My suggestion to solve "completing" the tech tree.

[Matt77]

I haven't seen this discussed in a while but I find that unlocking the final tech node really damages my motivation. I play to earn science, unlock nodes and reap the rewards.

I feel that the game should begin with 1940's tech, and that it should start with giant leaps and bounds, with diminishing returns later on. It's the reverse at present.

I think it was Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri in which once you completed the tech tree, you could still invest research in areas and improve performance with diminishing returns.  In KSP terms, you could research 'Rocketry' maybe, and on completion all your rocket engines gain 5% thrust or ISP. Maybe alternate, but after each level the science cost doubles and/or the buff is halved. Maybe a 'Materials' branch would make everything lighter and stronger. Maybe something to improve resource extraction, or funds / rep earnings.

So when the tech tree is complete, you can still progress and still have a reason to do science... I usually find the tech tree complete long before my first Duna mission, so why would I bother doing science there or anywhere else?

Look at the real world - NASA is building a new rocket using the same technology they used to get to the moon, but expect to reach Mars, with the knowledge they've gained over time.

edit - this forum software is seriously bugged on Android! You can't start a new paragraph without a lot of fiddling.

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by Matt77

[Wjolcz]

Meh. Not a fan of legendary notched rocket engines. There's gotta be some other way to keep career mode interesting after completing the tech tree.

 

My dream is to have this sci-fi-ish, near future economics system where you go out and mine for precious materials (Looking at you, Xenon). Then if you have enough money you can buy another KSC somewhere else on the planet and launch new missions from there. And maybe research different type of technology there too? Not better, just different. Like when Soviets and US were having their space race, except you are in charge of both sides.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Veeltch

[Red Iron Crown]

24 minutes ago, Matt77 said:

Look at the real world - NASA is building a new rocket using the same technology they used to get to the moon, but expect to reach Mars, with the knowledge they've gained over time.

The knowledge and technology to get to Mars existed in the 1960s, just the willingness to pay for it was lacking. Rocket engines have improved only very slightly since then; by far the most limiting factor is the chemistry of the propellants, which no amount of advanced technology can change.

[Matt77]

I agree about your first comment, but I don't agree about putting SciFi tech in the game. Perhaps near-future tech but you'd still have just a few more nodes to unlock then back to the same problem - no reason to do science.

 

 

[Wjolcz]

13 minutes ago, Matt77 said:

I agree about your first comment, but I don't agree about putting SciFi tech in the game. Perhaps near-future tech but you'd still have just a few more nodes to unlock then back to the same problem - no reason to do science.

 

 

I didn't really mean SciFi. What I meant was more like "Why aren't we mining those platinum reach asteroids for profit IRL" kind of thing. Basically what we can do, but don't IRL. We have ISRU (sth possible, but still not used in everyday rocketry) so why not put in an economy wystem based on that? I also mean a whole new tech tree in that second new KSC. The parts would be the counterparts of the ones from main KSC, except with slightly different stats.

 

My thoughts are kind of messy today, but you hopefully understand what I mean. Just look at N1 and Saturn V rockets and you'll get the idea. Different tech, same purpose.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Veeltch

[wizzlebippi]

I think the problem lies in science generation, not the tech tree.  Right now, you can easily complete about 75% of the tech tree without leaving the Kerbin system.  Science needs to be harder to get or have diminishing returns as you progress through the tech tree.  More parts and nodes would be appreciated as well.

[Matt77]

8 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

The knowledge and technology to get to Mars existed in the 1960s, just the willingness to pay for it was lacking. Rocket engines have improved only very slightly since then; by far the most limiting factor is the chemistry of the propellants, which no amount of advanced technology can change.

I take it back, Android support is not just bugged it is completely broken!  Having tried to quote Red Iron Crown, I now cannot post from my tablet.  Maybe it's the tablet, it's pretty old.

I did not know that we could have got to Mars in the 60's I thought the moon was pushing it.  But I'm only an interested MoP.  This is a bit of a tangent though, I was mainly interested in peoples views on the way the game ends in a way when you complete the tech tree.  At least it feels that way to me.

