Logical tech tree

[cfds]

The whole problem with the career mode and the tech tree is that SQUAD only did the absolute minimum to not get into any trouble with false/misleading advertising. Harvester wanted only a lol-plosion simulator and the team after him just wants to count money. Actually delivering a quality product was probably never a priority during any phase of development...

[klgraham1013]

9 hours ago, Kerbart said:

What's the point? It will just make the other half of the players disgruntled.

I'll reqoute myself.

On 8/30/2018 at 6:46 AM, klgraham1013 said:

Every creative should know that you should never try to please everyone.

 

The point is to make the game better; to accept criticism and improve.  If someone made some good reasoned point in support of the tech tree, I'd listen.  Change my mind.  Explain to me why having the ladders in the early game would make the experience worse.  I'll quote some examples I made from another thread.  Maybe I'm missing something.  Explain to me how these things are good design.  

On 5/7/2018 at 5:25 PM, klgraham1013 said:

Bear in mind: There are 8 tiers on the tech tree.  Divided into three phases; tiers 1-2 could be considered early game, 3-5 mid game, and 6-8 late game.  Tier 8 has only 4 nodes.  Thus, late game is really only tiers 6 and 7.

Well, maybe we should get the big two out of the way first.  Planes are tier 3.  Probes are Tier 4 if you consider solar panels a basic necessity of satellites.  Okay, now that we've got that out of the way.

Light bulbs are tier 4.  Ladders are tier 5.  (sort of important for getting out of your ship and planting flags)   Structural parts really start showing up at tier 5 and a completely separate line in tier 6.  Kerbal ready rover wheels show up in tier 6.  (long after you've already landed kerbals on several planets)  You can pick up a 1.25 to 2.5m adapter and a 2.5m decoupler in tier 3 before you get 2.5m tanks in tier 4.  That's just at a quick glance.

Edited August 31, 2018 by klgraham1013

[Rocket In My Pocket]

On 8/31/2018 at 7:36 AM, klgraham1013 said:

The point is to make the game better; to accept criticism and improve.  If someone made some good reasoned point in support of the tech tree, I'd listen.  Change my mind.  Explain to me why having the ladders in the early game would make the experience worse.  I'll quote some examples I made from another thread.  Maybe I'm missing something.  Explain to me how these things are good design.  

By the same token; explain how having ladders in the early game would make it objectively better?

We obviously don't want the player lingering too long on Kerbin in the early game, and we don't need ladders for Mun/Minmus. A lack of ladders could be seen as gentle nudging to the player on what he should/should not be doing.

Same with planes, and rovers; they don't come before rockets because we want to get new players involved immediately in the meat and potatoes of the game; rockets. Planes are a side project for later on, once they have a clearer understanding of some basics, rovers as well. Probes as well, probes need signal, probes need batteries, probes need antennas, probes need solar panels; this is a lot of concepts compared to just launching with Kerbals who need nothing really. So of course; you don't get probes until you are well versed in building simpler craft with less needs.

If you want to argue the tech tree is a bit stifling to a veteran player I might agree with you; but it doesn't make it out right bad or wrong. (Barring a few very odd placings of some structural adapters and such. Lol.) As stated several times already you can't please everyone and I suppose they decided to prioritize the new player experience over veteran re-playability.

Edited September 2, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Kerbart]

21 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

By the same token; explain how having ladders in the early game would make it objectively better?

"Because it's more realistic"

Trust me, I'm on your side. Yes, there are some illogical things in the tech tree, but it's designed to create an urge for technical progression. And we do need those ladders!

For the argument that it improves the game because it's more realistic, I invite all of those in favor of that to complete a career without using time acceleration, and let me know how this better (because, "more realistic") implementation of KSP works out for you. Of course realism adds charm to the game. At the same time, it's a game. Let's not sacrifice game play by blindly making choices "that make it more real."

[Wjolcz]

3 hours ago, Kerbart said:

"Because it's more realistic"

Trust me, I'm on your side. Yes, there are some illogical things in the tech tree, but it's designed to create an urge for technical progression. And we do need those ladders!

For the argument that it improves the game because it's more realistic, I invite all of those in favor of that to complete a career without using time acceleration, and let me know how this better (because, "more realistic") implementation of KSP works out for you. Of course realism adds charm to the game. At the same time, it's a game. Let's not sacrifice game play by blindly making choices "that make it more real."

