Let's Rebalance the Tech Tree

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Just now, tater said:

I was a little sloppy, but it had ~100 m/s left over before I dumped the SM. Used about 50 ablator I think.

You can lose the heat shield entirely even, Mk1 Command Pod can stand up to Mun>Kerbin Re-entry no problem on default heating values in my experience.

[tater]

That lander above would do Minmus as well, easily.

Just now, Rocket In My Pocket said:

You can lose the heat shield entirely even, Mk1 Command Pod can stand up to Mun>Kerbin Re-entry no problem on default heating values in my experience.

I'm used to scaled up (and SSTU), so I forget that I don't need the heat shield.

Could probably ditch the fins and make the the center engine a Swivel, too. So 27, and throw in a couple science instruments.

[fourfa]

Only needs one solar panel if you're careful... Nose cones are luxury items.  24 parts

[tater]

Just now, fourfa said:

Only needs one solar panel if you're careful... Nose cones are luxury items.  24 parts

On topic, this is why the tech tree is so goofy. You’d expect that things like nose cones would be things people would want, right? I always have used them, even when I found out they actually harmed the design, for example. 

Those throw away parts should have utility added. Nose cones can have MP and EC added, for example. If the player drags the slider down, the part has less mass. Many of the aero parts could have that sort of service module stuff added. Not a lot, but not zero. Saves on dumb stuff like part clipping.

[RedPandaz]

16 minutes ago, tater said:

On topic, this is why the tech tree is so goofy. You’d expect that things like nose cones would be things people would want, right? I always have used them, even when I found out they actually harmed the design, for example. 

Those throw away parts should have utility added. Nose cones can have MP and EC added, for example. If the player drags the slider down, the part has less mass. Many of the aero parts could have that sort of service module stuff added. Not a lot, but not zero. Saves on dumb stuff like part clipping.

What about a version that has both monopropellant but also a lot of built in rcs thrusters all around it?

[tater]

1 minute ago, RedPandaz said:

What about a version that has both monopropellant but also a lot of built in rcs thrusters all around it?

I'm fine with that, but it's not in the spirit of stock KSP I guess.

Still, having some EC and MP on sliders on "interstage" adapter parts makes sense, IMO.

Edited November 7, 2017 by tater

[RedPandaz]

Just now, tater said:

I'm fine with that, but it's not in the spirit of stock KSP I guess.

Still, having some EC and MP on sliders on "interstage" adapter parts makes sense, IMO.

yea

 

[Rocket In My Pocket]

16 minutes ago, RedPandaz said:

What about a version that has both monopropellant but also a lot of built in rcs thrusters all around it?

That's actually an interesting concept.

A lot of the Command Pod models have what appear to be built in RCS ports.

I wouldn't mind seeing these actually utilized when RCS is on and monoprop is available.

[RedPandaz]

2 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

That's actually an interesting concept.

A lot of the Command Pod models have what appear to be built in RCS ports.

I wouldn't mind seeing these actually utilized when RCS is on and monoprop is available.

yea

[tater]

The new add on has built in rcs.

Stock keeps all the parts separate, though.

[medicdude]

It is very expensive tech-wise just to get a munar landar, I think the early-er tech nodes should be consolidated and/or made cheaper, so you can build a 1.25m craft that is lander and re-entry capable for a very low amount of science.

The big hurdle science wise is landing on the mun, once you can do that you can generally just 'add more' to go anywhere you want.

I also think the stock science tree branches out too fast,  early nodes should really focus into 3 areas; building vertically bigger (higher thrust engines, vertical separators, and bigger short-form fuel tanks, fairings), building smaller (probe cores, smaller engines, more efficient engines, higher TWR engines), and building out-wards (radial decouplers, fuel lines, long-form fuel tanks, SRBs, lower TWR engines, docking).

Maybe you could add additional tree branchs around flight, landers/rovers, and other utility items, but they could also be lumped into the other 3 core areas.

A lot of the basic utility items are much too expensive I think, like electricity, parachutes, heat shields; you really should be able to unlock all of the 1.25m utility items almost right off the launch pad, or have a very cheap tree branch to do this very early.

In stock once you can make it to the mun, you can pretty much farm enough science to purchase everything, especially if you go for the MPL; my personal strategy is generally to beeline thru probes to get to the MPL as soon as I can. Maybe science tree unlocks could be tied to intra-kerbol exploration to incentivize leaving the solar system; but I think that is really more of a problem with the mission system than with the science system.

