Better Tech Tree

[Dman0829]

        I feel that the tech tree that is currently in the game seems a little backwards? I think you should be sending small probes into space before sending people. A further addition to this may be aircraft before some of that, than go to probes/rovers than manned and probably back to supersonic/advanced spaceflight. Possibly keeping the other tech tree and having the difficulty the game is set on define what kind of tech tree it uses.

 

[tater]

The tech tree and career have been broken afterthoughts since added, and they're not going to change, sadly.

[klgraham1013]

There is no saving it.  It died a long time ago as it was being born.  Truly, the Kraken's accursed tentacle touched this one while in the womb.  Any attempts to salvage it have been in vain.  We can only ease it's passing, and mourn what could have been. 

From the diary of the physician of Kerbal Space Program's career mode.

[GoSlash27]

The good news is the tech tree is pretty easy to modify. The bad news is that even though the current progression doesn't make much sense, people will complain like crazy if they change it. A lot of players demand the ability to immediately jump into kerballed spaceflight (it is, after all, KSP).

 I do like your suggestion (assuming I understand it correctly) of having alternate tech trees.

Best,
-Slashy

[DeliriumTrigger]

5 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

The good news is the tech tree is pretty easy to modify. The bad news is that even though the current progression doesn't make much sense, people will complain like crazy if they change it. A lot of players demand the ability to immediately jump into kerballed spaceflight (it is, after all, KSP).

 I do like your suggestion (assuming I understand it correctly) of having alternate tech trees.

Best,
-Slashy

Yeah they're probably damned if they do and damned if they don't in this case.  The idea of having different tech trees available to choose from in the stock game would be nice but I'd bet the chances of that happening fall somewhere between getting a built in dV/TWR readout and friggin never.

[Nothalogh]

On 4/21/2018 at 10:51 AM, Dman0829 said:

feel that the tech tree that is currently in the game seems a little backwards?

Certainly, the tech tree needs to be straightened out.

Simple structural components like adapters and girders are somehow harder to build and research than a goddamn turbojet, and let's not forget thermometers and barometers being more high tech than a MK1 capsule.

[Kerbart]

On 4/21/2018 at 10:51 AM, Dman0829 said:

        I feel that the tech tree that is currently in the game seems a little backwards? I think you should be sending small probes into space before sending people. A further addition to this may be aircraft before some of that, than go to probes/rovers than manned and probably back to supersonic/advanced spaceflight. Possibly keeping the other tech tree and having the difficulty the game is set on define what kind of tech tree it uses.

 

Have you taken a look at how you build a rocket in the VAB? From the top down. INSANE! That's not how it works in reality!  ...but we all agree that it works better in the game that way.

 

The tech tree is not there to mirror reality (as far as reality is relevant when dealing with little green men from space). It's there to provide a challenge, yes even guidance for new players, and give a need to progress. Make the tech tree too "realistic" and half the technology would never get unlocked because all the stuff you really need is already available in the first three tiers.

Is it perfect? No. Can it be improved? Yes. Will that happen? Probably not. But whatever the improvements are, they will be based on the gameplay experience, not on "how reality really is"

 

 

[Gargamel]

9 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Have you taken a look at how you build a rocket in the VAB? From the top down. INSANE! That's not how it works in reality! 

You can easily build from the bottom up if that's what you want to do, you just have to pick a part that can serve as a root part.  For example, I have a tug ship that I load, and then build the payload on top of it. 

And for reality, I'd think it's both/neither.  Launchers have given constraints (mass, size).  Projects have certain constraints (budget), and part of that budget involves launch costs, so they design the payload craft to fit onto an available launcher that fits the budget.   Both are developed separately and mated together later.  With time, that's what often happens in KSP (at least for me).  I have a range of launchers that fit certain masses of payloads, and I just mate the correct one to the payload I've designed.

[Wjolcz]

You should be able to pick whatever path you like, whether it's atmospheric flight, probes only or manned only or even all at once.

There's the tree and science points that only add to the pain. But all this will never change...

10 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Have you taken a look at how you build a rocket in the VAB? From the top down. INSANE! That's not how it works in reality!  ...but we all agree that it works better in the game that way.

No. No, it doesn't work better that way. You shouldn't go somewhere to get something you need to go there in the first place. And that's pretty much what the tree is all about.

