Science is pretty much stupid. Just get rid of it.

[hatterson]

3 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

Well, sort of. Remember that in KSP1, ISRU was a way to refill LiquidFuel, Oxidizer, and Monopropellant tanks. That would still have some value even without colonies.

That was the part of my comment about "(not necessarily full colonies, but something to either consume or process the resources)"

Yes, you could have an ISRU processor where you mine up a resource and convert it into LFO but that, in and of itself, is basically a colony part. Whether that colony is landed on a planet or orbiting Kerbin, it's still essentially a colony.

[HebaruSan]

2 minutes ago, hatterson said:

but that, in and of itself, is basically a colony part. Whether that colony is landed on a planet or orbiting Kerbin, it's still essentially a colony.

In what sense? I made a lot of ISRU craft in KSP1 that had no component of long-term occupation or high population. Land, mine, process, refuel, launch. I wouldn't call that a colony in any recognizable sense.

[hatterson]

8 minutes ago, Brofessional said:

That's something I noticed about the existing missions, the game  goes straight from landing in any mare on the Mun to landing within a specific 1km circle. 

It's easy for us veterans but that's a pretty big jump in difficulty for beginners. At that stage most new players probably haven't even really performed radial or normal burns, and suddenly asking them to do it with high precision is a bit of a stretch.  Of course they do have to learn those maneuvers at some point, and they are not forced to go straight into the next main mission, but I think it would help to have some missions in between that ease them into using normal/radial burns. Like a mission to land anywhere on the Mun's north pole or something.

Hopefully the addition of colonies and resources will fill the gaps when they are added.

One thing I want to see if a better integration between the missions and the training system. The training system lets players play with all of that stuff and it's great, but I'd like to see it tied heavier into the missions. Give a mission to dock and have the mission lady say "we've set up a simulator for you to test it before you try it for real, click here to use it" and have that go directly into the docking tutorial. Have the mission lady say "you'll need to land at a specific spot on the moon. We've set up a simulator to give you some practice doing that, click here to try it and then do it for real when you're ready"

6 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I agree absolutely with your first point, and I can see also how letting players play with interstellar drives and build up constraint-free interstellar vessels will give the devs a sense of what goal transport mass and fuel quantities are needed to cross that threshold, but precisely because all of those free-parts, free-colonies, free-interstellar settlements and vessels will be essentially driven by luxury and cosmetics rather than efficiency its not going to give good mark-to-market values for those endeavors. I'll also put out there that if we don't have proper transfer window and flight planning tools the devs aren't going to see a substantial portion of the the player base going interplanetary let alone contemplating interstellar flight. Its the same as adding all these dope discoverables and not giving players the in-game tools to find them. In some ways incorporating resources after colonies but before interstellar might sound at face value less sexy but actually gives players way more actual gameplay to bite into earlier.  

Completely agree on the flight planning tools. Obviously the new maneuver plans are dramatically better in terms of taking time into account but there's still a couple things that really need to be added. 1.) Precise controls. I need to be able to add to prograde instead of having to swing my camera around like crazy trying to find the specific bar to grab and pull; 2.) Multiple plans in a row and being able to flip between them. Right now I can add a second maneuver after my first one, but I can't flip between the two or do any sort of aggregation.

2 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

In what sense? I made a lot of ISRU craft in KSP1 that had no component of long-term occupation or high population. Land, mine, process, refuel, launch. I wouldn't call that a colony in any recognizable sense.

But if the end goal is to have colonies, then having a part that's exclusively meant to just make a ship not need colony support somewhat undermines that goal. From everything I've seen about the roadmap, the goal for the big things in the game isn't to be able to design a KSP 1 style mining and converting ship that only a couple dozen tons but can refuel itself endlessly via random mining but rather have a vessel like that need colony support. Thus it makes far more sense to have the colony in place first instead of putting in designs that either don't fit in the long term design. If the long term goal is to have colonies be the primary vehicle for collecting and processing resources (which it definitely appears it is based on what they've said) then resources don't have much purpose outside of colonies without changing that goal.

[Pthigrivi]

22 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

And it was ignored for 3 pages even though it clearly delineates a fundamental flaw. That's how "discussions" in this forum go. 

Starfield does allow you to go the trading route, completely ignoring outpost construction and getting the resources you need for crafting from vendors. It prohibits you from all the outpost automation, but you can still get it either way, so building an outpost becomes a meaningful choice. Do you want the whole trouble of building an outpost for the automation of late-game crafting recipes, or do you just trade back and forth and craft everything by hand?