No. It's not about realism. It's about logic.

Logic doesn't always equal realism.

4 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

By the same token; explain how having ladders in the early game would make it objectively better?

We obviously don't want the player lingering too long on Kerbin in the early game, and we don't need ladders for Mun/Minmus. A lack of ladders could be seen as gentle nudging to the player on what he should/should not be doing.

Oh, so it's the "tutorial" argument again. Being forced to play tutorials each time you start a game from scratch is such a great experience, isn't it? Everyone loves tutorials. Unskippable tutorials are the best part of the game. Let's use the main part of the game as a turorial and force people to either play it or mod it. Yeah, that's fun.

Spoiler/sarcasm alert: it's not a tutorial. It's just badly designed.

It's crazy how people get used to flawed design so much they start thinking it's meant to be that way. Career mode was not thought through very well. You thinking that it's great the way it is won't make it more enjoyable for others.

Edited September 2, 2018 by Wjolcz

[MajorTomtom]

I agree, a tech tree should not be hard to develop, it's basically just rearranging what's already there.

They could easily implement a switch during career creation to have either "original" tech tree or "historical" tech tree for experienced players, where you would have to use planes, probes etc before capsules. They wouldn't even have to balance this one all that much as players already know the tricks to get ahead in science, and to rearrange the order they could just go with the real historical invention dates

For the moment, it feels as you pointed out, that the career mod is just a long long tutorial. Now if Squad really don't care about career (I can understand that), I think it's a mistake, because playing sandbox forever is sure to bore most players nowadays (myself included, if I don't have a semblance of a "mission" to get somewhere I simply won't except for some rare moments of inspiration)

Edited September 3, 2018 by MajorTomtom

[Rocket In My Pocket]

12 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

You thinking that it's great the way it is won't make it more enjoyable for others.

You thinking it'll be great the way you want it won't make it more enjoyable for others.

You can't please everyone.

In this case I'd rather the game prioritize pleasing new players over veterans. After all a veteran can unlock the tech tree easily with a few Mun/Minmus trips.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Wjolcz]

10 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

You can't please everyone.

Aaaaand back to this again. The ultimate shutdown argument. Let's not change anything.

10 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

In this case I'd rather the game prioritize pleasing new players over veterans. After all a veteran can unlock the tech tree easily with a few Mun/Minmus trips.

A good game should be replayable. KSP is good as a sandbox which makes it replayable (thus a good-ish game). But career seems to be just another tutorial. Seems like a lot of tutorials for one game.

inb4 "because it's hard!"

Edited September 3, 2018 by Wjolcz

[Rocket In My Pocket]

So you disagree that front loading the game with concepts would be confusing to new players? New players who typically can't even wrap there heads around the bare minimum basics of the game.

You don't think being able to build every vehicle type from the start would be too open ended without enough direction for a new and confused player?

I get that you're arguing your case from a veterans viewpoint, I'm just not sure that you get that lol.

Here's a brief explanation of how the Tech tree works as a "soft" tutorial since you seem to be unwilling to even entertain that concept.

Tier1-3: Basic manned rockets is all we get.

Tier4: We get our first plane parts. We also get a very weak probe core and batteries so we can start dipping our toes into unmanned flights.

Tier5: We get the option of rovers, landers, and better probes with solar power. The tree is at it's widest now and we can choose which ones we want to to learn about first.

Tier6: MPL's are introduced, as well as our first decent relay antenna. Now we can learn about science labs and relay networks.

Tier7: We get the Nuke, an advanced engine that works a bit differently than we are used to. Several other new concepts are introduced like Survey scanning, Surface scanners, and the Sentinel telescope.

Tier8: SSTO's are now practical via the Whiplash engine. ISRU's making mining a new concept we need to learn. Ion engines are unlocked, another alternative engine with a very specialized use.

Tier9: The final tier, we get an extremely overpowered SSTO engine, and RTG's for free electricity.

