About the Tech tree

[karolus10]

I agree with idea of developing components/technologies ,so they unlock parts being dependent from specific technology, but not the part itself.

Other thing could be prototype status for parts, and price of components decreasing by refining production process (amount of them produced).

For example, smaller diameter tanks would become less expensive after longer service and We could to decide to develop production technique for making larger diameter fuel tanks that would be more expensive to made and need additional founds for R&D.

Even If we develop brand new large diameter tanks, we could consider to combine them with older cheaper parts to drop production price or just by using parts already made and lying in our warehouse.

This would let You to made design decisions to stay with older parts and made smaller rockets with parallel staging (like Saturn I vs Titan with boosters), or pay more and get larger more expensive parts, but making long term investment by using less parts for same size rocket and being able to get more fuel at the same price - better price/capacity than smaller parts when leave prototype stage.

[Spyritdragon]

I'd think it'd be nice to have the Rockomax Brand parts, the 2.5m parts be on the tech tree, so you start out with only 1.25m parts. But indeed, i also like the idea of develloping technologies rather than individual parts.

[HarvesteR]

The big thing with R&D isn't to impose a grind where parts are unlocked as a reward for something. What I want to get out of it is a mechanic through which the game presents itself gradually to players, to not welcome you with an overwhelming wall of content right from the start.

As with the content, the tree itself is being designed to expand the further you get. At, first, you get a few general technologies to research, which in turn open up new nodes which are more specialized, and so on until you're getting to some really specialized stuff towards the higher levels.

We're assigning parts to each of these nodes now with this idea in mind, and so far I think it's going rather well. Each part seems to find its place nicely in the tree we have here.

As for how nodes will be researched, here are my thoughts:

We can't impose any amount of time to unlock something. You could just sit on the pad and timewarp if that were the case, and that's not the sort of gameplay we'd like to see.

I also don't like the idea of spending money directly to research something, as that would reduce R&D to be just a shop catalog.

Instead, I think the most authentic mechanic would be for nodes to require a 'science' rating, which you earn through experimentation (flying) and gathering data (packing science gear aboard possibly). This system opens up a lot of very cool possibilies for later, which will give a lot of meaning to what you can do out there on your missions, even before we have an actual game economy or contracts.

To paraphrase a friend developer, it's not about realism, it's about authenticity. Realism means putting you into a simulator cockpit and making you wait around for months to reach another planet. Authenticity means making sure what the game lets you do feels right, even if it's presented with some degree of abstraction, like using a numerical value to represent a more complicated process.

Cheers

[Mefi282]

The big thing with R&D isn't to impose a grind where parts are unlocked as a reward for something. What I want to get out of it is a mechanic through which the game presents itself gradually to players, to not welcome you with an overwhelming wall of content right from the start.

As with the content, the tree itself is being designed to expand the further you get. At, first, you get a few general technologies to research, which in turn open up new nodes which are more specialized, and so on until you're getting to some really specialized stuff towards the higher levels.

We're assigning parts to each of these nodes now with this idea in mind, and so far I think it's going rather well. Each part seems to find its place nicely in the tree we have here.

As for how nodes will be researched, here are my thoughts:

We can't impose any amount of time to unlock something. You could just sit on the pad and timewarp if that were the case, and that's not the sort of gameplay we'd like to see.

I also don't like the idea of spending money directly to research something, as that would reduce R&D to be just a shop catalog.

Instead, I think the most authentic mechanic would be for nodes to require a 'science' rating, which you earn through experimentation (flying) and gathering data (packing science gear aboard possibly). This system opens up a lot of very cool possibilies for later, which will give a lot of meaning to what you can do out there on your missions, even before we have an actual game economy or contracts.

To paraphrase a friend developer, it's not about realism, it's about authenticity. Realism means putting you into a simulator cockpit and making you wait around for months to reach another planet. Authenticity means making sure what the game lets you do feels right, even if it's presented with some degree of abstraction, like using a numerical value to represent a more complicated process.