You might not know but you have built up a bit of a reputation here which folks may be reacting to   Be that as it may I do try to take arguments at face value. On this point though I don't want to get into a whole Starfield thing but it is a point of comparison. My feeling is that the trading aspect (which is much more classically salient in an RPG) unfortunately acts as a backstop for bad outpost production design. Managing resource production and preventing storage clogs are so clumsy that players have to fall back on just buying complex components at a vendor out of shear frustration. That kind of sucks, and KSP2 really shouldn't allow itself to fall into that trap.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[PDCWolf]

36 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

You might not know but you have built up a bit of a reputation here which folks may be reacting to  

Yeah, I know my reputation really well, I've had pics of me edited to say racist stuff and reported to moderators, imagine. Thankfully the people that matter know I'm not a bad person, just an opinionated guy on the internet.

46 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Be that as it may I do try to take arguments at face value. On this point though I don't want to get into a whole Starfield thing but it is a point of comparison. My feeling is that the trading aspect (which is much more classically salient in an RPG) unfortunately acts as a backstop for bad outpost production design. Managing resource production and preventing storage clogs are so clumsy that players have to fall back on just buying complex components at a vendor out of shear frustration. That kind of sucks, and KSP2 really shouldn't allow itself to fall into that trap.

Don't remember being able to acquire the high level components, only the rare and uncommon ones, with everything after needing to be crafted. Maybe I just got really bad luck. I do agree the outpost system is bad, and that badness comes precisely from being too handwavy and magical. Since there isn't an actual assembly line with belts, you can't configure ratios and speeds and so things get impossible to keep track of.

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

Yeah, I know my reputation really well, I've had pics of me edited to say racist stuff and reported to moderators, imagine. Thankfully the people that matter know I'm not a bad person, just an opinionated guy on the internet.

You and I have had our differences but dude that is horrific online behavior and that never should have happened to you. I think we’re not supposed to comment much on moderator stuff so we should leave it there. 
 

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

Don't remember being able to acquire the high level components, only the rare and uncommon ones, with everything after needing to be crafted. Maybe I just got really bad luck. I do agree the outpost system is bad, and that badness comes precisely from being too handwavy and magical. Since there isn't an actual assembly line with belts, you can't configure ratios and speeds and so things get impossible to keep track of.

Yeah I feel like anyone who’s played Factorio for a minute instantly recognizes the problem as a lack of filters. Each storage container should have the option to be filled by a specific resource rather than being dumped in a heap. Its one of the reasons I find it strange we don’t already have tank-switching because when we get to resources we’re definitely going to want the ability to sort and switch storage types on a tank-by-tank basis. Why not build that in right away? 

Edited December 28, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[PDCWolf]

11 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

You and I have had our differences but dude that is horrific online behavior and that never should have happened to you. I think we’re not supposed to comment much on moderator stuff so we should leave it there.

It wasn't here on the forums but another official channel, that's why I feel it shouldn't be a problem.

12 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yeah I feel like anyone who’s played Factorio for a minute instantly recognizes the problem as a lack of filters. Each storage container should have the option to be filled by a specific resource rather than being dumped in a heap. Its one of the reasons I find it strange we don’t already have tank-switching because when we get to resources we’re definitely going to want the ability to sort and switch storage types on a tank-by-tank basis. Why not build that in right away? 

You can use separate storage boxes so long as they don't touch, but that clearly goes against how the rest of the system is designed. As for tank contents being tweakable, that suggestion is about as old 0.15 when they added spaceplanes that used their own LF-only tanks. It still blows my mind we don't have such a basic thing.

[asmi]

3 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Sorry man, just gotta get out of the forums and look at real people interacting with the product, or rather, refunding it. The refund rate is enormous according to steam reviews, 75% of people inside the refund window refund the game.

Good then, what is your problem? Have you got your refund? 

[Wheehaw Kerman]

23 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

The idea that you have to say something nice first to get permission to criticize something is nothing more than an internet cope, and I'm pretty sure some form of a fallacy too.

The current system is puddle deep, uninvolved, and shows minimum risk was taken when creating it. It is the minimum viable thing you could add to the game and barely justify calling it a "mechanic". 

Blue light, clickable flask button, science point dispenser, and there isn't even an electrified grid because so far there's no semblance of a consequence for doing anything wrong in the game.

I’m not terribly fussed about the science mechanics - they’re a bit basic ATM but I expect some development, expansion and refinement as the game is developed.  It’s a draft - there will be progress.

