Tech Tree Progression

[B.Riches2500]

In KSP, it feels strange having manned flights instantly and having probes come in later on. So do we think that KSP2 will have a more realistic progression where we start with probes and then work up to manned flights? I guess this could be implemented as an optional feature offered to you when you start a save?

However, I do understand that things like spin stabilised stage and stuff like that would be insane for KSP, so I wouldn’t expect anything like we see in RSS/R0/RP-1. So the probes will still have to be enough so that it’s similar to having a level 0 pilot Kerbal (SAS can only hold position, and cannot point in certain directions automatically), but it could just mean that you get less science from vehicles being unmanned. Also, they could have it where you get a small reward for milestones (like passing the Karman line and reaching orbit etc) when it’s on a probe controlled vehicle, but when you re-complete that milestone with a Kerbal onboard you could get a larger reward.

Just an idea, let me know your opinions and what you think the likely hood of this every happening is.

[PlutoISaPlanet]

Honestly, I have no idea. I never do anything with probes because I do not want to set up relays. Im lazy

[Dr. Kerbal]

Tech progression huh. I think it would be the same as KSP just expanded for new technologies and parts arranged and placed differently  make sense for more science. Maybe even MatPAt should help.

[jastrone]

I also think that before you launch your first kerbal to space you should have made it to lko or maybe mun orbit on hard mode

[pandaman]

4 hours ago, jastrone said:

I also think that before you launch your first kerbal to space you should have made it to lko or maybe mun orbit on hard mode

But that should be a player's choice IMO.

If it becomes an enforced 'programmed in'  gameplay rule, like - Unlock crewed capsule parts once orbit achieved - then it just limits a player's options and creativity for no real gain.

Much better to let us choose the paths we wish to follow.

 

[jastrone]

1 hour ago, pandaman said:

Much better to let us choose the paths we wish to follow.

well. you could still earn science by going to different biomes on kerbin. and also the choice of what to launch doesnt realy matter. especialy in the beggining

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, jastrone said:

well. you could still earn science by going to different biomes on kerbin. and also the choice of what to launch doesnt realy matter. especialy in the beggining

The progression in KSP2 is going to be different than KSP1. We don't know how science is going to be implemented into the game play. We don't know how new technology is going to be  unlocked. All we can tell is that the progression mode is going to be different from KSP1.

[Guest]

20 hours ago, pandaman said:

Much better to let us choose the paths we wish to follow.

I would love to see a triple start for the tech tree, allowing you to start with either manned, unmanned or planes and giving you a kickstart in the direction you choose as your starter (es: a plane start gives you the whiplash early, a unmanned some probe core or advanced antenna and the manned RCS and docking ports).

[pandaman]

19 hours ago, jastrone said:

well. you could still earn science by going to different biomes on kerbin. and also the choice of what to launch doesnt realy matter. especialy in the beggining

True, but the 'choice' of what i can launch, or do, would be limited, or even removed altogether.  Meaning that even if i just wanted to try a different strategy for a change I wouldn't even have the option. 

By not having these limitations imposed we can all do things the way we want, if we want, whether or not it is more efficient or 'realistic' .  By arbitrarily limiting such options we could become forced to follow a 'set path' or storyline with very little scope for any alternative, which, for me anyway, is a real turn off. 

 

[B.Riches2500]

On 4/13/2021 at 12:53 PM, pandaman said:

But that should be a player's choice IMO.

If it becomes an enforced 'programmed in'  gameplay rule, like - Unlock crewed capsule parts once orbit achieved - then it just limits a player's options and creativity for no real gain.

Much better to let us choose the paths we wish to follow.

 

Yeah, I would want a lot of it to be by choice of the player. Like you get given options when you start a new save and you can choose what things you do and don’t want as mechanics of the game.