Cheers

Does that also mean that we will recieve more science parts? I would really like to measure a planet for his composition or scan the athmosphere from orbit. Actually why not add resources at the same time? Not mining but as a first step?

[borisvolodnikov]

Agree! Would love to see true sample return missions as an input into this process.

[lazarus1024]

The big thing with R&D isn't to impose a grind where parts are unlocked as a reward for something. What I want to get out of it is a mechanic through which the game presents itself gradually to players, to not welcome you with an overwhelming wall of content right from the start.

As with the content, the tree itself is being designed to expand the further you get. At, first, you get a few general technologies to research, which in turn open up new nodes which are more specialized, and so on until you're getting to some really specialized stuff towards the higher levels.

We're assigning parts to each of these nodes now with this idea in mind, and so far I think it's going rather well. Each part seems to find its place nicely in the tree we have here.

As for how nodes will be researched, here are my thoughts:

We can't impose any amount of time to unlock something. You could just sit on the pad and timewarp if that were the case, and that's not the sort of gameplay we'd like to see.

I also don't like the idea of spending money directly to research something, as that would reduce R&D to be just a shop catalog.

Instead, I think the most authentic mechanic would be for nodes to require a 'science' rating, which you earn through experimentation (flying) and gathering data (packing science gear aboard possibly). This system opens up a lot of very cool possibilies for later, which will give a lot of meaning to what you can do out there on your missions, even before we have an actual game economy or contracts.

To paraphrase a friend developer, it's not about realism, it's about authenticity. Realism means putting you into a simulator cockpit and making you wait around for months to reach another planet. Authenticity means making sure what the game lets you do feels right, even if it's presented with some degree of abstraction, like using a numerical value to represent a more complicated process.

Cheers

Sounds like you guys are barking up the right tree.

Seems like a pretty interesting way of doing things, especially depending on the exact mechanic.

Anyway, overall I like this concept. I think there should be some kind of research based reward to actually reaching other planetary bodies and/or landing on them. Bonuses for returning the mission could be cool too.

[regex]

We can't impose any amount of time to unlock something. You could just sit on the pad and timewarp if that were the case, and that's not the sort of gameplay we'd like to see.

Awesome. Waiting is the kind of gameplay I hate.

Instead, I think the most authentic mechanic would be for nodes to require a 'science' rating, which you earn through experimentation (flying) and gathering data (packing science gear aboard possibly). This system opens up a lot of very cool possibilies for later, which will give a lot of meaning to what you can do out there on your missions, even before we have an actual game economy or contracts.

This is probably the best thing you could do in terms of gameplay, reward actual play.

It looks like you guys have a good handle on the situation and a great seed idea. I can't wait to see where it develops.

[Lanfranc]

A thing I'd like to see is research not just for the purpose of unlocking new parts and such, but also more basic research as well as providing new technologies and appliances that benefit the rest of Kerbal society – such as health, materials science, Kerbal observation, etc. It wouldn't have to be very detailed, but just something like from time to time letting you know in general terms that your orbital laboratory has helped develop a new type of medicine or that your weather satellites have improved agriculturural yields, or stuff like that. Would be nice to see the things you do having an impact beyond just the space program itself, as in the real world.

[Firenexus13]

The big thing with R&D isn't to impose a grind where parts are unlocked as a reward for something. What I want to get out of it is a mechanic through which the game presents itself gradually to players, to not welcome you with an overwhelming wall of content right from the start.

As with the content, the tree itself is being designed to expand the further you get. At, first, you get a few general technologies to research, which in turn open up new nodes which are more specialized, and so on until you're getting to some really specialized stuff towards the higher levels.

We're assigning parts to each of these nodes now with this idea in mind, and so far I think it's going rather well. Each part seems to find its place nicely in the tree we have here.

As for how nodes will be researched, here are my thoughts:

We can't impose any amount of time to unlock something. You could just sit on the pad and timewarp if that were the case, and that's not the sort of gameplay we'd like to see.

I also don't like the idea of spending money directly to research something, as that would reduce R&D to be just a shop catalog.

