The tech tree progression is ridiculous

[OHara]

54 minutes ago, KSK said:

This time, I want to build a nice big space station in LKO.  [...]   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.

[...] Back to Minmus it is then. *sigh*

What I would like is a tech tree and science system that gives me options. 

If I understand, you like the challenge of earning your way through the tech tree, but want to pick a different path than you took before.  So at first I would think the tech tree linked in the first post would be a pretty good solution.  The flatter tree would have fewer parts that are not relevant to your plan between you and the parts you want.  Maybe it would remove too much challenge, though.

Another way to interpret what you say, is that the vicious cycle, the parts you want requiring you to collect 'science' that in turn requires other parts that needs more science, forces us into a path of maximizing the science we can collect with given tech, and there are only a few optimum paths.   This also troubled me, as the optimum path seemed to involve lots of 'biome-hopping', so I cheated my way through science points on my first career (after satisfying myself that I had done enough contracts/rescues/exploration with a given tech level).  

However, now I am noticing that I can get science points in the hundreds from unmanned interplanetary probes.  Goo and thermometers and Science Jrs do work on unmanned probes.  

[Hevak]

20 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

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".

Please quote where I said that, please do. Or just keep putting words in people's mouth cause you can't have a decent discussion. 

in fact I said consoles should get their own build, tailored to consoles. That is quite the opposite of saying screw consoles. Consoles and PC should be seperated, because PC can be modded for issues like this, and what PC players want is most likely not what console players want. Neither side should be forced into something because of what the other platform can or can't do, or wants. 

So please quote my post where I said screw consoles, or else please just stop responding to me with your inane and asinine comments. 

You just degrade your whole point by resorting to putting words in others mouths to try and further your agenda.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Hevak

[OHara]

12 minutes ago, Hevak said:

 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. 

By having more branches, there are on average fewer un-interesting nodes between the player and what he want.  Alternatively, there are more different configurations of tech that could be reached for a given investment, because there are more combinations of how far to go down each branch, than with a tree having fewer branches.

[GoSlash27]

3 minutes ago, Hevak said:

it seems though that you Slashy and @KSKking 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.

Hevak,

 Actually, no. The way science is generated is a small part of it, but the core problem (as I see it) is partially the distribution of science, but mainly the layout of the tech tree.

The starting tech is way too advanced IMO. Manned rocket launches are half way up the ladder, and a stone's throw away from manned spaceflight. There's a whole lot that could've gone on first that was wasted.

 The tech tree layout is such that first Kerbal in space and first kerbal in orbit happen almost immediately, and very little choice in how to proceed. By the time you have to start making choices, they aren't critical at the time. None are really great, few are bad, and none are necessary. By the time those choices come into play, you already have them all unlocked and you have enough tech to go interplanetary.

 It becomes a chore to unlock and upgrade everything, rather than an enjoyable part of the game, and this happens just a few days into the career.

Simply changing the order of parts and increasing the options would make for a much more enjoyable career IMO.

Also ('nother issue) there's way too much science available at KSC and not enough science available at the other Kerbinside biomes.

Best,
-Slashy

[Hevak]

1 minute ago, OHara said:

By having more branches, there are on average fewer un-interesting nodes between the player and what he want.  Alternatively, there are more different configurations of tech that could be reached for a given investment, because there are more combinations of how far to go down each branch, than with a tree having fewer branches.

I see no more branches, in fact I see the opposite I see less. I see a straight line, a straight linear progression in each of the tech categories there. If I want electronics I have to unlock every node in that to get to end. That is linear progression. 

In the current tree I would skip many of the rocketry nodes I would be force to take in that tree linked. 

i don't agree with a change to tech tree layout like that, it's more limiting, yet it's being presented as more choices. its contradicting.

[KSK]

1 hour ago, Hevak said:

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, 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 @KSKking 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'm not trying to be contrary for the sake of it but actually, I think changing the tech tree layout could help, especially the 'multiple parallel lines' style of tech tree suggested at the start of this thread. As a very crude example, imagine having a 'science line' in which Tier 0 gives you a thermometer and Goo, Tier 1 gives you the Science Jr and barometer, Tier 2 gives you the accelerometer, Tier 3 gives you the MPL and Tier 4 gives you AN other instrument (the gravity scanner is quite high tech and appears later).