What is annoying me a wee bit is the complete lack of consequences that you point out.  You can build wasteful designs and kill or maroon Kerbals with wild abandon and no gameplay impact - there’s no incentive to build good craft and fly them well, and no downside to messing up.  So far, at least.

And there really isn’t much by way of constraints, either.  The constraints in KSP1 were kind of artificial, unrealistic, and gamey, but working within them to hone down a lean, mean, and efficient design was a lot of fun.  There’s nothing preventing us from spamming parts and brute forcing things.  Yet, anyhow.

I do think, though, that this game is not meant for people like us - older, fairly well educated, intelligent adult space nerds.  It’s meant for kids.  Intelligent kids, so hopefully the end result will not be dumbed down to a point where people like us won’t enjoy it, but building a game tailored too closely to us is probably going to leave a lot of audience members and sales on the table.  

[Vl3d]

20 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I do think, though, that this game is not meant for people like us - older, fairly well educated, intelligent adult space nerds.  It’s meant for kids.  Intelligent kids, so hopefully the end result will not be dumbed down to a point where people like us won’t enjoy it, but building a game tailored too closely to us is probably going to leave a lot of audience members and sales on the table.  

I don't think KSP 2 For Science! is easier than KSP 1 Science mode. The game is HARD bruh - I'm just happy I don't have to deal with a lot of game breaking bugs and play around the jank. But damn playing on 60%-80% science reward and the way the tech tree is balanced is a killer even for me (but I do like to play in a realistic way, without cheaty designs). I'm having a lot of fun .. I built a Tylo lander with up to Tier 3  parts.. total weight for the mission ended up being 2x my biggest current first stage.. so I drained the fuel, did orbital refueling and I HATE JANKY RCS.. in the end I did not have enough deltaV to go to Tylo so I decided to land on Gilly ........ with a fully fueled Tylo lander. You can imagine.. hilarity ensued.. I bounced around like a brick.

Spoiler

Game is still janky, but damn I got addicted to KSP 2 badly. With colonies, resources and delivery routes... pfff.. having to think about what resources you have for what parts..  that's going to be crazy.  It's actually crazy now with how progression limits you, but that will be next level.

 

[ManuxKerb]

On 12/26/2023 at 6:25 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

@HebaruSan @Vl3d @MechBFP

Y'all are hitting the mark. 

I actually really like science and think that science should be an integral part of KSP2.  But the way Science! has been implemented leaves a lot to be desired. 

The combination of the 'science button' and 'research inventory' window is the UI choice that makes the implementation such a handwaive. 

Nothing exists in a vacuum.  During the pre launch days there were plenty of people who said they hated science because of the 

• Click on crew cabin for crew report 
• EVA Kerbal for EVA report (Board) 
• Click on the thermometer for temperature reading 
• Click on the Mystery Goo container to observe 
• Click on the Science Jr to see what it does.
• Etc. 

The team apparently addressed those folk's concerns. 

I'm saying they were the wrong people to listen to. 

 

I liked having to get out a Kerbal and have to collect the samples and return it to the pod.  It gave me a reason to have a Kerbal in the ship.  I liked hauling out and setting up the remote stations.   

I liked getting an individual pop up with each experiment - and in the prelaunch threads advocated for a much more detailed Science! experience (where each successful experiment 'filled out / unlocked' text and graphic information about every body and biome in a Kerbilopedia) 

To me one of the core strengths of the franchise is the correlation of the game and real world of science  / rocketry.  

Read this from 2013 - and ask yourself whether KSP2 is rising to the challenge 

https://theworld.org/stories/2013-08-01/far-cry-call-duty-kerbal-space-program-inspiring-players-learn-physics-video

 

I 100 % Support this post! The reason we did science in KSP1 was the cool little funny text you get to read when the experiment finsished. This is totaly missin in KSP2. Also The reson to go out there was to place sicne instuments. This made missions harder and more fun. Hands on sience was the reason i player ks1 for 20.000 something hours. This new mod Whre is just click and then most of the time it says "experiment alreadxy in storage" (Why do you blink then!) Well it leaves a lot to be desired to be honest...

[cocoscacao]

11 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I actually agree with this, and it has a lot to do with some very tricky balancing when it comes to the number of available resources

Ain't that gonna be a part of the resource update? I'm curious what devs have to say in that regard... but I guess it's too far off...

