history of aerospace?

[Kegereneku]

" 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.

[Fourjays]

" 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

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.