The tech tree progression is ridiculous

[Wjolcz]

I just think everyone should br allowed to start the tree however they want. No matter if it's manned ballistic, unmanned ballistic or jets. I don't want to be held by the hand through the tech tree every time I start a career save. It should have multiple starts, and part-themed branches.

Tutorials are in the game for a reason. If you want to learn then go for them first. If you want to experiment gor for the sandbox. If you want to challenge yourself by creating things with limited resources then you should go for the career mode with a tree that makes sense and allows you to choose your own path of progression.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Veeltch

[linuxgurugamer]

On 8/5/2016 at 7:32 PM, Veeltch said:

),:

I took a look at this.  It can be done fairly easily with the current version of KSP, without needing any additional mods to make it work 

[Alshain]

2 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I took a look at this.  It can be done fairly easily with the current version of KSP, without needing any additional mods to make it work 

I believe it can be done with module manager if someone would take the time to do it.  When it was originally created, the tech tree required a separate mod to do it and thus it isn't in the right format.

I'm considering picking it up when I have more time.  There are new parts that would need to be added as well.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Alshain

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I took a look at this.  It can be done fairly easily with the current version of KSP, without needing any additional mods to make it work 

I wouldn't call opening every part's config file in a text editor and editing the lines, cross-referencing node names in another file "fairly easy." Straightforward, sure, but MAN.

And that's not even considering changing the nodes in the tree around. Maybe your brain can visualize dozes of x,y pairs of 4-digit numbers and know exactly how it'll work (or you looooove graph paper) but I'll pass.

And yes I looked into it and even started working on it, before giving up.

[linuxgurugamer]

9 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I wouldn't call opening every part's config file in a text editor and editing the lines, cross-referencing node names in another file "fairly easy." Straightforward, sure, but MAN.

And that's not even considering changing the nodes in the tree around. Maybe your brain can visualize dozes of x,y pairs of 4-digit numbers and know exactly how it'll work (or you looooove graph paper) but I'll pass.

And yes I looked into it and even started working on it, before giving up.

"Fairly easily" was meant relatively.  Straightforward is probably more accurate

 

[AlexanderB]

I remember reading somewhere that the tech-tree is now stored in a single file so its much easier to edit. Not sure where I saw that though, might be part of a mod. I'll look into it as well.

The more intuitive tech tree sounds very nice, I like the collecting science and funds(contracts), however I don't like the grinding needed to even get relatively 'basic' parts that are scattered all over the first 3-4 tiers of the stock science tree together with a bunch of parts I hardly ever use, or not in the way I'm forced to use them with the stock science tree.

massive stack of tiny tanks? Just to force the part count up? Because 1 or 2 larger tanks make much more sense, the tiny tanks are great for probes and landers though, but you don't get parts for that until you've done  a bunch of science

Go to the mun without lander legs to get science to unlock the LV-909, eh, "Terrier" and landing legs.. Doesn't make sense to me, lol.  

[edit:], as of 1.0.0, the change log lists: "- The R&D Tech tree is now defined in a cfg-file."
See, I did read that somewhere.  Anyway, now to find out where that file lives and modify it.

[edit2:] It also states "* Science Results in Sandbox Mode. They may not be worth much Science (or any at all), but running science experiments in Sandbox Mode will now show you the same results as in other game modes."
Yay!

Edited August 18, 2016 by AlexanderB

[Alshain]

@AlexanderB Yes it is, and that is also why you can change it with Module Manager now, which is really the better way to do it.  I believe it is also the way the tree posted in the OP does it.

[Wjolcz]

I'm bumping this because the "tweaks" made every update get really annoying and ridiculous. The parts got moved again in 1.2.

Dear SQUAD, could you finally make up your mind about what is where in the tree? Or maybe rearrange the nodes in a way you don't have to tweak it all the time? For example, make clearly separated branches that are themed. It would really solve all the issues. Thank you.

[Pthigrivi]

Its been a while since I started a new career and Im finding the progression is pretty good but there are definitely some moves that could be made there. It seems as though they really want to make an early path from your first flight to orbital without hanging us up on planes or probes, and Im wondering if this is necessary? I guess Im thinking you could move the first Avionics and the Stayputnic is into the third tier so players could branch out sooner. A lot of parts arent exactly in a straight line from eachother but definitely some cleanup could happen there. I was thinking of writing a more thorough set of recommendations once I get toward the end of the tree. 

[Wjolcz]

13 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

It seems as though they really want to make an early path from your first flight to orbital without hanging us up on planes or probes, and Im wondering if this is necessary?

Well, yeah, the whole point of this thread is not to force people to go through a certain type of progression. Nobody should be forced to do that. The best way to deal with this is to group parts in a more logical way. If there was a clear one branch, node after node progression, the only thing left would be to add more parts to these nodes, or simply make them have more branches every time new parts are added.

I seriously don't understand why the devs don't want to do that. For some reason it's more logical to move parts around the tree everytime a new element is added to the game? Really? Redoing it would be so much easier to balance it and even new players could easily distinguish what part of the tree contains the parts they want to go for. I guess you can already see that, but the progression seems to be from good to better anyway, so why not make each branch themed and linear, thus more logical?

Edited September 28, 2016 by Veeltch

[monstah]

3 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

 Redoing it would be so much easier to balance it and even new players could easily distinguish what part of the tree contains the parts they want to go for. I guess you can already see that, but the progression seems to be from good to better anyway, so why not make each branch themed and linear, thus more logical?

Besides, there are good references for this already. Engineering Tech Tree is great in that sense

[tater]

Yeah, ETT is pretty good.

[rdem]

i think current carreer (and science) mode -at some point- forces the player to do the things far beyond the current technological or economical capability. for example you don't have enough funds and science to do a proper mun mission when mun contracts start. milestone contracts like "orbit the kerbin" appear  early before you can make proper proggress and earn relatively advanced parts to do so. you end up landing on mun in a ridiculous way with some low tech parts. or trying to do research with some devices from every meaningless locations. bothering with other random contracts like "testing some parts in absurd ways and locations" "sending some satellites" etc. makes the game very repetitive and boring. 

if it's a game and the priority is fun, this is not a fun way.