[hatterson]

3 hours ago, ManuxKerb said:

I 100 % Support this post! The reason we did science in KSP1 was the cool little funny text you get to read when the experiment finsished. This is totaly missin in KSP2. Also The reson to go out there was to place sicne instuments. This made missions harder and more fun. Hands on sience was the reason i player ks1 for 20.000 something hours. This new mod Whre is just click and then most of the time it says "experiment alreadxy in storage" (Why do you blink then!) Well it leaves a lot to be desired to be honest...

Note that the "experiment already in storage" happens when you have multiple of a specific experiment type on your craft. So when you clicked the button you didn't have any, it ran the first crew observation, stored it, ran the second one and said "hey you already have this"

Obviously that needs to be corrected as sometimes it's easiest to just plant a part with 2x symmetry instead of meticulously trying to balance different part masses on opposite sites, but that's why it's happening.

Edited December 28, 2023 by hatterson

[Scarecrow71]

11 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

What is annoying me a wee bit is the complete lack of consequences that you point out.  You can build wasteful designs and kill or maroon Kerbals with wild abandon and no gameplay impact - there’s no incentive to build good craft and fly them well, and no downside to messing up.  So far, at least.

Just like in KSP1.  Killing/abandoning/marooning Kerbals was part of the first game; we'd have no Blunderbirds or rescue missions without this.  And in actuality, this became a really decent teaching technique on how to get around wasteful designs or what to do when bad stuff happens.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

11 minutes ago, hatterson said:

So when you clicked the button you didn't have any, it ran the first crew observation, stored it, ran the second one and said "hey you already have this

What is blatantly Not Obvious is whether the previous crew report is not allowing new crew observations because it's essentially the same (same biome) or not allowing the new because it's already filled with an unsent crew report from the previous biome. 

Blue flashing monkey pellet dispenser needs to be moar informative! 

[hatterson]

1 minute ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

What is blatantly Not Obvious is whether the previous crew report is not allowing new crew observations because it's essentially the same (same biome) or not allowing the new because it's already filled with an unsent crew report from the previous biome. 

Blue flashing monkey pellet dispenser needs to be moar informative! 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You can collect a crew observation in a new biome without sending the old one first without issue. It'll save both of them into your research inventory and you can either send or return them any time. If it says already exists, it's because that exact experiment result is already present in your research inventory.

At least that's what my experience and testing has shown. There might be some weirdness around the non-biome specific researches that still trigger off biomes like the radiation survey (known issue), but at least with the "standard" ones like science jr and crew observation and similar I've never seen it say already present unless that specific biome is actually already present.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

33 minutes ago, hatterson said:

understand what you're saying

I'm going off memory - currently traveling - but the post I reacted to reminded me of that concern

[Wheehaw Kerman]

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Just like in KSP1.  Killing/abandoning/marooning Kerbals was part of the first game; we'd have no Blunderbirds or rescue missions without this.  And in actuality, this became a really decent teaching technique on how to get around wasteful designs or what to do when bad stuff happens.

It was part of the first game until Contracts came in.  After that we at least took Reputation hits for, say, roasting a bunch of tourist shots on re-entry.  

KSP is definitely not NASA. Iterative failure until success isn’t just an option, it’s part of the game’s DNA.  But I think I like having stronger disincentives for failure, though.  And I definitely get more attached to my Kerbals than many - I’m still cheesed off that I killed Val and Tim C. before I even left Kerbin SOI in my first Exploration save.  I like a game where failure hurts - it’s a better incentive to do better, IMHO.  I think we’ve discussed my views on life support and how rescue missions and how they shouldn’t be a thing unless you packed enough life support :)?

[LoSBoL]

20 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

That's clearly not the case. Price sets expectations. You ask for $50, and everyone but 10 people in this forum are gonna expect a $50 dollar game's worth of effort.

You must be speaking on behalf of everyone but those ten people, not on yourself. You were one of the most informed people who knew what they were going to ge for 50 dollars. The 50 dollar price point didn't in the slightest set your expectations, it merely set one of the conditions for you to keep bringing up as an argument because the game development isn't to your personal liking. 

If you want something new, something more to explore from KSP2 for science Milestone, you're going to be disappointed, you've pretty much mastered KSP and outgrown it, I mean, who can take up the challenge of flying a 1000 part manned mission to Mars in RSS, it might have even been a return mission but I don't remember. I think you need other challenges to be challenged. Next milestones might bring that, but might dissapoint you as well. That's life.