[Wjolcz]

Oh, and btw, I said "SciFi elements" only because I always imagine Nostromo hauling millions of tons of uranium (or whatever the ore was) between the systems. That's what I want in KSP after completing the tree, except with Xenon.

[Matt77]

13 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I didn't really mean SciFi. What I meant was more like "Why aren't we mining those platinum reach asteroids for profit IRL" kind of thing. Basically what we can do, but don't IRL. We have ISRU (sth possible, but still not used in everyday rocketry) so why not put in an economy wystem based on that? I also mean a whole new tech tree in that second new KSC. The parts would be the counterparts of the ones from main KSC, except with slightly different stats.

 

My thoughts are kind of messy today, but you hopefully understand what I mean. Just look at N1 and Saturn V rockets and you'll get the idea. Different tech, same purpose.

I think I get the gist of it, yes. It's a good idea, but again is it just more tech nodes?  A reason to go to all that effort fo even reach an asteroid, let alone mine or capture it, would be nice!!  I've been playing since 0.17ish I think and still never even seen one outside the tracking station!

14 minutes ago, wizzlebippi said:

I think the problem lies in science generation, not the tech tree.  Right now, you can easily complete about 75% of the tech tree without leaving the Kerbin system.  Science needs to be harder to get or have diminishing returns as you progress through the tech tree.  More parts and nodes would be appreciated as well.

This is my problem, I've posted about it before.  I think it was about 0.25 when I last completed the tech tree, whilst my Duna mission was still under construction.  I lost all motivation and never went to Duna, didn't play the game again til the next update.  I'm fairly sure I can still complete the tree just with Mun and Minmus.

I think diminishing returns is important.  Why is one crater on the Mun worth so much science compared to the next one, when they're all just grey dust?

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

Oh, and btw, I said "SciFi elements" only because I always imagine Nostromo hauling millions of tons of uranium (or whatever the ore was) between the systems. That's what I want in KSP after completing the tree, except with Xenon.

It was an oil refinery, if I recall correctly, for making plastics.

I don't know, Kerbal to me is closer to Sim City than to most other games, in that you have this kit of parts and its essentially an open-ended building game. To me completing the tech tree is the beginning of the game, not the end. Grinding away endlessly to get a Docking Port Sr. sounds like a drag to me.

What I'd prefer to see is the goal shifted away from completing the tech tree and toward exploration. Right now the bodies themselves are pretty empty, but if there were actual things to see and do there people might feel inspired to see exploring them as the real goal. 

Edited December 7, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Azimech]

And what an excellent game Alpha Centauri was.

[tater]

The tech tree is at the root of the career problem, frankly. The KSP paradigm is that you do planetary science which somehow buys you technological improvements. Then, on top of this strange idea, the large majority of the "tech tree" is in fact concurrent technology. First nuke in space, first solar panels, first manned capsule? All late 50s, very early 60s. The entire thing is screwy. The trouble from a game standpoint is that buying new tech is THE reward system in the game. People will chime in and tell us they play for different reasons, and that's fine, but studies of games have shown that players unconsciously play to the reward system, designers use this to create addictive games.

What are the options, assuming that the tech as reward is a desirable game element?

One would be a much wider (vertically wider assuming the same layout in R&D as we have now), flatter (less left to right) "tree." This presents the problem of "cost," as left to right in a science point increase.

Two would be a change in the entire science/career/tech relationship. Perhaps breaking science into different kinds of science (spaceflight, planetary, and kerbal factors (health, etc). Have different tech require different balances of science points. A hitchhiker requires crewed time on orbit sorts of missions, landing legs might require some sort of planetary science (will the craft sink in the dust of the Mun?), new rocket engines might require parts testing on orbit, etc, and a capsule might require some of each. In addition, some tech might actually require specific missions, or might be made available as a test part, and only unlocked after it is tested someplace (drogue chute on Duna or something).

Three, upgrades. At the very least, there could be a dichotomy between "eXperimental" and "production" parts. X parts are what is first unlocked, then they switch to production after some amount of use. Use can be defined a few ways, for engines it might be total seconds fired, weighted somewhat by where (ground/atmosphere/space), as well as unique crafts that have used the X engine, and perhaps some dedicated contacts/missions to test them. The production version would contain performance improvements over the X version. Such a framework could be used by mods as well, and those might add in reliability issues, ideally. Honestly, a chance of failure on X parts would be good, period. It creates a rationale for testing on orbit (where rescue is close at hand) before using a part for a critical application, and rescues are fun, anyway.