Instead, I think the most authentic mechanic would be for nodes to require a 'science' rating, which you earn through experimentation (flying) and gathering data (packing science gear aboard possibly). This system opens up a lot of very cool possibilies for later, which will give a lot of meaning to what you can do out there on your missions, even before we have an actual game economy or contracts.

To paraphrase a friend developer, it's not about realism, it's about authenticity. Realism means putting you into a simulator cockpit and making you wait around for months to reach another planet. Authenticity means making sure what the game lets you do feels right, even if it's presented with some degree of abstraction, like using a numerical value to represent a more complicated process.

Cheers

Brilliant! and maybe... a space station (the game would detect these as: a ship with at least 10 docking ports and 3 docking port connections.) in low orbit would get a small amount of science points, over time?

and also maybe flying (plane) to the north/south poles would give small amounts? and then circumnavigating kerbin or anywhere else with an atmosphere would give you some???

and maybe mining ore would give you some???

What about flying???

so many possibilities...

Edited August 7, 2013 by Firenexus13

[HeadHunter67]

I would argue that the science level of the current stock parts is about the same (with some obvious exceptions as pointed out) but that there is quite a spread of technology levels - or engineering levels if you like - that give plenty of scope for a tech tree.

That's an important and often-overlooked distinction. For instance, the Romans had the metallurgical and chemical capability to build firearms - but they never did, because they never considered the technology, let alone researched it. Likewise with certain modern architecture - Roman concrete is held to be superior to our own. But they never built the kinds of structures we use in the modern day.

I think the most authentic mechanic would be for nodes to require a 'science' rating, which you earn through experimentation (flying) and gathering data (packing science gear aboard possibly). This system opens up a lot of very cool possibilies for later, which will give a lot of meaning to what you can do out there on your missions, even before we have an actual game economy or contracts.

That's a fantastic approach - even the tutorials and the little campaign missions in .20 had that kind of feel to them. For your first mission, you build a probe and put it into space. What you learn from that unlocks other parts, which are then used to build a better rocket to put that probe into orbit. Then a man... then, eventually, the Mün and a space station!

It's a reality of our own space programs that exploration drives the technology, rather than the other way around. Everything we have was earned by brave pioneers who got into the capsule and said "I wonder what happens when we do this!"

Edited August 7, 2013 by HeadHunter67

[skyace65]

I'll be disappointed if it's only parts we can research and not technology like fuel efficency, or more structural stability, stuff like that. though based on what harvesteR has said hopefully that will be implemented in the future.

and i have to say it was kind of surprising to see us get a new research building now, I was kinda expecting us to get mission control usability first. though that could still come in this update.

[Kosmic Debris]

"Do I spend my budget researching efficient nukes for long term, or do I go to Duna with current tech?".

To some extent, the same question the rocket scientists have always had to answer

[Kimberly]

To some extent, the same question the rocket scientists have always had to answer

In reality, the answer was "we're canceling the nuclear thermal rocket research program, and we're not going to Mars with our current tech, either."

[thenbagis]

Instead, I think the most authentic mechanic would be for nodes to require a 'science' rating, which you earn through experimentation (flying) and gathering data (packing science gear aboard possibly). This system opens up a lot of very cool possibilies for later, which will give a lot of meaning to what you can do out there on your missions, even before we have an actual game economy or contracts.

To paraphrase a friend developer, it's not about realism, it's about authenticity. Realism means putting you into a simulator cockpit and making you wait around for months to reach another planet. Authenticity means making sure what the game lets you do feels right, even if it's presented with some degree of abstraction, like using a numerical value to represent a more complicated process.

Cheers

HaversteR... I think this sounds really great and as you said has some authenticity about it. Your "science" rating very much reminds me of "Technology Readiness Level" or TRL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level) [which could easily be changed to Kerbal Readiness Level ;-) ]

I have to say that you incorporated some sense of risk associated with low TRL parts, that would be really make it "authentic"

Thinking along those lines... that the first time you "fly" a part, you have a higher chance of a random failure. Each flight afterwards the risk goes down. Also adding a single new part to other parts you have already flown would have a lower cumulative risk than a whole rocket of new parts.