[PDCWolf]

Just now, LoSBoL said:

You must be speaking on behalf of everyone but those ten people, not on yourself. You were one of the most informed people who knew what they were going to ge for 50 dollars. The 50 dollar price point didn't in the slightest set your expectations, it merely set one of the conditions for you to keep bringing up as an argument because the game development isn't to your personal liking. 

How do you think the release outrage would've gone if the game was $10? That's all the answers you need about price setting expectations. I don't know why this forum turns its face around so hard in front of such a basic truth. 

3 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

If you want something new, something more to explore from KSP2 for science Milestone, you're going to be disappointed, you've pretty much mastered KSP and outgrown it, I mean, who can take up the challenge of flying a 1000 part manned mission to Mars in RSS, it might have even been a return mission but I don't remember. I think you need other challenges to be challenged. Next milestones might bring that, but might dissapoint you as well. That's life.

Yeah, I mastered and outgrew KSP1, why is KSP2 more of what's been mastered and outgrown by so many? It clearly didn't attract that many new players despite catering to them, selling less than 20% of the original. Also, you're confusing me with somebody else. I've played RSS and versioned some of my mods for it, but never wrote or publicized anything about 1000 parts to Mars.

Finally, something very basic this discussion is bearing out: The game shouldn't be a random challenge generator. It shouldn't be "can you land 200 tons on Duna?" It should be "Here are some really good reasons why you might want to take up the challenge to land 200 tons on Duna". If I wanted a challenge generator, I have a whole subforum for it, a discord, and a subreddit, and I could program my own as well.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

3 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

How do you think the release outrage would've gone if the game was $10? That's all the answers you need about price setting expectations. I don't know why this forum turns its face around so hard in front of such a basic truth. 

Not to pick a fight with or belittle anybody to whom $50 is a lot of money, but if it’s a basic truth that the price tag triggered a lot of people, another basic truth is that to a lot of people $50 isn’t as big a deal as it is to some.  $50 for the EA plus the extremely high likelihood of a feature complete v.1.0 for free eventually and the ability to tag along for the game’s development (with bonus arguments on the forums!) was and remains a perfectly acceptable deal to a lot of us, and one that’s looking better following For Science!.

[LoSBoL]

22 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

How do you think the release outrage would've gone if the game was $10? That's all the answers you need about price setting expectations. I don't know why this forum turns its face around so hard in front of such a basic truth. 

Thank you for your reply, I'll see it as a confirmation that price did not set your expectations, and you not speaking on behalf of yourself when you bring up the subject of price setting expectations.

24 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Yeah, I mastered and outgrew KSP1, why is KSP2 more of what's been mastered and outgrown by so many? It clearly didn't attract that many new players despite catering to them, selling less than 20% of the original.

I wasn't talking about many, I was talking about you outgrowing, you do not have to use a royal we in your arguments to try to make them bigger.

40 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Also, you're confusing me with somebody else. I've played RSS and versioned some of my mods for it, but never wrote or publicized anything about 1000 parts to Mars.

Really? My mistake, I sincerely thought that yaw dropping video I saw was by yours creation.

 

43 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Finally, something very basic this discussion is bearing out: The game shouldn't be a random challenge generator. It shouldn't be "can you land 200 tons on Duna?"

I don't know, I fully expected nonsensical missions in KSP2 being a successor to KSP,  where I was asked to bring the biggest 'We were to busy with if we could, we never asked if we should’ Rover Wheel into orbit to be tested in space.

That experience did set expectations for me for what it would be.

[PDCWolf]

44 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Not to pick a fight with or belittle anybody to whom $50 is a lot of money, but if it’s a basic truth that the price tag triggered a lot of people, another basic truth is that to a lot of people $50 isn’t as big a deal as it is to some.  $50 for the EA plus the extremely high likelihood of a feature complete v.1.0 for free eventually and the ability to tag along for the game’s development (with bonus arguments on the forums!) was and remains a perfectly acceptable deal to a lot of us, and one that’s looking better following For Science!.

Oh no, definitely, there's people that can really put $50 on a shelf and wait around for it to turn into a game, or not be bothered if nothing happens, and that's mostly fine too. I'm not minimizing their validity but will however make a very safe bet that they're not the majority.

5 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Thank you for your reply, I'll see it as a confirmation that price did not set your expectations, and you not speaking on behalf of yourself when you bring up the subject of price setting expectations.

You can see whatever you want. Get out of the forums and you'll see whatever it actually is. 20% repeat buyers from KSP1 and ~75% refund rate speak for themselves.