So if we moved let's say all the probe core stuff, and ladders, and rover wheels lower; it would flood the early tiers with way too many concepts for a new player to comfortably absorb, while leaving the middle tiers boring and devoid of any new elements. The tech tree certainly isn't perfect, and I wouldn't be opposed to some minor tweaks here and there, but as a whole it serves a purpose and has a structure; introducing new concepts a few at a time so the player has time to explore and learn about them before having the next set of parts for the next concept thrown at them. I've seen several players on this forum and the Steam one say that they bounced off the game initially in sandbox mode due to an overload of information and parts with no direction, but finally got hooked on KSP via Career or Science mode, having the parts (and thus concepts) doled out to them slowly. This is a matter of opinion though certainly, not everyone has the same idea of what the tech tree should be or do. Mostly the complaints I see are from veterans who feel hemmed in by the tiers though. As I've stated before though if anyone needs the game to cater to them, it's the new players not the veterans.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[linuxgurugamer]

On 8/30/2018 at 12:22 PM, Aeroboi said:

But for those apparently in need of this it isn't much of a overhaul to write several tech trees. IS IT?

You have to modify each and every part for the new tech tree.  As well as defining the new tree.  And what about mods?  Who is going to update all of those parts?  

18 hours ago, Kerbart said:

"Because it's more realistic"

Ummm, this is a GAME.  Games simplify things. 

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

So you disagree that front loading the game with concepts would be confusing to new players? New players who typically can't even wrap there heads around the bare minimum basics of the game.

Not going to talk about grammar since English isn't even my first language and this isn't the point of this thread. However, all I'm going to say is that treating new players like babies that can't make their own decisions is just disrespectful.

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

You don't think being able to build every vehicle type from the start would be too open ended without enough direction for a new and confused player?

That's not even close to what I think. I think the tree should branch off right after the first node and all the branches should be linear and themed (wings with wings, jet engines with jet engines, probes with probes, etc.). I'm not going to explain how exactly that would work because there's a mod that does just that and it's logical, and not overwhelming at all.

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I get that you're arguing your case from a veterans viewpoint, I'm just not sure that you get that lol.

So apparently as a "veteran" I'm not allowed to say what I think and should be forced to "enjoy" the game by playing through the tutorial tree each time I want to start a career save.

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Here's a brief explanation of how the Tech tree works as a "soft" tutorial since you seem to be unwilling to even entertain that concept.

<snip>

Thanks. As a "veteran" of this game I really needed a walkthrough of the stock tree. I'll make sure the next time I play the game I'll follow this guide.

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

So if we moved let's say all the probe core stuff, and ladders, and rover wheels lower; it would flood the early tiers with way too many concepts for a new player to comfortably absorb, while leaving the middle tiers boring and devoid of any new elements.

And again, treating new players like indecisive babies. Also, dumbing my argument down like that is a really bad strategy because I didn't say any of that, nor do I think it should work like that.

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

The tech tree certainly isn't perfect, and I wouldn't be opposed to some minor tweaks here and there

Tweaks never were and never will be enough to fix it.

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

but as a whole it serves a purpose and has a structure; introducing new concepts a few at a time so the player has time to explore and learn about them before having the next set of parts for the next concept thrown at them.

Well, yeah, as long as you treat new players like idiots there's no problem with that, I guess.

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I've seen several players on this forum and the Steam one say that they bounced off the game initially in sandbox mode due to an overload of information and parts with no direction, but finally got hooked on KSP via Career or Science mode, having the parts (and thus concepts) doled out to them slowly.

[source needed]

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

As I've stated before though if anyone needs the game to cater to them, it's the new players not the veterans.

And here's the tutorial argument again. Actual tutorials should show new players what's what. Otherwise they are just a waste of developers' time since you are held by the hand in the main part of the game anyway.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Wjolcz

[Rocket In My Pocket]

You don't seem to want to discuss it with an open mind; and we obviously aren't going to convince one another.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

You don't seem to want to discuss it with an open mind; and we obviously aren't going to convince one another.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

That's just what I think should be done to the tree. It's an opinion. If "open mind" is synonymous to "more meaningless tweaks" then yeah, I don't have an open mind.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Wjolcz

[KSK]

23 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

We obviously don't want the player lingering too long on Kerbin in the early game, and we don't need ladders for Mun/Minmus. A lack of ladders could be seen as gentle nudging to the player on what he should/should not be doing.

Why don't we want the player lingering too long on Kerbin? Serious question. There's a reasonable amount of Science to be had, there's more to see on Kerbin than pretty much any other planet, and for those that like planes, there isn't another realistic choice for quite some time. The Contracts system will give the player any prompts they need to move on, as will the lack of Science, if a player isn't minded to farm Kerbin for it.