It's really not hard to land on the mun even with the really basic cave-man tech stuff, as long as you have radial decouplers and struts you can build capable landers. I think a big issue is newbie players THINK they need to unlock all that other stuff and they just get entirely overwhelmed, when really they just need to add more; boosters, stages, and build outwards.

[GoSlash27]

I've been out of the loop for the better part of a year, so my apologies if any of these issues have already been addressed...

 Based on my habit of developing careers "caveman style" (rapid attainment of science and tech with zero investment in infrastructure), I have noticed some glaring holes in the tech tree:

- Kerbals can be put into a sub-orbital trajectory to reach space early, but it is very problematic to recover them alive. This is because the ship never decelerates to a safe deployment speed for the main chute before impact. Drogue chutes should be available early.
-Also to that end, Players should be aware that these difficulties can arise *before* they wind up killing Kerbals. A basic Stayputnik should be available early so players can get a feel for the difficulties without killing kerbals, and perhaps test manned concepts remotely.
- Antenna ranges don't improve apace with available targets. There is a large chunk of the mid- game where it is possible to send missions to planets, but lack of communication keeps the mission from happening. This results in grinding for science instead of engaging in more ambitious missions.
- The more distant science available on Kerbin is very minor and time consuming, thus, it is only worth collecting (from a game play perspective) very early in the career. During this time, it becomes easier and more productive to go to Minmus rather than exploring Kerbin due to the lack of development of tech that would aid in terrestrial science. I think manned terrestrial science (jets, wheels, etc.) should develop much more rapidly, while space tech should be reined in a bit. I understand that this is Kerbal *space* program and that is the main focus, but I believe this balance can be achieved without making the "space" part unduly difficult.

Best,
-Slashy

 

[cfds]

On 11/4/2017 at 8:23 AM, KSK said:

OK then. How does this game sound?

KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM IS A MULTI-GENRE GAME WHERE THE PLAYERS CREATE THEIR OWN SPACE PROGRAM.

• Take your Kerbal crew on expeditions out of the ship with Extra Vehicular Activities gathering data and precious minerals.
• Procedural Terrain delivers detailed terrain at a vast scale. The Kerbal Planet is 600km in radius.
• Dock spacecraft together to build Space Stations, Massive Starships, or even surface bases on other planets.
• Manage your crewmembers, hire them, and send them out into space and make them into heroes.
• Research and Develop new technologies to advance your Space Program
• Take on a variety of complex and engaging Missions to attract interest in your Space Program.
• Discover new worlds and expand the scientific knowledge of Kerbalkind.
• These features just scratch the surface, there is so much more to explore in the game!

To me, that sounds pretty compelling. And yes, most of those points are technically correct (which is always the best kind of correct). But at the same time the way they're implemented in-game is pretty minimalist. The precious minerals seem to have been lost somewhere in space for example. And whilst I certainly wouldn't dispute the vast scale of KSP's terrain, I would raise a Spock-like eyebrow at anyone calling it detailed. Likewise 'managing your crew members...and make them into heroes' sounds a lot more interesting than it actually is in game. And you could perfectly truthfully add 'from the safety of your tracking station - without actually going there' to that ''discover new worlds' bullet point.

I think the devs do (or had) a vision for a compelling career mode. I'd be astonished if they didn't - the sheer length of time that KSP has been in development points to the passion that the various dev teams have had for the game and I sincerely doubt that  'cobble some stuff together and throw it out the door' was ever in their gameplan. 

Unfortunately, I would say the execution of that vision hasn't been quite as compelling. That's understandable - good game design is hard. But that's no reason to airbrush the problem away as 'something the devs never intended' or to disparage discussions about how to make the game better.

Personally I believe that the whole career mode and tech tree are another victim of the whole console debacle:

• someone has the idea to enter the console market
• to be ported, game has to be "released" (for whatever reason)
• to be considered "released", there has to be at least some attempt to address all the bullet points of the feature list that was used to attract players to the early access
• there are only limited developer resources
• so half-ass a tech tree, a "career mode", add a last second improved atmospheric reentry system (that required four hotfixes to work iirc) and call the game "finished"
  • rely on volunteers to bring the game to its potential

[Pthigrivi]

15 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

- Antenna ranges don't improve apace with available targets. There is a large chunk of the mid- game where it is possible to send missions to planets, but lack of communication keeps the mission from happening. This results in grinding for science instead of engaging in more ambitious missions.