This would incorporate a real sense of authenticity by for example... If you say "I'm going to build a lander and fly it to the Mun on it's first flight" you might have a lander leg refuse to extend and have to abort the mission. But if you were to take it to Kerbin orbit and test the lander out in orbit, you'd have a real low chance of failure.

This would also allow us to recreate our own "Apollo 13" moments. :-)

[redcoat22]

Very exciting to hear the game is going in this direction.

[skyace65]

HaversteR... I think this sounds really great and as you said has some authenticity about it. Your "science" rating very much reminds me of "Technology Readiness Level" or TRL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level) [which could easily be changed to Kerbal Readiness Level ;-) ]

I have to say that you incorporated some sense of risk associated with low TRL parts, that would be really make it "authentic"

Thinking along those lines... that the first time you "fly" a part, you have a higher chance of a random failure. Each flight afterwards the risk goes down. Also adding a single new part to other parts you have already flown would have a lower cumulative risk than a whole rocket of new parts.

This would incorporate a real sense of authenticity by for example... If you say "I'm going to build a lander and fly it to the Mun on it's first flight" you might have a lander leg refuse to extend and have to abort the mission. But if you were to take it to Kerbin orbit and test the lander out in orbit, you'd have a real low chance of failure.

This would also allow us to recreate our own "Apollo 13" moments. :-)

no no no, NO! sorry but I don't want to have to test fly all of my rockets just for stability, it's just a waste of time when i already have to much to do with preparation. and normal rocket testing i already have to do now

[Necandi Brasil]

I'll be disappointed if it's only parts we can research and not technology like fuel efficency, or more structural stability, stuff like that. though based on what harvesteR has said hopefully that will be implemented in the future.

and i have to say it was kind of surprising to see us get a new research building now, I was kinda expecting us to get mission control usability first. though that could still come in this update.

As he said, no update is final... so don't worry about it now.

Very exciting to hear the game is going in this direction.

Me too

[UbioZur]

No need to worry about that. R&D is probably only going to be available in Career Mode.

For Sandbox saves, it wouldn't make much sense to have R&D anyway. The R&D Facility will be at the space center but it won't open the R&D screen.

This is the best solution IMO. It leaves existing saves unmodified, and means everyone will get a clean start with R&D.

Cheers

May I suggest you keep the possibility for sandbox to have the R&D (toggle option at creation)

Depending on how career mode goes, some people may want to have their own career missions, or mods may decide to create some custom career?

It would all depend on how the career mode will be at the end. But could open to such a great number of possibilities, that allowing it as an sandbox option (or making sure it could be easy to implement) feel like something it should be. (kind of a instinct more than anything else, you know i feel it in my belly).

[ddavis425]

I know Harv said that there are plenty of parts for a tech tree, but I just don't feel like the current parts would do good. They all seem to be pretty much on the same tech level, aside from the ion engines and nuclear engines.

[ash73]

A suggestion related to the tech tree and career mode... the integration of sub-assemblies in the context of costing rocket programmes. In an authentic space programme a large part of the total cost might revolve around system testing an assembly of parts, like a Saturn V rocket, which could then be re-used for subsequent missions at a much lower cost than developing a bespoke rocket from pick and mix parts.

[voleurinconnu]

Boy am I glad to see where this is going. Hopefully we'll be getting some new science parts with this update, I mean, who doesn't love more science?

And in reference to the random failure suggestion above, the devs have said that they're opposed to random failures, they want a definitive, fixable reason for something to fail if it does. So you can engineer out issues, rather than just hope they don't happen.

[msyblade]

Perma-Death and a tech tree are going to add a ton of personality to our crews! Combine these with the career mode debut, is it reasonable to assume there may be an economic system from which you would need to allocate funds for research? I would also guess that many parts will be rebalanced to give more variance in performance.