Look, I could talk about this and design a better career mode but I've done this dozens of times already and devs didn't do anything because apparently it's hardcoded or something. I even modded it to get rid of science points and that made the game a whole lot more playable but I decided it still was too much of a hassle and went to sandbox mode instead.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Wjolcz

[Pthigrivi]

I think you guys are kind of missing the point that Kerbart was making. He's saying first and foremost a game has to function as a game. There can definitely be ways in which that overlaps with reality, but primarily its about providing players with the tools they need to progress at any given point of play, not what part technologically preceded the other in our human timeline. Now, there are definitely ways in which the current tech tree doesn't function very well even as a game, but the goal should be to correct things in those terms. Sure, from a real-world manufacturing sense it would be easier to make a micro-cubic strut than a rocket motor, but by that logic we'd have 20 nodes of structural pieces before you unlocked an engine. From a gameplay perspective you don't actually need all those parts first. The better question to ask is does it make sense from a gameplay perspective to withhold stack adapters all the way at the back of the tech tree, or for lights and ladders to be withheld so much later than players will need them for landers, or for radiators to arrive long before you have anything that generates heat. Those are the kind of balance and progression questions that can actually be addressed and improve things.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Pthigrivi

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

I think you guys are kind of missing the point that Kerbart was making. He's saying first and foremost a game has to function as a game. There can definitely be ways in which that overlaps with reality, but primarily its about providing players with the tools they need to progress at any given point of play, not what part technologically preceded the other in our human timeline. Now, there are definitely ways in which the current tech tree doesn't function very well even as a game, but the goal should be to correct things in those terms. Sure, from a real-world manufacturing sense it would be easier to make a micro-cubic strut than a rocket motor, but by that logic we'd have 20 nodes of structural pieces before you unlocked an engine. From a gameplay perspective you don't actually need all those parts first. The better question to ask is does it make sense from a gameplay perspective to withhold stack adapters all the way at the back of the tech tree, or for lights and ladders to be withheld so much later than players will need them for landers, or for radiators to arrive long before you have anything that generates heat. Those are the kind of balance and progression questions that can actually be addressed and improve things.

This post is great and all but what matters the most isn't realism or the lack of it. It's a game. It should be fun. Is career fun? No. Should it be? Yes. Could it be fixed? Yes, but that requires mods because devs never cared enough to make it fun.

You can say it's "balanced" and "intended" but by definition a game has to be enjoyable and career mode isn't.

[Johnny Wishbone]

Career mode isnt without problems, but I personally wouldn’t say career mode “isnt fun”. I play career mode exclusively and love it, warts and all. 

Back on topic, the stock tech tree is definitely in need of a redo, though. I would love them to focus on fixing stuff like that in future updates over giving us extra launchpads or redoing the Mk3 capsule to include RCS ports.

[GoSlash27]

1 hour ago, Wjolcz said:

This post is great and all but what matters the most isn't realism or the lack of it. It's a game. It should be fun. Is career fun? No. Should it be? Yes. Could it be fixed? Yes, but that requires mods because devs never cared enough to make it fun.

You can say it's "balanced" and "intended" but by definition a game has to be enjoyable and career mode isn't.

Wjolcz,

 "Fun" is subjective. There are a lot of players who happen to think that career is fun. You just don't happen to be one of them.

I find career to be the most fun mode in KSP, but I believe that it could be more fun (to me, anyway) with a more realistic tech tree progression. Not a one-size-fits-all tech tree, mind you...

One thing that really disappoints me: We are provided with a plethora of aviation parts, but very little incentive to put them to use in career. Kerbin science is worth a decent amount in early career, when aviation has only the most rudimentary equipment. By the time aviation is fully developed, Kerbin science is pretty much worthless. Thus, it's pointless to ever use those parts for their intended purpose.

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

[Pthigrivi]

 

1 hour ago, Wjolcz said:

This post is great and all but what matters the most isn't realism or the lack of it. It's a game. It should be fun. Is career fun? No. Should it be? Yes. Could it be fixed? Yes, but that requires mods because devs never cared enough to make it fun.

You can say it's "balanced" and "intended" but by definition a game has to be enjoyable and career mode isn't.

I mean I like it, hell I've been playing for 5 years or something? Most of that time was without mods and even now Im just adding LS, Near Future and flight-info mods. As far as the early progression goes its pretty much stock. I'll absolutely grant you though things aren't finely tuned. Experience is undercooked, the science system is worse, the milestone exploration missions are all but invisible to anyone who doesn't already know the game. You certainly can have fun in career if you want. Start off, go where you want, build what you want, only accept contracts that dovetail into the missions you want to do anyway and hotkey your science collection and its great. The tech tree finishes up after a few Mun and Minmus missions and station or two, dump everything after that into patents licensing and use that to go to Duna, Eve, Jool-5, whatever you like. 