6 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

I wasn't talking about many, I was talking about you outgrowing, you do not have to use a royal we in your arguments to try to make them bigger.

It's not royal, if you think it's just me, that's just another count of being wrong. Maybe not the majority of people are on the club of outgrowing KSP1, but that still isn't just me.

7 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

I don't know, I fully expected nonsensical missions in KSP2 being a successor to KSP,  where I was asked to bring the biggest 'We were to busy with if we could, we never asked if we should’ Rover Wheel into orbit to be tested in space.

That experience did set expectations for me for what it would be.

That's the lolsokerbal mentality doing its damage to the brand. Bac9 was always right about this.

[Royalswissarmyknife]

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

That's the lolsokerbal mentality doing its damage to the brand.

Its already done its damage.

Guess we will have to wait 10 years for something separate from the Kerbal franchise to make a semi-realistic space exploration game that isn't built for the sole purpose of filling your brain with as much dopamine as possible.

[seanpg71]

So... we have parts locked in a tech tree.  This gates parts of the game and builds a sense of progression.  I like that.

However - the current tech tree leaves a bit to be desired.  With an ideal tech tree, everything you unlock would grant some new capability that you didn't have before.  Each would be something you'd be excited for and working towards that would let you do something you previously couldn't or something that was better than the previous parts you were already using.  This tree isn't that.  There are a bunch of techs that are just sorta strewn about that you unlock just because they're on the way to whatever else you might want or that are just a different version of something you already have.  There's a bunch of things that are just longer tanks or different structural bits or trusses or what have you and those just don't seem like exciting things to unlock.

This isn't necessarily easy to fix though.   Part of the problem is that you need a good portion of the parts to be available pretty early.  Tanks and engines need to be available basically at the start.  There is a progression to larger capsules, tanks, and engines - and that works but doesn't necessarily make sense for early progress.  So instead you have techs that unlock longer tank sections or structural trusses and stuff which just aren't especially exciting - the game should just give you those.  You could start with *bad* parts - engines that are especially inefficient and tanks that are heavy - and then unlock better stuff.  KSP1 did a little bit of that by starting with the solids and the engines that didn't gimble.  But there's already enough parts - we probably don't want engines that are just bad.  I could totally see something like engines being limited to 50% thrust until you unlock a tech though.

KSP seems to think kerbals are an important part of the experience - so they want to start you with a capsule and parachutes.  I understand that - but that's also a mistake for a good tech progression.  It'd be much better if we had to start with a probe that had limited comms and battery that could barely survive a quick hop.  And then we'd have to research to unlock batteries to allow orbital flight and solar panels to allow more than a few orbits, and then either comms and a comm network to get out orbit or would need to research capsules and parachutes and heat shields.

Here too we're stuck with the progression just being to bigger parts, but not necessarily better.  Unlocking better solar panels and batteries and more capable probes and whatnot would be nice - but instead we're often just sorta unlocking different sized copies of the stuff we already have.

--

Now - related to collecting science in general.  There's a bit of a physics problem in that you need to have a good portion of the tree unlocked before you can actually get kerbals to other planets and especially before you could get them back.  So you end up with a ton of different experiments just collecting science around kerbin and the mun.  And then once you get to actual far away planets where the exciting science should be happening, you've already unlocked all the stuff you care about.

So, I personally would separate science and engineering.

Have the tech tree be an engineering tree.  You unlock parts automatically over time by using the current ones.  You want bigger tanks?  Fly some rockets with the current ones and apply various stresses.  Maybe have a way to  instrument the vehicle in some fashion if you want to speed up a particular sort of research.  Use your current engines a number of times or fire them engine in a vacuum.  Cycle your batteries.  Build some smaller space stations and do some docking to get the bigger docking parts.  There could be missions to hasten things or ways to focus on a particular tech.

Science then, could be something else.  You wouldn't have to worry about it at kerbin at all.  It would be weird apparatus that you attach and take to other planets.  Maybe this helps you locate resources on those plants.  Or maybe it unlocks game info.  Maybe the game won't do delta-v cals for planetary transfers until you've put a big telescope in orbit, or the surface of a planet is just a flat unknown that you're dropping your lander into blind if you haven't done some sort of orbital terrain scan or maybe maneuver nodes just give you a question mark about what sort of orbit you'll end up in until you've actually sent something there once and done some sort of gravity scan.  Or maybe there are just science missions that want a particular sort of info.  But if you split science from the tech tree, you could make it much more interesting and less front loaded and repetitive.