I like the idea of having general "fields" of study rather than specifically researching the LVT-30. Like "gimbal engines" could be a field. This way you could tie fields of research together to get more advanced equipment. For instance, there could be multiple fields of research associated with utility type equipment. Power generation, power conservation, power storage, parachute sizes/operating altitudes(customizable!), parachute attach points, etc. . . So to get the radial chute, you would need to research 2 or 3 fields to meet all of the criteria.

Another alternative would be to have 4 or 5 general fields, with multiple levels of research in each field. ie: LVT-45: Requires Engine Research Level 4, Structural Research Level 3, and the "Fuel efficiency" trait.

Edited August 7, 2013 by msyblade

[Skyrunner27]

I know Harv said that there are plenty of parts for a tech tree, but I just don't feel like the current parts would do good. They all seem to be pretty much on the same tech level, aside from the ion engines and nuclear engines.

Think harder then just that. Solar Panels weren't used till Vanguard 1. Manned flight is a lot more tech then just probes. ASAS needs computers. Aerospike are yet to be used in real space flight. Different strength engines take work look at the original Redstone rocket compared to the Saturn V engines. Docking ports didn't originate until Voskhod/Gemini. Landing legs well...Luna and Surveyor.Engine gimbal could also be a step.

[csiler2]

Think harder then just that. Solar Panels weren't used till Vanguard 1. Manned flight is a lot more tech then just probes. ASAS needs computers. Aerospike are yet to be used in real space flight. Different strength engines take work look at the original Redstone rocket compared to the Saturn V engines. Docking ports didn't originate until Voskhod/Gemini. Landing legs well...Luna and Surveyor.Engine gimbal could also be a step.

I concur. Saturn V development took 10+ years and it wasn't just about the engines. NASA had to develop entirely new materials, construction techniques, physical models, and computer technology. None of the engines used on the Saturn V existed before von Braun's team won NASA's approval for Saturn V development. In fact, the von Braun team scavenged technology from military rockets like the redstone and titan just to make sure the delivery dates for the Saturn I were reachable.

There are plenty of valid ways to justify tech trees for almost every current part used in KSP.

[KevinTMC]

The big thing with R&D isn't to impose a grind where parts are unlocked as a reward for something.

* * *

We can't impose any amount of time to unlock something. You could just sit on the pad and timewarp if that were the case, and that's not the sort of gameplay we'd like to see.

So you're explicitly rejecting FarmVille-type game mechanics early on in the career-mode design process. That's very good news. I'm a firm believer that a make-the-player-wait mechanic is a sorry substitute for play-balancing and giving the player interesting decisions to make. (The diabolical part is when they then get players to pay real money in order to accelerate the clock...in other words, players pay the developer of the game for the right to spend less of their time "playing" it. If that's not a sign that a game is rotten at the core, I don't know what is.)

I also believe that steadily doling out little pellets of reward to drive the player to keep up a neverending grind is a sorry substitute for motivating the player by building the game around intriguing and inherently satisfying elements, and making the whole thing just plain fun. (Some game publishers, especially the ones working on mobile and social platforms, don't care a whit about whether their titles are fun or not...so long as they're "addictive".)

To paraphrase a friend developer, it's not about realism, it's about authenticity. Realism means putting you into a simulator cockpit and making you wait around for months to reach another planet. Authenticity means making sure what the game lets you do feels right, even if it's presented with some degree of abstraction, like using a numerical value to represent a more complicated process.

One of my favorite ideas for this game would also, I think, serve the idea of authenticity well. That is, to unlock more powerful tools and shortcuts and automation as a task or technology moves from cutting-edge to routine. The sense of accomplishment I felt landing on the Mun for the first time--back before there were maneuver nodes or even landing gear, and before I had ever experimented with mods--is something I would wish for every player. I'd even wish for them something like the experience I had achieving orbital rendezvous and "docking" for the first time--back before there were even docking parts! But then you gain more experience, and develop better tools, and things become routine and feel so much simpler and easier...and there's satisfaction in that, too. ("Can you believe how we used to do it back when? It was so daring and hard then; we've got it down pat now. On to the next challenge!")