So, why do we get Tri-couplers before Bi-couplers?

[Sarxis]

I really don't understand why we get the TVR-200 before the TVR-1180c.  It seems the progression from bi, to tri, to quad makes more sense in the tech tree.

[PT]

For same reason why you get rocket engines before wheels

No reason at all. Get some tech tree mod if you want it to make any sense.

[Sarxis]

1 minute ago, PT said:

For same reason why you get rocket engines before wheels

No reason at all. Get some tech tree mod if you want it to make any sense.

I have no problems modding it myself, but I'm just wondering why it is the way it is.   Maybe there's no particular reason then.

[foamyesque]

Tricouplers were added to the game first, that's why.

[PT]

Just now, foamyesque said:

Tricouplers were added to the game first, that's why.

But weren't all of them already in game long before tech tree was committed?

[Superfluous J]

1 minute ago, PT said:

But weren't all of them already in game long before tech tree was committed?

Yes, but part of the tech tree is to give you that feel of going through early stages of the game.

I don't personally see the need for it, but the signs are there in many nodes. Especially the very high ones with things like long girders in them.

[PT]

Just now, 5thHorseman said:

Yes, but part of the tech tree is to give you that feel of going through early stages of the game.

I don't personally see the need for it, but the signs are there in many nodes. Especially the very high ones with things like long girders in them.

That is horrible reason. Kraken be blessed for mods.

[Xavven]

The tech tree is an incoherent mess, I'm sorry to say. I think the lead dev at one point tried to reorganize the tech tree using statistical measures -- by measuring what people used the most in the early stages of the game. It's an interesting idea, but it left us with what we have today. To make the tech tree look realistic and at the same time provide a good gameplay progression experience, it's going to take a much more careful and manual approach, and lots and lots of playtesting. I've toyed with the idea of doing it myself, actually.

[Streetwind]

It's a gameplay consideration. Bicouplers are more useful than tricouplers. For example, you can construct a quadcoupler out of three bicouplers, even before you unlock the quadcoupler itself.

So you get the less useful tricoupler first.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Streetwind

[PT]

3 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

It's a gameplay consideration. Bicouplers are more useful than tricouplers. For example, you can construct a quadcoupler out of three bicouplers, even before you unlock the quadcoupler itself.

So you get the less useful tricoupler first.

Good thing you get struts before you can build such wobblecouplers.

[Streetwind]

1 minute ago, PT said:

Good thing you get struts before you can build such wobblecouplers.

Wobblecouplers best couplers

[Rocket In My Pocket]

12 hours ago, Sarxis said:

So, why do we get Tri-couplers before Bi-couplers?

Because... you gotta Tri before you Bi man!

*Rim-shot*

*Fake laughter track*

[klgraham1013]

Someone once said the tech tree made sense.  The men in white lab coats took them away.

Edited August 2, 2016 by klgraham1013

[X-SR71]

On a side note, they're both absolutely useless. No surface attachments, no fuel crossfeed, unecessary mass. You're better off with cubic struts..

 

[AlphaMensae]

Yes, the stock tree IS a mess.  See this tech tree by @pap1723 to see a tech tree that does make sense...that is how the stock tree should have been done in the first place...but wait, "gameplay balancing".... 

I don't use the stock multi-couplers and stack adapters either.  At a minimum, I use the cubic struts or radial attachment points to attach multiple engines to a fuel tank (like, you know, in reality), but I usually use the thrust plates from SpaceY more often now.