That said, career certainly doesn't make it easy. All of the above depends on doing all of my headline missions on spec knowing from experience that they'll pay for themselves. How does a new player know they can just go to the Mun without prompting and get money for it after? Mission control will never tell you that. Unless you fix it in the settings menu you cant get custom action groups until VAB level 3, which means its science click-town until then. There's still no stock dV readouts, alarm clock, transfer window info, etc. The game is basically designed through a successful Mun mission and thats it. So yeah, absolutely, there's a lot of stuff that can be improved. 

[Pthigrivi]

49 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

One thing that really disappoints me: We are provided with a plethora of aviation parts, but very little incentive to put them to use in career. Kerbin science is worth a decent amount in early career, when aviation has only the most rudimentary equipment. By the time aviation is fully developed, Kerbin science is pretty much worthless. Thus, it's pointless to ever use those parts for their intended purpose.

 

 

^This too. Im not that into planes personally but a lot of players are, and there's really no system for them to progress that way. Thing is there is a tech tree avenue for planes, just like there is for probes, it just starts a little late. Some of those parts should be broken out and shifted up I think, because the real intent for many players is to start out with these things and then move up.



So what should really happen is:

Start >

- Basic Rocketry 
- Basic Aviation
- Basic Science (probes)


This would give all players a lane right from the get-go. I don't think there's any question you can collect enough science to advance easily with probes. Planes are trickier. To me this really has to do again with the way science is collected. If different biomes had different multipliers and anomalies (and other cool surface features?) had science bonuses you could collect a lot just by flying to different places on Kerbin. 

I think there are also milestones for speed records,... there must be a way to reward players for sustained powered flight. Something like a record if you maintain speed and altitude at 353m/s (mach 1), Then another at mach 2, 3, etc.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Pthigrivi

[GoSlash27]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Im not that into planes personally but a lot of players are, and there's really no system for them to progress that way.

Agreed, and that's just part of the problem. The most readily available source of science in early career is in and around KSC and the best way to collect it is with a rover. But rover parts don't appear until late in the tech progression, so I'm forced to construct them out of manned capsules or airplane parts instead.
 Efficiently collecting science requires knowing where the biomes are, but the ability to biome scan occurs relatively late in the progression. Result, you have to consult KSPedia to know where the biomes are.

 All of this works fine if your goal is to get manned flights to farther and farther bodies as rapidly as possible (there are a lot of players who prefer that mode), but it's either random or backwards for players who wish to collect all the science in an efficient and orderly manner.

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

 

[mikegarrison]

On 4/21/2018 at 9:32 AM, GoSlash27 said:

The good news is the tech tree is pretty easy to modify. The bad news is that even though the current progression doesn't make much sense, people will complain like crazy if they change it. A lot of players demand the ability to immediately jump into kerballed spaceflight (it is, after all, KSP).

 I do like your suggestion (assuming I understand it correctly) of having alternate tech trees.

Best,
-Slashy

This is just one of those times where I have to say, *this is a game*. It's not the history of aeronautics. Otherwise we should start with hot air balloons.

There are many gameplay issues with the tech tree. For instance, why does it take three or four tech nodes to go from small size 1 fuel tanks to large size 2 fuel tanks? It takes a Mun landing to figure out how to build a bigger tank?

But starting with manned flight really isn't one of the major problems with the tech tree. After all, that's really the heart of the game -- strapping Jeb onto a solid rocket booster with a parachute and seeing if he dies spectacularly.

[GoSlash27]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

This is just one of those times where I have to say, *this is a game*. It's not the history of aeronautics. Otherwise we should start with hot air balloons.

Point addressed above. It's not about recreating history, it's about accessing cheap science at a point in time when it's still worth collecting. If hot air balloons were the best means for collecting early science, I'd agree. But they're not. Rovers and airplanes are.
 

 

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

After all, that's really the heart of the game -- strapping Jeb onto a solid rocket booster with a parachute and seeing if he dies spectacularly.

 Your point is certainly valid for sandbox, but I don't think people who play career are doing it just to make fun explosions. I'd say it's the opposite; "strapping Jeb onto a solid rocket booster with a parachute and seeing if he dies spectacularly" is not a good career strategy.

