Tech Tree Balance Megathread

[Scarecrow71]

I will start by saying that this post is my own opinion, and that your mileage may vary.  I also won't dive into specific parts here other than saying "probe cores" or "LF engines".

Now, with that said...

When I think of balance to the tech tree, I don't think so much in terms of what pieces are in which nodes, but rather moreso what I need to accomplish before undertaking a certain task.  Take a Mun landing, for example.  In my mind - and I could be way off here - you should have done the following prior to landing on the Mun:

• Low altitude flight
• High altitude flight
• Sub orbital flight
• LKO Orbital flight
• LKO Orbital EVA
• HKO Orbital flight
• HKO Orbital EVA
• Munar fly-by 
• Munar orbit

That is a natural progression for getting to and landing on the Mun.  I'm not saying you have to do one launch for each item, but rather you should have checked these off in order to unlock the technology to do a Mun landing.  This is, of course, an oversimplified example.

In addition to this, I have a real problem with different scientific gadgets being unlocked in different nodes.  I have never understood why we can launch rockets into space right away but for some reason we can't do seismic or gravity readings until after we have landed on a other celestial body.  That never made sense to me.  Maybe it's just me.

I also think that it really should be probe cores and sounding rockets with SRBs before crewed flights with methalox engines.  And for that matter, it should be planes before rockets, especially when spaceplanes are almost a necessity for several celestial bodies.

Just my 2 cents.

[moeggz]

Without knowing how resources will impact the construction of ships from both the kerbin vab and constructed vabs beyond the starting one it’s hard for me to say anything.

Right now progressing isn’t nearly rewarding enough because with no restrictions on the number of parts or size a vessel can be (by saying, can only create a rocket with 100 units of x resource u til tier 2 or whatever) it’s rather trivial to go basically anywhere with only a few nodes unlocked.

[The Aziz]

On 12/29/2023 at 6:52 PM, Vl3d said:

the point of Tier 1 for veterans is not to land on Tylo with the first node parts, but to actually go through the historic progression of space flight

uhhhhh. A big claim based on absolutely nothing at all.

The whole point of the game is to go further and further out, and the tech tree reflects that. A natural progression, not historical. Because if history had something to tell us, is that players should do a Duna and Eve fly-bys before they even land on the Mun. And do a Jool fly-by just after that landing. Doesn't matter if you have 3700 hours in KSP1 and did a SSTE, or if your adventure with the franchise started yesterday, the point of tier 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and whatever else will be there, is to send you further out with every step.

You really need to stop thinking about yourself when talking about rebalancing the game.

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

• Low altitude flight
• High altitude flight
• Sub orbital flight

That's one flight.

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

• LKO Orbital flight
• LKO Orbital EVA
• HKO Orbital flight
• HKO Orbital EVA

This can be compressed into another flight.

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Munar fly-by 

I would also add Munar impactor.

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Munar orbit

Of course, to test your design.

This all sounds very reasonable to me and checks all the prerequisites for a Munar landing. Tech tree progression should follow this rhythm with how fast nodes are unlocked - at least 4 flights before getting to the first Landing Can node.

[PDCWolf]

2 hours ago, regex said:

I don't care at all about the first game or parity with it. I'm playing KSP2 now.

Care about whichever of both you like, KSP2 will still need an explanation of how refined methane is easier to research and come by than black powder.

I remember from AMA 1 that Shana said she hired writers based on their ability to produce a credible explanation of why Kerbals went crewed first, guess that didn't go far either: Not only is the crewed first part unexplained, but also the text for the first node reads "This is the first step from firework rockets to real rockets"... Did they have liquid fueled fireworks? Methalox is not hypergolic so they'd need pumped, ignited liquids.

So yeah, as much as you don't care, heck, even if we ignore KSP1 at all, the problem is still there. This is "gameplay" vs common sense, and I'm using quotation marks because gameplay justifications look very flimsy.

[regex]

19 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Care about whichever of both you like, KSP2 will still need an explanation of how refined methane is easier to research and come by than black powder.

It doesn't. All I have to do is look at Soviet advancement as opposed to U.S. advancement to realize that there are multiple paths to space. The Soviets lagged pretty far behind in solid rocket motor tech and instead invested heavily in hypergolics, and extensive engine testing to squeeze the best performance they could out of liquid engines. The U.S., meanwhile, brute-forced their way to space with solid rockets and inefficient engines (coupled with clever engineering to save mass), so much so that when they got their hands on a batch of old Soviet kerolox engines they were considered almost miraculous.