16 hours ago, Master39 said:

I would love to see a triple start for the tech tree, allowing you to start with either manned, unmanned or planes and giving you a kickstart in the direction you choose as your starter (es: a plane start gives you the whiplash early, a unmanned some probe core or advanced antenna and the manned RCS and docking ports).

I really like this idea. With some adaptation from the devs (who will have more insight into how the progression will actually work), I think this could work really well and would be amazing to kick start progression.

[Pthigrivi]

On 4/14/2021 at 4:37 AM, pandaman said:

True, but the 'choice' of what i can launch, or do, would be limited, or even removed altogether.  Meaning that even if i just wanted to try a different strategy for a change I wouldn't even have the option. 

By not having these limitations imposed we can all do things the way we want, if we want, whether or not it is more efficient or 'realistic' .  By arbitrarily limiting such options we could become forced to follow a 'set path' or storyline with very little scope for any alternative, which, for me anyway, is a real turn off. 

 

I think its worth considering how fast KSP2 is going to want to get us through the first few launches and into orbit. The scope us huge, building colonies and going interstellar, whereas most KSP1 players never make it out of kerbin SOI. I think Intercept would be forgiven for putting very little emphasis on terrestrial planes and reserving lift-based flight for spaceplanes and exploration of other planets. Probes on the other hand should be important, so maybe there's a very early tech branch there. Some of the balance is between offering strategic gameplay choices vs using the first several missions as a tutorial on basic game systems. In KSP 1 they try to first introduce players to control, thrust, and staging, and then add on ideas like electrical systems and transmission that are critical for probes, so it sort of makes sense that the cores would come a close second to crewed launches. This might even be fine for KSP2 because those first few getting-to-orbit missions make up such a small part of the overall game. I think a good goal would be getting the average player to orbit in 3-5 launches, and introducing probes half-way through that process. 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I think its worth considering how fast KSP2 is going to want to get us through the first few launches and into orbit. The scope us huge, building colonies and going interstellar,

While I think you're right and I definitely hope that biome hopping on Kerbin is no longer a thing (you don't launch a space program to explore the mountains 50km from the launch center), I also hope that the game takes its time and doesn't railroad you toward colonization and interstellar travel.

Yes, the game expands greatly on KSP scope, but since that comes with the first really useful bases and stations KSP has ever seen I hope LKO research stations and temporary surface outpost (think of an Ares mission from The Martian) have their place in the gameplay progression and can replace the "plant a flag and press the 'do the science' action group and then take of and jump to another biome" gameplay loop for exploration of KSP1.

Generally speaking I hope they work a lot on the pacing of the progression

 

[PlutoISaPlanet]

Who actualy found it fun visiting kerbins biomes?

[Omni122]

On 4/13/2021 at 7:53 AM, pandaman said:

But that should be a player's choice IMO.

If it becomes an enforced 'programmed in'  gameplay rule, like - Unlock crewed capsule parts once orbit achieved - then it just limits a player's options and creativity for no real gain.

Much better to let us choose the paths we wish to follow.

 

If it matters that much, just play sandbox.

[PlutoISaPlanet]

10 minutes ago, Omni122 said:

If it matters that much, just play sandbox.

Agreed. I do not enjoy progression in ksp 1, so I just play sandbox.

[Bej Kerman]

On 4/13/2021 at 1:32 AM, PlutoISaPlanet said:

Honestly, I have no idea. I never do anything with probes because I do not want to set up relays. Im lazy

You shouldn't need relays for a low orbit probe.

[shdwlrd]

2 hours ago, PlutoISaPlanet said:

Who actualy found it fun visiting kerbins biomes?

I've circumnavigated Kerbin via land/sea a few times. It wasn't fun, but it was worth actually seeing Kerbin. 

[PlutoISaPlanet]

1 minute ago, shdwlrd said:

I've circumnavigated Kerbin via land/sea a few times. It wasn't fun, but it was worth actually seeing Kerbin. 

I just don't have the patience for that.