Best,
-Slashy

Edited April 25, 2018 by GoSlash27

[mikegarrison]

1 minute ago, GoSlash27 said:

Your point is certainly valid for sandbox, but I don't think people who play career are doing it just to make fun explosions. I'd say it's the opposite; "strapping Jeb onto a solid rocket booster with a parachute and seeing if he dies spectacularly" is not a good career strategy.

It's the only possible career strategy. You start with a solid booster, a parachute, and a capsule for Jeb. Nothing else.

[GoSlash27]

 mikegarrison,

 It's not the way I start, even though I start with those same parts. There are actually many career strategies that don't involve using the starting parts in their intended roles.

I take reports from a capsule on the pad, then the runway, then repeat with a thermometer, etc.

All that science bypasses the need to launch Jeb on a 'can o' boom' with a parachute and see if he dies.
 My first manned rocket launch uses liquid fuels and staging, when I'm certain of Jeb's safety.

Best,
-Slashy

Edited April 25, 2018 by GoSlash27

[GoSlash27]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

There are actually many career strategies that don't involve using the starting parts in their intended roles.

^ In fact... I kinda see this as the crux of the matter. There's a lot of using parts for roles other than those which were intended in career play. This is because the proper parts for those jobs don't come along until after they're no longer needed.

Best,
-Slashy

Edited April 25, 2018 by GoSlash27

[mikegarrison]

OK, yeah, the very first thing I do is "launch" a capsule with just a thermometer and get the simple data available for that. It also fills one of the standard available contracts (collecting data from kerbin). I have played around with "launching" from the runway, walking a kerbal around to get eva reports from more biomes, etc.

But all the most recent times I have played, I just started with first grabbing a crew report and temp scan, then going ahead and actually launching a flight. I mean, really is this supposed to be a walk around KSP for grindy science game or a launch Jeb into the sky game? IMO it's the latter, and so I play it that way.

Anyway, while I do think the tech tree and the whole system of science is at least bent if not broken, it is important to remember that tree is really there to drive gameplay, not for anything else. I've played with other tech trees that try to make more engineering sense, and they also have their flaws.

I haven't played the Making History expansion yet, but descriptions of it make it seem more like what I imagine a real tech progression game might have looked like. Basic KSP has always been a sandbox game with this sort of kludged up career game squeezed into it. And yet, when I feel like playing KSP I almost never just start up a new sandbox game. I still want the pat-on-the-head science, money, and contract awards from career missions. Playing sandbox (or playing career after I've completed the tech tree) just feels a little too unfulfilling to me.

[Dman0829]

I'm amazed at how far this conversation is going, and I would like to remention the idea of separate tech trees that you could possibly chose from when your starting a new carrer game. As little as I personally use planes they are important and should be required well before sending someone in orbit, and the rover should come much sooner.

[Pthigrivi]

Im exited to get into MH too, Im just too deep in a 1.3 save at the moment. It makes me a little worried that career mode is on the back burner. I know there are a lot of players who just wanted total freedom to make thier own missions, and now they have it, which is great. Now I hope they return to shoring up the core mechanics of the game. 

17 minutes ago, Dman0829 said:

I'm amazed at how far this conversation is going, and I would like to remention the idea of separate tech trees that you could possibly chose from when your starting a new carrer game. As little as I personally use planes they are important and should be required well before sending someone in orbit, and the rover should come much sooner.

This though is why I like the early-split solution posted above. After your first flea mission (or pad test) You really would essentially be able to select your own path--manned, unmanned, or planes first. If there was sufficient science support for aerial/terrestrial explorers you could push as deep as you wanted down that tech path. 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Pthigrivi

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Agreed, and that's just part of the problem. The most readily available source of science in early career is in and around KSC and the best way to collect it is with a rover. But rover parts don't appear until late in the tech progression, so I'm forced to construct them out of manned capsules or airplane parts instead.
 Efficiently collecting science requires knowing where the biomes are, but the ability to biome scan occurs relatively late in the progression. Result, you have to consult KSPedia to know where the biomes are.

This kindof makes me wish there were like 3 total KSC biomes. Players really should be encouraged to push a little further before getting more points, at least fly to the island airstrip. Its also what I mean about giving bigger rewards for going farther. If you got 50% more science for the mountains or airstrip, 100% more for the poles or badlands, more even for anomales, suddenly there'd be real incentive to range farther faster. 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Pthigrivi