I don't care at all whether Kerbals used methalox first, it's pretty clear to me we're not playing out the earliest days of their experimentation despite what any flavor text says. Maybe they tried a bunch of options before settling on methalox. Maybe the tier 1 science is their industry getting up to speed, not unlocking tech. There are plenty of explanations for that and I don't need to agonize over them. KSP2 clearly isn't about going from sounding rockets to Mercury to Apollo and beyond.

Edited December 30, 2023 by regex

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, regex said:

I don't care at all whether Kerbals used methalox first, it's pretty clear to me we're not playing out the earliest days of their experimentation despite what any flavor text says. Maybe they tried a bunch of options before settling on methalox. Maybe the tier 1 science is their industry getting up to speed, not unlocking tech. There are plenty of explanations for that and I don't need to agonize over them. KSP2 clearly isn't about going from sounding rockets to Mercury to Apollo and beyond.

And those conclusions, specially for newer players, and specially if you're changing foundational stuff for the first game, shouldn't be left as an exercise for the reader. As for the second part, even then, a lot of the ordering choices of the tree don't make sense, which is kinda why this thread exists.

[Kerbart]

New players will mainly wonder if their boomsticks have the oomph it takes to go to space. I don't think they're throwing the game aside with a disgusted look an their face saying “can you imagine, this game STARTS with methaloc instead of kerosine?” For most, knowledge like that comes from playing the game, not the other way around.

[regex]

44 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

a lot of the ordering choices of the tree don't make sense, which is kinda why this thread exists.

I don't disagree, my beef is with this ridiculous notion that Kerbals have to follow humanity's path, more specifically the United States' path, into space, especially when there are clear examples of other paths into space. Whatever the first game laid out isn't relevant, this is KSP2, and as a veteran of KSP1 I'm more than happy to see a different take on things.

Edited December 30, 2023 by regex

[Corw]

18 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Care about whichever of both you like, KSP2 will still need an explanation of how refined methane is easier to research and come by than black powder.

 

That is easy. They fart pure methane, so it is cheap and abundant

[Kerbart]

On 12/29/2023 at 12:06 PM, modus said:

I know there's already a mod for it, but I'd still prefer a (stock) probes before crew tech tree. 

Even for new players, I believe creating a progressing space program requires unmanned flights first.

I know this is a subject solidly beaten to death, resurrected, beaten again, burried 10 feet deep with stake through its heart, necromanced, driven over by a bulldozer, regrown into a new Kerbal, and so on, but...

It's the Kerbal Space Program. Not the “Planet Kerbin Space Program.” It's easy to assume the Kerbals already have experience with probes and unmanned flight, they just want to put Kerbals in space. Even inside that program there's some room for probes — relay satellites, early surveys — but that's not why the program is there. It’s to put Kerbals in space, front and center. The emphasis on Kerballed missions in KSP2 supports that. Feel free to use a modded tech tree that puts probes first. But to me it feels  like suggesting a marathon can be completed much quicker by using a motorcycle. Yes, of course you can, but that’s not the point, is it?

[modus]

29 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

I know this is a subject solidly beaten to death, resurrected, beaten again, burried 10 feet deep with stake through its heart, necromanced, driven over by a bulldozer, regrown into a new Kerbal, and so on, but...

It's the Kerbal Space Program. Not the “Planet Kerbin Space Program.” It's easy to assume the Kerbals already have experience with probes and unmanned flight, they just want to put Kerbals in space. Even inside that program there's some room for probes — relay satellites, early surveys — but that's not why the program is there. It’s to put Kerbals in space, front and center. The emphasis on Kerballed missions in KSP2 supports that. Feel free to use a modded tech tree that puts probes first. But to me it feels  like suggesting a marathon can be completed much quicker by using a motorcycle. Yes, of course you can, but that’s not the point, is it?

Yes, the goal is to put kerbals in space, even to colonize space. And apparently you have to make some kind of progression, wherein you unlock more, better parts, learning how everything works. Isn't it more logical you have non-kerballed things to shoot into space first? What's the reward in unlocking a probe if there's no challenge (and for now, no real use) to launch them?