And no - you don't need a ladder for a Mun/Minmus shot - but the alternative (awkward fiddly jumps or use of RCS pack) is, I would argue, a lot harder for new players. Which, as with many things in stock Career seems a bit back-to-front and has the player starting with a hard option and unlocking the easy options later on.

5 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

So if we moved let's say all the probe core stuff, and ladders, and rover wheels lower; it would flood the early tiers with way too many concepts for a new player to comfortably absorb, while leaving the middle tiers boring and devoid of any new elements.

Oh come off it. I'll give you probe cores (reluctantly) for the sake of argument but ladders and wheels? I hate to be elitist about this but if a player can't figure out where a ladder might be useful, they're going to have a real hard time with the rest of the game, to the extent that most of the tech tree is irrelevant because they'll never get to see it.

Also, one of the prime situations where rover wheels and ladders would come in handy, is early Science farming around the KSC and surrounding biomes. And yes, it is possible to kludge together a land vehicle using early tech tree parts but does it not seem strange that one game mechanic points you at Kerbin exploration as a viable strategy, whereas the tech tree goes out of its way to make that strategy more tedious than it needs to be? Especially when KSC science farming is something of a gift to new players who are struggling to unlock enough of the tech tree to do much in space.

7 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

In this case I'd rather the game prioritize pleasing new players over veterans. After all a veteran can unlock the tech tree easily with a few Mun/Minmus trips.

That's a bit of a sad statement about Career mode to my mind. If a 'veteran' is somebody who's accomplished two of the earliest feats in the game (after getting to LKO) then I would argue that it doesn't take terribly long for a new player to become a veteran. In which case the 'tech tree as tutorial' model is catering to a rather transient section of the player base. And if a veteran player can unlock the tech tree by spamming the same two feats over and over, then that doesn't say much about the tech tree either. At best it becomes a tedious task for veterans to deal with and move on, rather than a meaningful and interesting part of Career mode.

Also, as seen on a number of threads on this forum, a definite subset of players views completing the tech tree as the point of Career mode. Which makes the 'tech tree as tutorial' concept even sadder because it implies that there's no actual game in there for those players. Complete the tech tree, finish the tutorials and... then what?

TL:DR. I'm with @Wjolcz on this one. Have a couple of decent actual tutorials to explain what the various parts do* and keep the tech tree as open as possible to support as many gameplay choices as possible. Back when I was playing KSP, the tech tree always felt as if it was railroading me down the path of least resistance rather than letting me choose the kind of space program I wanted to build. It's one reason why I never actually finished a Career game.

 

* It might even be possible to expand out the in-game engineer's report to provide a bit more guidance, especially for the probe core example you give. Attaching a supply of electricity to a part that requires electricity to work really isn't rocket science, if the need for that part to be supplied with electricity is adequately discoverable in-game.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

You are certainly welcome to not like the tech tree as a tutorial concept. Personally it doesn't bother me, even after playing so much. I'm more or less just defending against the accusation that the tech tree is complete rubbish and has no rhyme or reason. It does have a method to it's madness, whether you are personally a fan of it or not is a different story.

I'm not against alternative tech trees, but I think I've been quite clear in my opinion that the stock tree should cater to new players and ease them into the game. Completing the tech tree should be just the beginning of your adventure, not the end; why would you quit now that you finally have all the parts? Really, this whole argument is fairly moot anyways, we have all sorts of modded tech trees available that do exactly what you guys want. By the time someone has "outgrown" the tech tree tutorial they should prolly be getting into modding anyways, for KER and TWP if nothing else. I'm not even opposed to having a new game+ with a more open tech tree or an optional tick box to enable something like that, heck I may even use it/try it. Completely ripping out the "soft" tutorial elements of the tech tree I'm pretty against though. I spend an unhealthy amount of time helping new players with this game and trust me, a lot of them do need to be spoon fed ladders and wheels.

Anyways, I've been more than considerate towards your respective viewpoints, I think it's been fairly well established in the past there are two camps regarding the tech tree around here. 1. "It's fine because blahblahblah tutorial" and 2. "It's not fine because blahblahblah too restrictive." Just opinions though, we're not gonna agree, you can't please everyone, etc... you either cater to the new players or the veterans, the clueless or the clever. My point mainly is that if anyone needs the focus, needs to be catered to; it's the clueless, not the clever. (And really, at this point...does anyone seriously think it's ever gonna be changed?)