This is a solid point and I've updated the main post to move these up. It may not balance for caveman, but it should work out for players upgrading their tracking station as they go. This also goes to the general bent toward one-off mission styles vs players with lots of concurrent active flights. For the latter you're usually sending out interplanetary probes earlier and fleshing out the tech tree with local crewed missions while they're en-route. This means you really need longer range communications at the time they're sent, which is usually shortly after your first couple of Mun/Minmus missions.

[TheFlyingKerman]

It is just me? IMO the big rockets (anything 2.5m or bigger) are way too cheap. That's why you see people simply throwing moar boasters.

 

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 8:22 AM, medicdude said:

It is very expensive tech-wise just to get a munar landar, I think the early-er tech nodes should be consolidated and/or made cheaper, so you can build a 1.25m craft that is lander and re-entry capable for a very low amount of science.

The big hurdle science wise is landing on the mun, once you can do that you can generally just 'add more' to go anywhere you want.

The trick is you first do a Mun orbit, then a Minmus orbit, then a Minmus landing. The Mun landing goes last.

[tater]

The tech tree is THE reward system for KSP, like it or not. People unconsciously play to rewards, we want to "get new stuff," even without thinking about it.

As such, the game is practically over once you get to the Mun or Minmus. At that point a few landings and you unlock everything. Hence my issue with the tech tree as a fix, the problem is deeper.

[Lord Aurelius]

58 minutes ago, tater said:

The tech tree is THE reward system for KSP, like it or not. People unconsciously play to rewards, we want to "get new stuff," even without thinking about it.

As such, the game is practically over once you get to the Mun or Minmus. At that point a few landings and you unlock everything. Hence my issue with the tech tree as a fix, the problem is deeper.

You said it. I've said it many times before, but what career really needs is an end goal to play towards. Right now, there really isn't one other than unlock the tech tree. The best solution I've seen is something like the anomaly explorer contract pack. It gives you a set of increasingly difficult missions to actually use all those shiny parts on and an end-game goal to work towards.

Otherwise, the only reward is the satisfaction of coming up with a mission and pulling it off (which is really more what sandbox mode is about anyways). I hardly consider the bland, boring planet surfaces and the forgettable (or worse, generic placeholder) science descriptions to be rewards at all.

[Pthigrivi]

In some ways, consciously or not, the scope of the game isn't really designed for big interplanetary missions. Most people mod-in the flight planning tools and life-support systems you really need to make that a compelling experience. So in some ways the tech tree finishing up after a few moon missions is about right. 

[Spricigo]

7 minutes ago, Lord Aurelius said:

Otherwise, the only reward is the satisfaction of coming up with a mission and pulling it off (which is really more what sandbox mode is about anyways). 

IMHO this is all reward that is necessary. We don't need someone else (not even devs) to tell how to play the game.

[tater]

36 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

In some ways, consciously or not, the scope of the game isn't really designed for big interplanetary missions. Most people mod-in the flight planning tools and life-support systems you really need to make that a compelling experience. So in some ways the tech tree finishing up after a few moon missions is about right. 

This maps well to what I have read here that the majority of KSP players never leave the Kerbin SoI in a meaningful way.

I'm a huge fan of adding life support (and meaningful time progression) to the stock game, partially because in career mode, it would be nice to have some difficulty modifier for missions outside the Kerbin SoI, because as it is, the game only becomes easier, not harder.

25 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

IMHO this is all reward that is necessary. We don't need someone else (not even devs) to tell how to play the game.

Then play sandbox. 

This thread is connected to the career system. The career system should put the player's space program into a kind of context. Real space programs face constraints, and those constraints drive choices that are sometimes more interesting than just building whatever you want. Setting arbitrary limitations in sandbox is the same as taking a warfare game and comparing an "instant action" scenario with campaign play, where you actually feel invested in the outcome.

A large problem with these sorts of complaints; "We don't need someone else (not even devs) to tell how to play the game." is that they have internalized the truly awful KSP campaign system. A career game need not have ever told any player to do anything, had it been designed correctly. Right now you read "career" as a list of silly tasks that KSP calls contracts that are hoops you must jump through. You're right, that's nonsense. Career did not need to be that, however.

There are finite worlds in KSP,  and finite possible goals. Flyby, orbit, impact, and land are the only things you can do with a world. Those are doubled with crewed, vs probe versions of all of the above (except presumably "impact"). There can be orbit/land and stay, or return to Kerbin, bases, etc, as well. Still, a small enough list to put in a pull-down menu. The player could then design mission goals, and the game could offer budgets to accomplish them, at which point the player then manages R&D, etc, to try and accomplish the goal they set for themselves. 

Edited November 15, 2017 by tater

[DAL59]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

(except presumably "impact").