I can now spend a comparatively small number of science points and build myself quite a tricked out unmanned probe. I'll need some other parts of course, so I can't focus too heavily on a single line of research but neither do I have to get all the way down to Tiers 7 and 8 before getting to the interesting science stuff. It's not greatly different to what I expect most players already do (does anyone go through the tech tree tier by tier?) just a bit more streamlined and player-controllable.

Want to start crewed? Not a problem - you'll need some parts from the Rocketry line and to have opened at least the first node of the Capsules and Habitation line. This will probably require a bit of Science Grinding at KSC, much like now. At this stage you can entirely ignore batteries (as you can in stock at the moment), so you can ignore the Electricals line altogether. 

Want to start uncrewed? Again you'll need the Rocketry line but you'll want to open the first node of the Electricals line to make sure you have a battery and possibly the first node of the Science line so that your sounding rocket can earn you some science points.

Starting with planes. No sweat. Ignore Rocketry altogether and go for Flight techs instead.

[Wjolcz]

10 minutes ago, Hevak said:

Please quote where I said that, please do. Or just keep putting words in people's mouth cause you can't have a decent discussion. 

 

2 hours ago, Hevak said:

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.

 

2 hours ago, Hevak said:

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

 

2 hours ago, Hevak said:

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?

 

2 hours ago, Hevak said:

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

 

2 hours ago, Hevak said:

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.

 

[Hevak]

7 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Hevak,

 Actually, no. The way science is generated is a small part of it, but the core problem (as I see it) is partially the distribution of science, but mainly the layout of the tech tree.

The starting tech is way too advanced IMO. Manned rocket launches are half way up the ladder, and a stone's throw away from manned spaceflight. There's a whole lot that could've gone on first that was wasted.

 The tech tree layout is such that first Kerbal in space and first kerbal in orbit happen almost immediately, and very little choice in how to proceed. By the time you have to start making choices, they aren't critical at the time. None are really great, few are bad, and none are necessary. By the time those choices come into play, you already have them all unlocked and you have enough tech to go interplanetary.

 It becomes a chore to unlock and upgrade everything, rather than an enjoyable part of the game, and this happens just a few days into the career.

Simply changing the order of parts and increasing the options would make for a much more enjoyable career IMO.

Also ('nother issue) there's way too much science available at KSC and not enough science available at the other Kerbinside biomes.

Best,
-Slashy

Fair enough, and again good points. I'm all for rearranging parts within the current tree, within reason. I'm not for getting rid of the multi branching tree we have and going to five or six straight lines of the tech tree posted to start this discussion. 

But I don't want to start unmanned, I don't want to start with planes. Planes are much more complicated to build. So again this is best done as a difficulty option that either reorders when certain parts are unlocked in the current tree, or only changes the starting tech tree nodes themselves. 

I do not want to be forced into a tree that makes me do unmanned and planes before ever building a rocket. Just like some don't want to be forced by the current tree to do a manned rocket first. 

So I suggest a new mode beyond career, call it "real space program" or "historical/realistic progression" that way both sides can get what they want. Those like me who don't have as much issue with current career and progress keep , and those that have issues get a mode tailored differently. It seems if this was to be done at all, that this would be the best way for both sides to be happy?

[KSK]

1 hour ago, OHara said:

If I understand, you like the challenge of earning your way through the tech tree, but want to pick a different path than you took before.  So at first I would think the tech tree linked in the first post would be a pretty good solution.  The flatter tree would have fewer parts that are not relevant to your plan between you and the parts you want.  Maybe it would remove too much challenge, though.

Another way to interpret what you say, is that the vicious cycle, the parts you want requiring you to collect 'science' that in turn requires other parts that needs more science, forces us into a path of maximizing the science we can collect with given tech, and there are only a few optimum paths.   This also troubled me, as the optimum path seemed to involve lots of 'biome-hopping', so I cheated my way through science points on my first career (after satisfying myself that I had done enough contracts/rescues/exploration with a given tech level).  

However, now I am noticing that I can get science points in the hundreds from unmanned interplanetary probes.  Goo and thermometers and Science Jrs do work on unmanned probes.  

There's a line from "A Few Good Men" which is not forum friendly enough to quote but which sums up my feelings nicely right now. Put another way, that resounding slap you just heard was me facepalming. Hard.

Oh - and the rest of your post was spot on. 

Thanks.

[Wjolcz]

3 minutes ago, Hevak said:

But I don't want to start unmanned, I don't want to start with planes. Planes are much more complicated to build. So again this is best done as a difficulty option that either reorders when certain parts are unlocked in the current tree, or only changes the starting tech tree nodes themselves. 