[Superfluous J]

On 8/30/2018 at 12:22 PM, Aeroboi said:

Isn't a tech tree like, super simple to create. simple is relative. At least, comparing to actually writing new code for new parts and features that is.

It's super straightforward. I wouldn't call it simple. Walking across America is as simple as walking across your living room, but if you ask most people they'd rather fly.

On 8/30/2018 at 12:22 PM, Aeroboi said:

So if people bring this question up this often, how can it not be a idea to create several, wait what, a whole plethora of tech tree configurations for your desired playstyle to toggle through during career setup?

The problem is the current tech tree is not bad ENOUGH to go through the work. If the only way to go from coast to coast was walking (It used to be) there's got to be a really really compelling reason to do so (there was). I love my family but I'm not walking 2000 miles for a birthday. I do fly when I can, though.

On 8/30/2018 at 12:22 PM, Aeroboi said:

They're here as mods now already and for me personally that is fine.

That's another aspect to it. There are a couple modded tech trees out there. I can't speak to them because I've never used them but they seem pretty popular. Again, are you going to walk across the country if you can find passable substitutes for what you'd get by going there?

On 8/30/2018 at 12:22 PM, Aeroboi said:

But for those apparently in need of this it isn't much of a overhaul to write several tech trees. IS IT?

While I've not used those tech trees I *HAVE* tried my hand at writing my own. I dropped it after about an hour and won't go back. The stock tech tree would have to be so bad as to actually endanger my well being for me to try that again.

[Wjolcz]

26 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

why would you quit now that you finally have all the parts? 

Because career mode is so poorly designed there's nothing else left to do.

[Superfluous J]

On 8/31/2018 at 7:36 AM, klgraham1013 said:

The point is to make the game better; to accept criticism and improve.  If someone made some good reasoned point in support of the tech tree, I'd listen.  Change my mind.  Explain to me why having the ladders in the early game would make the experience worse.

A single ladder? Sure. That woudln't make it worse. Nor would a single light, or landing gear, or wings, or structural panels, or ...

If you put everything that would be "better" to be at the front of the tech tree at the front of the tech tree, then the tech tree fails at it's #1 stated goal: Reasonable gated progression for new players that doesn't throw a ton of stuff at them and confuse them. So, you can only pick one or maybe 2 things at best without compromising that goal. If that many. Every single part must be analyzed and the question must be answered, "Will moving this earlier in the tech tree help people who want to use it, MORE than it will hurt someone who's struggling learning the game and confused about what everything does?"

So, let me ask you: Why are ladders better than anything else in the list of things that could go to the start? Why is THAT the right thing to promote to the start of the tree, and not landing gear?

Or, why is the the stated goal of the tech tree wrong?

And finally, why is your opinion on these things more valid than anybody else's, in particular Squad's?

5 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

However, all I'm going to say is that treating new players like babies that can't make their own decisions is just disrespectful.

You are aware that new players can opt for sandbox mode if they are feeling babied. And the tech tree is there for when they realize they were wrong.

[Wjolcz]

18 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

So, let me ask you: Why are ladders better than anything else in the list of things that could go to the start? Why is THAT the right thing to promote to the start of the tree, and not landing gear?

They aren't. That's the point of having one node branching out early on into all other "themes". Just the way it is in the Historical Progression Tech Tree mod.*

*I AM NOT saying KSP's tree should be historical! All I'm saying is the tree should look like it does in that mod.

18 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

You are aware that new players can opt for sandbox mode if they are feeling babied. And the tech tree is there for when they realize they were wrong.

Writing everything in this thread I had exactly this in mind all the time. I have gone to sandbox many times myself, to test out parts and concepts to later unlock the nodes I needed. Unsurprisingly, I had to half-ass most of my designs anyway because of how the tree progresses. IMO sandbox mode serves the role of a tutorial in this game and that's why the tree shouldn't.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Wjolcz

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Wjolcz said:

IMO sandbox mode serves the role of a tutorial in this game and that's why the tree shouldn't.