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, PlutoISaPlanet said:

Who actualy found it fun visiting kerbins biomes?

Exactly. I mean I found it fun a couple times flying a rocket to one of the poles or flying a plane to the island airfield but I wouldn't call this a core experience of the game, certainly not worth hanging up the overall progression.  Like @Master39 says there's a lot of room for improvement. I remember we were talking some months ago about whether KSP2 needs money (I think it doesn't) and science too as currently implemented is kind of flat. I think Breaking Ground's surface features and experiments helped a lot and made the planets feel more alive but some of the fundamental problems remain. Im pretty open to KSP2 taking a different tack. First off in any open-world game they usually start you off in a tutorial playpen before dumping you in the 'real world', and it seems like Kerbin should basically be that. If there are rewards for exploring it they should be pretty minimal. Probably your main source of tech-tree fuel should come from those first few milestone achievements getting to orbit, and then open things up to sending probes and landers to kerbin's moons where the real payouts are. 

I guess we'll have to wait and see what Intercept comes up with for science/exploration points gathering. Its tricky because it wants to be generic enough to give players the freedom to explore where they like and chose how their tech evolves, but tailored enough that they're being rewarded for doing new things and expanding their abilities. In some ways I think science, funds, and rep could be boiled down to one reward currency that you get for completing milestones. I also think we could ditch the generative contracts entirely. They'd just have to be very thoughtful about laying out milestones in a way that was intuitive but not linear--early ones getting to orbit, landing on the local moons, docking, establishing outposts, etc. that you could do in a flexible order and unlock more and more technologies. I also like Master's point about longer term science. One obvious example is probe-surveying. I get why they decided not to go the Scansat route but I think the process of getting a probe in the right orbit and watching it map the surface as the body rotates is a really clear "aha" moment. Probe surveying in general should be much more important for scouting landing sites and potential colony locations, and you should be able to very easily view overlays of biomes, anomalies, and resource values in map mode rather than squinting and refreshing through Kerbnet.  This one of the biggest problems in KSP1's science system: biomes are all worth the SAME, so there's no real reason on your first landing to land anywhere in particular. It also incentivizes grindy biome hopping because each new biome is worth the same as all the others. It would be better if there was a topography of scientific interest, so when players landed or set up a new colony they'd have to review their probe-surveys and think "over here there's lots of science but no resources, over there there's lots of resources but no science, but in THIS area there's a good blend of both."
 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[PlutoISaPlanet]

I never realized biomes are worth the same. That is kind of dumb if you think about it.

[Pthigrivi]

5 minutes ago, PlutoISaPlanet said:

I never realized biomes are worth the same. That is kind of dumb if you think about it.

Well the same on each body. Its of course worth more to visit a biome on Laythe than a biome on Minmus, but all of the biomes within those moons are worth the same*.

(* Unless something's changed in the last update that I've somehow missed)

Edited April 16, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[shdwlrd]

42 minutes ago, PlutoISaPlanet said:

I just don't have the patience for that.

Neither do I, MJ and some movies made it tolerable and doable. 

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

You shouldn't need relays for a low orbit probe.

Unless you have multiple ground sites turned off.  I do this to force me to set up a relay network so I can operate in LKO. 

[Pthigrivi]

18 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Neither do I, MJ and some movies made it tolerable and doable. 

Another reason I've been feeling more and more like KSP2 really wants some level of autonomous control optionality, even running in the background outside physics range while you do other things. I think it should be unlockable so you have to do it yourself first, but it could be really handy for stage recovery, rovers, and milk-run resource transfers. Nertea's Far Future regolith collectors have me dreaming about autonomous fleets of surface harvesters collecting He3 around our colonies. Im sure there are a slew of performance issues I'm not considering but it would be fabulous if possible.

[shdwlrd]

@PthigriviNate has said that there will be automated resource flights. But I do agree, further automation and autopilot capabilities would be helpful in the long run.