I do not want to be forced into a tree that makes me do unmanned and planes before ever building a rocket. Just like some don't want to be forced by the current tree to do a manned rocket first. 

What we are discussing here is not a tree that forces you to start with planes or unmanned. We are discussing a tree that allows you to start the tree however you want.

[Hevak]

@Veeltchnothing you just quoted says screw consoles. It says the opposite, they should be able to decide the fate of their build independently. They should control what they want without PC interference. And PC can go a different route simply because PC can be modded. 

[Wjolcz]

On 8.08.2016 at 0:20 AM, Hevak said:

@Veeltchnothing you just quoted says screw consoles. It says the opposite, they should be able to decide the fate of their build independently. They should control what they want without PC interference. And PC can go a different route simply because PC can be modded. 

Ok then. So let's assume I was wrong and carry on with the discussion.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Veeltch

[GoSlash27]

7 minutes ago, Hevak said:

So I suggest a new mode beyond career, call it "real space program" or "historical/realistic progression" that way both sides can get what they want. Those like me who don't have as much issue with current career and progress keep , and those that have issues get a mode tailored differently. It seems if this was to be done at all, that this would be the best way for both sides to be happy?

Agreed.

3 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

What we are discussing here is not a tree that forces you to start with planes or unmanned. We are discussing a tree that allows you to start the tree however you want.

Also agreed. A tree layout like this would allow a player to start out as they see fit. But of course for this to work, each mode would need access to enough science to be viable.

Best,
-Slashy

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

@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.

I don't know how I missed this post but it represents my feelings about the current career spot on. Add to that the ability to unlock parts with money and time and I wouldn't need anything more.

[OHara]

1 hour ago, Hevak said:

I see no more branches, in fact I see the opposite I see less. 

In the current tree I would skip many of the rocketry nodes I would be force to take in that tree linked. 

Good point.  I was referring to the 9 parallel paths that branch almost immediately from the starting point.  Dividing parts onto more paths should reduce, on average, the number of parts between any starting point and any desired part.   Increasing the players power of choice was one of the mod author's stated goals, and I think he did so on average.   

I see now that on the stock tree (which I generally appreciate) you can reach nuclear engines, for example, skipping the probe rockets, researching large fuel tanks instead. 

Edited August 7, 2016 by OHara

[Vanamonde]

So is the argument over? We'd rather not have to start editing the thread and issuing warns. 

Please don't treat each other like enemies over opinions regarding a game's development. 

[James M]

4 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

^ 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

I totally see your point with unlocking the entire tree through just Mun and Kerbin, but I'd be willing to bet no one on this forum has done that. (If they have.. Well.. More power to you!) My point is, when you're at let's say the poodle engine and you want to go to Duna, it's totally possible; No doubt. The issue is how difficult it is to actually do it. I never said it was impossible, just very impractical. The more power and fuel you haul on the top of your rocket, the more you have to haul on the bottom and the more you'll have to asparagus stage. xD It just gets very repetitive until you end up with this like 50 stage bottom rocket lifting this little 5 ton lander (Maybe an exaggeration, but you get the point). What I'm getting at is; early travel beyond Mun happens to be more difficult than it should be UNTIL you get the nuclear engine. Then it's easy. Am I making sense? Why this is an issue is because it becomes really the only path people take for interplanetary travel. All other directions don't help you as much for reaching that goal.

Edited August 8, 2016 by James M

[GoSlash27]

2 hours ago, James M said:

I totally see your point with unlocking the entire tree through just Mun and Kerbin, but I'd be willing to bet no one on this forum has done that. (If they have.. Well.. More power to you!) My point is, when you're at let's say the poodle engine and you want to go to Duna, it's totally possible; No doubt. The issue is how difficult it is to actually do it. I never said it was impossible, just very impractical. The more power and fuel you haul on the top of your rocket, the more you have to haul on the bottom and the more you'll have to asparagus stage. xD It just gets very repetitive until you end up with this like 50 stage bottom rocket lifting this little 5 ton lander (Maybe an exaggeration, but you get the point). What I'm getting at is; early travel beyond Mun happens to be more difficult than it should be UNTIL you get the nuclear engine. Then it's easy. Am I making sense? Why this is an issue is because it becomes really the only path people take for interplanetary travel. All other directions don't help you as much for reaching that goal.

James M,

 I have unlocked the entire tech tree without venturing to another planet, but I did scour Minmus and briefly send a kerbal out of Kerbin's SoI. Since the recent rebalancing that feat has become easier.