 

[Matt77]

On 07/12/2015, 23:17:43, Pthigrivi said:

To me completing the tech tree is the beginning of the game, not the end. Grinding away endlessly to get a Docking Port Sr. sounds like a drag to me.

What I'd prefer to see is the goal shifted away from completing the tech tree and toward exploration. Right now the bodies themselves are pretty empty, but if there were actual things to see and do there people might feel inspired to see exploring them as the real goal. 

I think we actually agree, technically the tech tree is not the whole game, but once it's all unlocked what reason is there to explore further?  Any science you gather is useless, and the planets are really just different colours, aside from the challenge that is Eve.

My bottom line is that we need a reason to keep doing science, and to get larger amounts of it.  Admittedly mine isn't a great idea, but it's better than what we have in 1.05.

7 hours ago, Azimech said:

And what an excellent game Alpha Centauri was.

Good post.  I think the correct response is "+1" :-)

4 hours ago, tater said:

Loads of interesting stuff.

 

I think you understand the problem I have.  Since Career Mode was introduced, I have stopped playing once I finished the tech tree - which is easily achievable without leaving Kerbins SOI..  I must be one of those people with the need for a reward you mentioned.  To me, unlocking tech is the reward, but at the same time I don't want the tech tree to extend beyond near-future.  Hence my comment about starting with 1940's tech (might alienate some people) and ending with gradual improvements.  At the moment, you have to grind hard to acquire ladders and wheels, but then once you have a station around Minmus and return from a bit of biome-hopping, you have to decide "Which 5 or 6 huge advances am I going to take this time?"

[r4pt0r]

I personally dont like to leave local kerbin system until I have completed the tree, as I want all my long distance missions to be as well equipped as possible.

[tater]

8 minutes ago, r4pt0r said:

I personally dont like to leave local kerbin system until I have completed the tree, as I want all my long distance missions to be as well equipped as possible.

This is true for me as well, as I usually play with LS, and even when I don't (new patch, perhaps, mods not updated), I play as if LS was installed (I send multiple hitchhikers on even a Duna mission, and treat it like "Mars Direct").

That said, the tech unlock is THE reward system in the game, like it or not. Sure, we play past that, but then it's simply sandbox, and the entire career element os pretty much gone. Funds are only a problem on grind, erm, "hard" mode. The trouble with addressing the tech tree issue is that it means a complete overhaul of science and career as well, they are entirely interconnected.

[pandaman]

As said above, the tech tree is seen as the main reward or objective of the game.   Whilst it probably should be one of the tools that enables you to progress towards achieving the game's objective.

Which raises the question of what should the career game's objective be?

So...  Maybe we could select our own game objective for each playthrough depending on what we want our agency to be, for example...

Business.   The primary objective is to make X amount of funds.

Science and Research.  The primary objective is to complete the tech tree and have X science surplus. 

Exploration.  The primary objective is to explore the solar system.  

Or, of course, a combination. 

The exact details of each could vary depending on how large a goal we want to set ourselves.  The existing contract system etc could remain about the same, but the different objectives would encourage playing the game in different ways.

On reaching our first primary objective we get a 'Victory Message' with the option to quit and feel smug, or to continue and set a new primary objective.

[Alshain]

On 12/7/2015, 3:36:28, Red Iron Crown said:

The knowledge and technology to get to Mars existed in the 1960s, just the willingness to pay for it was lacking. Rocket engines have improved only very slightly since then; by far the most limiting factor is the chemistry of the propellants, which no amount of advanced technology can change.

Technically yes, but it has gotten cheaper since then making it more feasible.  I mean, the computer in the Apollo command module was only a fraction of the power of my iPhone.

[tater]

35 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Technically yes, but it has gotten cheaper since then making it more feasible.  I mean, the computer in the Apollo command module was only a fraction of the power of my iPhone.