And if the program already has experience with probes, you shouldn't have to unlock them

But like you -and I- say, there's a mod for that, so everybody happy I guess.

[The Aziz]

5 minutes ago, modus said:

and for now, no real use

There are missions requiring you to put probes in space. Also, no challenge? The connection is the challenge. And hopefully will be even more once commnet is properly sorted out.

[modus]

That's why I said, for now

[Vl3d]

3 hours ago, Kerbart said:

It's the Kerbal Space Program. Not the “Planet Kerbin Space Program.” It's easy to assume the Kerbals already have experience with probes and unmanned flight, they just want to put Kerbals in space.

Yes, the ultimate goal is to put kerbals in space. But what we're talking about is basically the first 3-4 nodes that are unlocked in the tech tree, not the whole game. What's wrong with being able to first fire up a Stayputnik instead of a pod with a kerbal? It just makes sense historically and gameplay wise. The game should allow players to learn the basics, to ease into it, to test before committing the life of a kerbal.

[Superfluous J]

4 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Yes, the ultimate goal is to put kerbals in space. But what we're talking about is basically the first 3-4 nodes that are unlocked in the tech tree, not the whole game. What's wrong with being able to first fire up a Stayputnik instead of a pod with a kerbal? It just makes sense historically and gameplay wise. The game should allow players to learn the basics, to ease into it, to test before committing the life of a kerbal.

I agree that there should be a probe core in the first node, for those who want to send probes.

Heck, I've sent more probes than Kerbals in my game just because they're lighter

I just don't want to be forced to do probes for X launches before I earn the right to send Kerbals because reasons.

[Vl3d]

11 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

I agree that there should be a probe core in the first node, for those who want to send probes.

Heck, I've sent more probes than Kerbals in my game just because they're lighter

I just don't want to be forced to do probes for X launches before I earn the right to send Kerbals because reasons.

It's not just that probes are lighter, it's also the RCS strength and feeling the weight of the rocket, using control surfaces before depending on electronics and RCS to experience what happens when you exit the atmosphere, learning the basics of staging before learning about parachutes. There are a lot of reasons why launching a command pod with a kerbal first is premature and does not let the first time player learn the game in a good rhythm.

Edited January 3 by Vl3d

[Mickel]

That said... who wouldn't want to fire up KSP and fire a Kerbal skywards first?

Now.. they may come crashing back to the KSC or into the water at high sub-sonic speeds and meet an ignominious end.  Haven't we all done similar in the name of learning?

I'm all for players learning the 'proper way' of doing things.  Who are we, though, to tell them not to?  The seasoned vets would roll their eyes at the way this 700 hour rookie does stuff.  And I'd tell you to go away because I'm having fun.

[Periple]

5 hours ago, Vl3d said:

What's wrong with being able to first fire up a Stayputnik instead of a pod with a kerbal?

Because it’s harder.

If you don’t have SAS your rocket has to be passively stable and you have to be able to start the gravity turn just right or you won’t make it to space. It’ll also be uncontrollable when you get there.

Also, if they eventually implement comms occlusion, the player would also have to know how that works and work around it.

Inverted difficulty curves in the early game are bad. Players bounce off them. The early game needs to be easy and have quick progress. KSP is a really hard game to learn, and the more it can do to lower the initial hump, the better.

Finally, players need something fun to hook them. Sending a grinning little green guy to space is it. Sending a metal sphere that does nothing but beep isn’t.

Probes before crew makes historical sense but it’s bad game design, and KSP is first and foremost a game. It’s not a recreation of the history of spaceflight and it shouldn’t try to be. There will be mods for that. RSS/RO is brilliant but it’s a really different experience and not for the same crowd!

Edited January 3 by Periple

[The Aziz]

11 hours ago, Vl3d said:

historically

Ugh.

11 hours ago, Vl3d said:

before committing the life of a kerbal.

Thankfully they are, at least on Kerbin, expendable. Losing the crew is no different than losing a probe. But with that said...

10 hours ago, Mickel said:

Now.. they may come crashing back to the KSC or into the water at high sub-sonic speeds and meet an ignominious end. 

There is a parachute in the starting node. Designed specifically to avoid fiery deaths during lithobraking.