Unless your Jeb.  

I think the tech tree is fine, except for the antennas.  The science expense for those antennas mean I can't send any long range probes.  

[Lord Aurelius]

36 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

In some ways, consciously or not, the scope of the game isn't really designed for big interplanetary missions. Most people mod-in the flight planning tools and life-support systems you really need to make that a compelling experience. So in some ways the tech tree finishing up after a few moon missions is about right. 

Sadly I have to agree with you here. It does parallel the reality of the space race, but it would be so much better if it enabled players to test out all the wacky proposed manned mission ideas without needing to install mods for things like life support. Which, incidentally, is the biggest challenge facing manned missions today.

[tater]

The mini-scale of the solar system is a fundamental problem as well.

With stock parts, 3.2X is totally playable, for example. It's been a while, but somewhere north of 3.2X as a rescale, the Mun actually starts being a destination where a staged lander is a rational option. I demonstrated up thread that you need nearly nothing to land Jeb on the Mun (and I even used landing legs, which are totally optional).

If there were multiple paths to a munar landing, that would be far more interesting than current gameplay (anything much past what I showed above is inefficient).

[Pthigrivi]

58 minutes ago, tater said:

The mini-scale of the solar system is a fundamental problem as well.

The scale is certainly a factor for the hardcore re-enactor types and if you're being really tight on efficiency, but it also makes things a lot more manageable for new players. Who knows how much more work we'll realistically see on KSP in the next few years, Im still optimistic, but I don't think a rescale is likely. There's always RSS for the players who are really dogged about that. The kind of define-your-own-mission style seems to be pretty close to what Making History is about, so you may be in luck there.

The question for me is, if they are going to keep developing career mode, what are the biggest bang for the buck changes to improve things. Stuff we could reasonably see tweaked up for 1.4 that wouldn't involve totally rewriting the code. For that I'd love to see:

- Balance and gameplay pass on the tech tree.
- Adjustments to building perks and difficulty settings (Like setting tighter size requirements on the VAB and scrapping the part count limit etc.)
- Contract type promotion in the Admin Building (strategies that directly effect the probability of tourism, base building, satellite etc. contracts appearing at Mission Control)
- Adding a transfer orbit calculator and alarm clock, improving the maneuver node widget, and (pwettypweeze) stock delta-v so players can go interplanetary more easily in stock.
 

[Lord Aurelius]

22 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

The question for me is, if they are going to keep developing career mode, what are the biggest bang for the buck changes to improve things. Stuff we could reasonably see tweaked up for 1.4 that wouldn't involve totally rewriting the code. For that I'd love to see:

- Balance and gameplay pass on the tech tree.
- Adjustments to building perks and difficulty settings (Like setting tighter size requirements on the VAB and scrapping the part count limit etc.)
- Contract type promotion in the Admin Building (strategies that directly effect the probability of tourism, base building, satellite etc. contracts appearing at Mission Control)
- Adding a transfer orbit calculator and alarm clock, improving the maneuver node widget, and (pwettypweeze) stock delta-v so players can go interplanetary more easily in stock.
 

I would also like to add that part balance is also a critical part of balancing the tech tree. Just moving some of the parts around doesn't completely solve the issues since the part costs (and in some cases their specs) have already been tweaked to reflect their position in the tech tree.

Science experiments and science multipliers also need a balance pass. It's just silly that I can get more science running around the KSC in the early game than I can from LKO. Not to mention that single data point experiments like temperature and pressure measurements don't transmit at 100% for inexplicable reasons, while a much more complex crew or EVA report does.

Additionally, I would like to see an Anomaly Explorer style series of contracts that the player is free to pursue or ignore as they choose so they have some larger goal to work towards besides just "gather all the science" and "put a flag on every body". In fact, from some of NovaSilisko's comments from when he used to be a dev that was the original plan, but it was scrapped for some reason (along with additional planets).

Life support (and Kerbal balance in general) is a step above these things in terms of needing extra code, but if we're encouraging interplanetary play and meaningful game balance, it needs to be added. Right now there's really no reason to use probes (especially if you're using the comm network which nerfs them outside of com range) when for just slightly more weight you can throw a Mk1 lander can on the vessel and have a bunch of free science (with 100% transmission to boot), plus infinite fuel with "get out and push". Not to mention that there's an effectively unlimited supply of free kerbals in LKO with the rescue contracts, so it's perfectly feasible to leave some at permanent surface installations on places like Eve. Especially since there isn't any life support to run out.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Lord Aurelius