All the computers on earth combined during the Apollo program were likely comparable to a single iPhone, or maybe a few. The LEM had something like 4k of memory. Just checked, my phone can do 3.36 billion instructions per second, and the mainframes used by NASA could do 0.00096 billion instructions per second, so it's 3500 times faster than their mainframe. The System 360/75 cost around 3 million $, too. All computers combined was overstating it... still, the computing power represented by all the machines owned by the people reading this thread likely meet that level

This is why the entire tech paradigm in KSP is screwy, virtually everything is really tier 1, but they should be improvements over time (lower mass for same specs, or slightly better specs, etc).

Edited December 9, 2015 by tater

[Matt77]

9 minutes ago, tater said:

This is why the entire tech paradigm in KSP is screwy, virtually everything is really tier 1, but they should be improvements over time (lower mass for same specs, or slightly better specs, etc).

Is it too early to reiterate that as it stands, we grind to get ladders and wheels and solar panels - then later we unlock several techs at a time when we start to land on the moons - techs totally unrelated to landing on some random alien body.

[tater]

Yeah, because the whole thing is bass ackwards, as they say. Exploration doesn't make new tech, new tech is purpose-built for exploration. 

What we really need, is a whole new system for creating non-commercial missions.

You'd select from lists/buttons for each numbered section. Note that you might be limited in bodies you can pick, and how much the kerbal government is willing to risk based upon REP, Rep is now the thing you want to buy the "reward" of more mission design choices:

1. Pick broad mission type (crewed orbital, crewed landing, probe orbital, probe landing, others that we can come up with)

2. Pick target body (Kerbin, Mun, Minmus, Duna, Ike, Eve, Asteroid, etc, etc)

3a. Pick broad goal (b. science, c. base/station construction, d. resupply)

3b. Set science goals (radio boxes with all the science instruments, plus EVA, sample return, etc available to check).

3c. Set facility requirements you wish to build (min crew capability, power, RCS, etc)

3d. Set resupply target, and amounts.

The game would then generate a budget based upon your stated mission parameters. This budget might include points for buying new tech to accomplish this mission. The game provide serval choices of budget, with lower budgets offering a higher rep reward (where rep might increase the base budgets for future requests). Since there are a small number of target worlds, and a smaller number of possible instruments, this really describes all possible missions. Early on, you might only have the rep for simple probe missions, and early crewed attempts, you need to build rep to be able to build more complex missions.

[Lord Aurelius]

I think that the whole notion of doing science experiments to get science points to unlock parts in the tech tree needs to go. There's nothing wrong with science points and having them unlock something in game, but linking them to the tech tree wasn't the best idea.

What I would like to see is some kind of overarching set of missions to provide something to strive for. It could be tied into anomalies, where you initially find an anomaly on Kerbin, which leads to an anomaly on the Mun, and so on. For replayability, the anomaly locations could be randomized so that you have to actually put a scanner in orbit around various bodies to find them instead of just looking up the coordinates.

These missions could be entirely optional if players just want to do their own thing, but have the missions provide some neat rewards along the way to encourage players to do them (along with some cool cinematics telling a story).

Such a system would make the tech tree a means to an end, and the endgame could be focused on exploring and pulling off increasingly difficult missions.

I also think that the tech tree should be unlocked via funds. Science experiments could give specific unlocks (for example, atmospheric analysis can unlock a bonus to improve engine performance in that flight region) instead of just providing points.

[Red Iron Crown]

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

Technically yes, but it has gotten cheaper since then making it more feasible.  I mean, the computer in the Apollo command module was only a fraction of the power of my iPhone.

Spaceflight has never really been computer power limited. We landed on the Moon, Venus, Mars and set up outer planet flybys with less computing power than a smartphone.

[MKI]

I dislike the idea of "upgrading" the parts and tech I have.

Currently the "endgame" of a completed tech tree is putting your science resources into money and reputation via the Admin Building.

I like the idea of managing my program's reputation and cash, without worrying about the science part. But otherwise its still sandbox, to fix that issue (if you find it an issue) is another story.

 

 

[Dr. Jet]

And noone suggested EXPANDING a Tech Tree so that it could be only unlocked with 95% of all science gathered in stock Kerbal System...

[Goldensniper79]

Warp drives?