This is to ensure safe returns, unlike sending a stayputnik, on which you can't mount that parachute, and unless your first flight reaches orbit, it will always end up as failure. For new players, that sounds discouraging. But the dopamine shot after shouting "my Kerbel is alive!" after first mission is very good.

11 hours ago, Vl3d said:

There are a lot of reasons why launching a command pod with a kerbal first is premature

Haven't seen a valid one yet. The only reason why I would start with a probe, is uh... Kerbal no kill chance?

6 hours ago, Periple said:

Because it’s harder.

If you don’t have SAS your rocket has to be passively stable and you have to be able to start the gravity turn just right or you won’t make it to space. It’ll also be uncontrollable when you get there.

Also, if they eventually implement comms occlusion, the player would also have to know how that works and work around it.

Inverted difficulty curves in the early game are bad. Players bounce off them. The early game needs to be easy and have quick progress. KSP is a really hard game to learn, and the more it can do to lower the initial hump, the better.

Finally, players need something fun to hook them. Sending a grinning little green guy to space is it. Sending a metal sphere that does nothing but beep isn’t.

Probes before crew makes historical sense but it’s bad game design, and KSP is first and foremost a game. It’s not a recreation of the history of spaceflight and it shouldn’t try to be. There will be mods for that. RSS/RO is brilliant but it’s a really different experience and not for the same crowd!

There's more to that. Kerbal pod fits nicely on starting node parts, there's no size switching. Kerbal pod has enough control authority on its own to work at all stages of the early flights. Kerbal pod does not require electricity generation (I think?). Kerbal pod does not require fairings. Kerbal pod has an upper node for a certain utility parts. Kerbal pod has a Kerbal inside, for which the artificial robotic alternative is unlocked far into tier 2.

The starting node is all about easing the player into the concept of rockets, and it gives them the absolute minimum of parts required for successful launch and happy landing. And gives them a funny green guy to waddle/swim around the pod after landing and do something like, for example, science.

Edited January 3 by The Aziz

[Periple]

13 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Kerbal pod does not require electricity generation (I think?).

It does but there’s enough battery power to go to Munar orbit and back without having to worry about it. It is indeed a very good starter part.

[The Aziz]

So it does, but the gameplay mechanic around ec usage/production can be ignored - it certainly can't be when dealing with probes.

Introducing the player to more and more elements or features as they go along is the most gameplay-y thing you can think about. The same reason why Mun doesn't have inclined/eccentric orbit and no axial tilt but Minmus is starting to have those, and it goes more hardcore the further you go.

[Vl3d]

4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Thankfully they are, at least on Kerbin, expendable. Losing the crew is no different than losing a probe.

Players who killed Jeb or Val during their first KSP 2 FS! flights would disagree.

4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

The only reason why I would start with a probe, is uh... Kerbal no kill chance?

Well then that seems to be a failure of research into the years of talks about the matter. It is just illogical to think it's easier for first time players to learn about liquid fuel engines, throttle control, kerbals, pods, reaction wheels, parachutes, experiments etc. on the first flight.. instead of just a probe, a SRB, staging and maybe some control surfaces. It's a classic case of putting the carriage before the horse.

Edited January 3 by Vl3d

[Periple]

9 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Well then that seems to be a failure of research into the years of talks about the matter. It is just illogical to think it's easier for first time players to learn about liquid fuel engines, throttle control, kerbals, pods, reaction wheels, parachutes, experiments etc. on the first flight.. instead of just a probe, an SRB, staging and maybe some control surfaces. It's a classic case of putting the carriage before the horse.

No it isn’t. 

See, I can do that too! Why don’t you address some of the counterpoints to your thoughts instead of just calling them a “failure of research” or “illogical” or “putting the carriage [sic] before the horse?” 

You’re talking to us as if we’re stupid or haven’t thought about this instead of engaging with what we’re saying. That’s not conducive to a productive conversation.

[Vl3d]

29 minutes ago, Periple said:

It is just illogical to think it's easier for first time players to learn about liquid fuel engines, throttle control, kerbals, pods, reaction wheels, parachutes, experiments etc. on the first flight.. instead of just a probe, a SRB, staging and maybe some control surfaces.

Which part of this statement is false?

48 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

The only reason why I would start with a probe, is uh... Kerbal no kill chance?

Well then that seems to be a failure of research into the years of talks about the matter.

Also which part of this statement is false?

Edited January 3 by Vl3d