 As for the LV-N vs. chemical rockets... actually, not so much. The fuel you save by using the LV-N is offset by the engine's mass, so the ship winds up being heavier. And, of course, a lot more expensive.

Say, for example, we want to send 10 tonnes LKO-> LDO-> LKO with aerobraking at each end. Just to simplify things, we won't actually expend any mass at Duna.

Kerbin to Duna is 1,078 m/sec. Duna to Kerbin is 623 m/sec. That's a total of 1,701 m/sec round trip (neglecting any reserves).

Keeping the t/w at a minimum of .5 kerbin- relative, here's how the 3 options would stack up:

Terrier: 2 engines and 18 FL-T100 tanks. Total ship mass 20.8 tonnes, fuel+tank mass 9.8 tonnes. Total stage cost $3,480

Poodle: 1 engine and 3 x200-8 tanks. Total ship mass 22.0 tonnes, fuel+tank mass 10.2 tonnes. Total stage cost $3,700

LV-N: 2 engines and 3 Mk-1 tanks. Total ship mass 21.0 tonnes, fuel+tank mass 5.0 tonnes. Total stage cost $21,650

 

As you can see, not only is the Terrier a whole lot cheaper than the LV-N for this job, but it's actually lighter as well. The LV-N doesn't actually come into its own until you move beyond Duna and Eve. Of course... if you aren't aerobraking at either end, then it's a different story. Once you get beyond 2km/sec DV, the LV-N becomes lighter and eventually cheaper.
 I know it *seems* intuitively like the LV-N should beat the daylights out of the other engines because of it's high Isp, but it's a boat anchor and that engine mass is something that needs to be hauled around... and up to orbit.
 

Ultimately, this is a non- issue IMO. Not only because the entire tree can be cleared without leaving Kerbin's system, but because if you *do* choose to go interplanetary, you can easily unlock the LV-N long before the first transfer window to Duna. My current Caveman career is at tech level 6 on day 14, and I haven't even sent a kerbal out of Kerbin orbit or touched down on the Mun yet.

Best,
-Slashy

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by GoSlash27

[James M]

44 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

James M,

 I have unlocked the entire tech tree without venturing to another planet, but I did scour Minmus and briefly send a kerbal out of Kerbin's SoI. Since the recent rebalancing that feat has become easier.

 As for the LV-N vs. chemical rockets... actually, not so much. The fuel you save by using the LV-N is offset by the engine's mass, so the ship winds up being heavier. And, of course, a lot more expensive.

Say, for example, we want to send 10 tonnes LKO-> LDO-> LKO with aerobraking at each end. Just to simplify things, we won't actually expend any mass at Duna.

Kerbin to Duna is 1,078 m/sec. Duna to Kerbin is 623 m/sec. That's a total of 1,701 m/sec round trip (neglecting any reserves).

Keeping the t/w at a minimum of .5 kerbin- relative, here's how the 3 options would stack up:

Terrier: 2 engines and 18 FL-T100 tanks. Total ship mass 20.8 tonnes, fuel+tank mass 9.8 tonnes. Total stage cost $3,480

Poodle: 1 engine and 3 x200-8 tanks. Total ship mass 22.0 tonnes, fuel+tank mass 10.2 tonnes. Total stage cost $3,700

LV-N: 2 engines and 3 Mk-1 tanks. Total ship mass 21.0 tonnes, fuel+tank mass 5.0 tonnes. Total stage cost $21,650

 

As you can see, not only is the Terrier a whole lot cheaper than the LV-N for this job, but it's actually lighter as well. The LV-N doesn't actually come into its own until you move beyond Duna and Eve. Of course... if you aren't aerobraking at either end, then it's a different story. Once you get beyond 2km/sec DV, the LV-N becomes lighter and eventually cheaper.
 I know it *seems* intuitively like the LV-N should beat the daylights out of the other engines because of it's high Isp, but it's a boat anchor and that engine mass is something that needs to be hauled around... and up to orbit.
 

Ultimately, this is a non- issue IMO. Not only because the entire tree can be cleared without leaving Kerbin's system, but because if you *do* choose to go interplanetary, you can easily unlock the LV-N long before the first transfer window to Duna. My current Caveman career is at tech level 6 on day 14, and I haven't even sent a kerbal out of Kerbin orbit or touched down on the Mun yet.