When I started there was no tech tree and I did start in Sandbox because that was all there was. It was super daunting and confusing and I had a lot harder time than all those players who are being "babied" by the tech tree. I actually quit playing the game for a few months and only came back to see what had changed in the new update and tried "career" mode (that was what is now science mode). Then I played the game for about 5 years straight.

So for me, Sandbox was a really bad tutorial. You can argue that the tech tree doesn't properly serve as a tutorial, but I won't ever agree that Sandbox is better as one.

[Wjolcz]

@5thHorseman it's the complete opposite for me. When I started playing the game there was no career mode either and when it came it was too restrictive so I ended up never finishing it because of how silly and illogical the tree was. I still launch the game for the pure sandbox experience though.

The tree could be redesigned in a way it could still serve as a tutorial (except a much better one) AND allow "veteran" players for more flexibility. It all depends on setting the science rewards right and trying out the Historical Tech Tree mod yourself. @5thHorseman you've said:

4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

There are a couple modded tech trees out there. I can't speak to them because I've never used them but they seem pretty popular.

but maybe it's time to come out of your comfort zone. You have to at least take a look at it to understand my point of view. If you don't then continuing any discussion in this thread is pointless.

Unless we want to just keep this thread going with some of us having 1 point of reference (stock) and some of us having multiple (stock and modded). But maybe having just one is enough to know what's best for new and veteran players after all.

[Superfluous J]

5 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

but maybe it's time to come out of your comfort zone. You have to at least take a look at it to understand my point of view. If you don't then continuing any discussion in this thread is pointless.

I would have by now, but after ... I literally have no idea but let's say 3000? ... hours I'm taking a break and playing some other games. For me the problem isn't the tech tree or the parts or anything else, it's that everything I've ever wanted out of the game, I got.

I really haven't played except to test my mods or to do a quick challenge here and there, in almost a year.

[MajorTomtom]

The argument of mods being available is right, but for me it's kind of the same as "If you're unhappy, just develop your own game". OK the modding community is GREAT in KSP, but mods are mods and are not necessarily updated at the same time as the vanilla game, it may lead to stability issues etc.

I really don't understand what would be so difficult for SQUAD to develop an alternative tech tree accessible with a switch at the beginning of a save, and I think everybody would feel it doesn't worsen the game in any way

The stock tech tree is alright to learn I agree, at least for the first few nodes. Afterwards, you are simply to limited because you can't use probes without solar panels, you can't use your large fuel tanks without large engines etc.

For ladders which seem to be the focus of all problems here, I think they should happen right at the beginning because it is not logical for a new player to jetpack around on the mun or minmus instead of walking and climbing a simple ladder. Giving them later simply makes them useless because we are used to the stupid idea that jetpacks are sufficient and when we first get somewhere where we need ladders we forget them and feel stupid.

[Tyko]

14 hours ago, MajorTomtom said:

For ladders which seem to be the focus of all problems here, I think they should happen right at the beginning because it is not logical for a new player to jetpack around on the mun or minmus instead of walking and climbing a simple ladder. Giving them later simply makes them useless because we are used to the stupid idea that jetpacks are sufficient and when we first get somewhere where we need ladders we forget them and feel stupid.

Agreed...If you're arguing for simplicity for new players I'd say learning to use a ladder is a LOT easier than learning how to use a jetpack...maybe they should only give you ladders and delay jetpacks until further down the tech tree 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Tyko

[se5a]

I also dislike the stock tech tree with a passion. parts seem poorly placed and ill thought out gameplay wise, forget the realisim argument, hell I hate that argument as long as it doesn't kill my suspension of disbelief too much, which in this case it does a bit, so ok use that argument a bit.

You're trying to do contracts that require airplane parts before you have access to airplane parts, yet you have orbital parts.

You're trying to build rovers well before there are decent wheels, and the lack of parts to attach rover wheels too.

As people have pointed out, you're trying to get inside rockets on the mun with jetpacks before you have access to ladders, which is annoying.

You're starting to build bases way before you get the node adapters and other sideways joint things, so without lots of part clipping things are kind of hard to build nicely.

 

You want a little bit of the above, you want to be able to see the part you want in the next research node, not several nodes away.

You want access to parts that will do the job now, but with the promise of a part that will do it better if only you had a few more research points.

you want to see a parts a few nodes away and think "cool, I want to play with that thing!"