Best,
-Slashy

 

Lol nice job flexing there xD Unfortunately as I ran into the whole "Game crash and rollback" issue, I haven't gotten very far myself. I went to Minmus once and due to the rollbacks, the Mun about 10 times in an attempt to do multiple biomes. (Never managed  ) Anyway, to be brutally honest, the only reason I ever use the poodle is because I want to take a three man crew to Duna for extra science and so I can reuse my parachutes for re-entry. Otherwise, I would have made it there using just a one man pod and a terrier. 

[GoSlash27]

27 minutes ago, James M said:

Lol nice job flexing there xD Unfortunately as I ran into the whole "Game crash and rollback" issue, I haven't gotten very far myself. I went to Minmus once and due to the rollbacks, the Mun about 10 times in an attempt to do multiple biomes. (Never managed  ) Anyway, to be brutally honest, the only reason I ever use the poodle is because I want to take a three man crew to Duna for extra science and so I can reuse my parachutes for re-entry. Otherwise, I would have made it there using just a one man pod and a terrier. 

Haha oh, trust me.... Anything I'm doing is within the ability of the average player. I've just done this a whole lot of times and have developed the tools to allow me to answer questions like these without working at it. My strong points right now are "experience" and "laziness"
 The fact that I'm getting away with this shenanigans really just means that stock career is broken.
 

Best,
-Slashy

Edited August 8, 2016 by GoSlash27

[Hodari]

11 hours ago, KSK said:

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.

Honestly, this all makes it sound like you want to just jump straight to all the top tier tech without having to go through any of the stuff in the middle...which goes against the whole point of a career mode.  You don't just go straight from Sputnik to the ISS without going through a bunch of smaller steps in between.  Having some more options on exactly how you do that might be nice, but if you want complete freedom to only do the parts you actually want, Sandbox mode might be a better option.  Maybe it would even be good if they added a new mode which keeps the funding/contracts but has the whole tech tree unlocked(though you can simulate this already anyway using the debug menu). 

If you really want to, you can even roleplay your own career in Sanbox mode and just limit yourself to using whatever parts you feel like you "should" have available at that stage. 

And I'm not saying the current tree is perfect, but it's going to be pretty much impossible to get one which satisfies EVERYONE from the brand new players all the way to people who have been playing since the first public version and have done everything hundreds of times now.  It makes some sense to have the default tech tree be something designed for the newer players so they have a good experience with the game and then can move on to mods or other options later on.  It makes sense that they would want new players to be able to at least get something into space fairly quickly, even if more experienced players would want that to be a bigger milestone that takes some effort to get to.

[John FX]

After looking at the thread it seems it is not possible to make a single tree which will satisfy all the different ways people want to play and it is important to not break saves for some so the solution is this :

Have a customisable tree structure to allow easy creation, loading, and saving of custom trees with various stock optional trees and have the current tree as default so saves are not broken.

[KSK]

1 hour ago, Hodari said:

Honestly, this all makes it sound like you want to just jump straight to all the top tier tech without having to go through any of the stuff in the middle...which goes against the whole point of a career mode.  You don't just go straight from Sputnik to the ISS without going through a bunch of smaller steps in between.  Having some more options on exactly how you do that might be nice, but if you want complete freedom to only do the parts you actually want, Sandbox mode might be a better option.  Maybe it would even be good if they added a new mode which keeps the funding/contracts but has the whole tech tree unlocked(though you can simulate this already anyway using the debug menu). 

Not remotely. What I would like is a tech tree that lets me start at Sputnik (or Vostok) and work my way through to building the ISS without having to detour through Apollo.

Edited August 8, 2016 by KSK

[Hodari]

4 minutes ago, KSK said:

Not remotely. What I would like is a tech tree that lets me start at Sputnik (or Vostok) and work my way through to building the ISS without having to detour through Apollo.

Fair enough then  

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, Hodari said:

And I'm not saying the current tree is perfect, but it's going to be pretty much impossible to get one which satisfies EVERYONE from the brand new players all the way to people who have been playing since the first public version and have done everything hundreds of times now.  It makes some sense to have the default tech tree be something designed for the newer players so they have a good experience with the game and then can move on to mods or other options later on.  It makes sense that they would want new players to be able to at least get something into space fairly quickly, even if more experienced players would want that to be a bigger milestone that takes some effort to get to.

Sorry but I just can't stand the "tutorial mode" argument. If you want to learn how to use different engines/tanks/wings/whatever you go for the tutorials and the sandbox mode. In most games I can at least skip the tutorial. It seems that in KSP it's not possible.