Techtree

[Leberschnitzel]

Hi,

I've read and heard, that in the new R&D Patch there will be Science Points which can be used in a tech tree to unlock parts.

I like the Idea and am really looking forward to it, but if there will only be parts, it could be a bit boring.

My suggestion is to also add improvements for the players.

Example: At first you start without a real nav-ball. All you have is a flat compass. After first flights with a normal plane like thing (maybe even after just getting it some feet high of the ground) you get enough research points to get a real navball. The next research points give you better items again to explorer space. After the first few points from there, you get the maneuvers feature which is currently standard. This could go as far as (I know we are not supposed to suggest it) an autopilot which gets better by training it with maneuvers like starting, orbiting, landing in different difficulties, docking and so on. Not just "plop, there you go with the autopilot", but you have to actually train it to know moves and train it more to improve them.

Anyway, back to the first few parts of the Idea.

The Techtree without parts could look like something like this:

Compass -> Nav-Ball -> Maneuver-Ring ->Targetting of Moons/Planets -> Targetting of Kerb-Made Vesels -> Docking Cam -> Improved SAS -> Improved RCS -> Improved Maneuver-Ring (you can enter numbers and don't just have to pull it) -> Autopilot which can start and get the Rocket it was first launched with into Orbit with a failure rate of 50% (every successfull orbit will decrease the failure rate) -> Unlock more and more autopilot possibilities.

Do you like the Idea? What other things could be made available (preferably between docking cam and Autopilot)?

[allmappedout]

One thing that I'd say is that any space faring nation/race has to have a very good grasp of the mathematics and telemetry behind it before they can even consider launching a spacecraft.

Things like NAV balls and maneuveur nodes are such an integral part of the game (the former more so), and are based on gyroscopes, magnetism and mathematics (all of which have been around far longer than our space program), it seems naive to suggest that someone would willingly get in a rocket without these basic things (assuming, for a second, that the maneveur nodes represent mission control, for example), even someone as crazy as Jeb!

The unlocking of other things does, I believe, fall under what's going to happen with the remaining parts and obviously there will be a lot of it that will be locked at the beginning. However, removing such vital tools to navigation would just make it a very difficult entry barrier to a newbie.

PS: I'd like to point out it's easier to build a simple rocket than a simple plane, which is why the Chinese had simple rockets since the 11th Century, and the first simple plane wasn't for another 900 years, so forcing someone to 'start' with planes is also counterintuitive.

Edited October 3, 2013 by allmappedout

[Leberschnitzel]

Things like NAV balls and maneuveur nodes are such an integral part of the game (the former more so), and are based on gyroscopes, magnetism and mathematics (all of which have been around far longer than our space program), it seems naive to suggest that someone would willingly get in a rocket without these basic things (assuming, for a second, that the maneveur nodes represent mission control, for example), even someone as crazy as Jeb!

I did my first orbit around kerbin without knowing that there are maneveur nodes and didn't really use the nav ball... I'm crazyer than jeb...

[boomerdog2000]

I feel like we should at least wait until we see what Squad has done with the tech-tree and see if we like it first, but taking away the navball does seem fairly harsh. I read somewhere that the navball we use is meant for planes anyway and not actually orbiting craft.

[Leberschnitzel]

Keep in mind that those where just suggestions. Getting an unmaned craft of any kind more than 2 feet of the ground could be enough to gain information for the need of a navball.

I'm just so excited to see this new part of the game!

[Canopus]

PS: I'd like to point out it's harder to build a simple rocket than a simple plane, which is why the Chinese had simple rockets since the 11th Century, and the first simple plane wasn't for another 900 years, so forcing someone to 'start' with planes is also counterintuitive.

I think you are right but you turned it around. You mean a plane is harder to construct than a simple rocket.

[allmappedout]

I think you are right but you turned it around. You mean a plane is harder to construct than a simple rocket.

durr you're of course, very right. The danger of post scripting! I'll correct it now, thanks!

[Canopus]

My problem with a tech tree is that in real Spaceflight, everything was basically developed very early. The only thing that really improved until today are computers. Ofcourse that may not be true for Kerbals at all.

[allmappedout]

My problem with a tech tree is that in real Spaceflight, everything was basically developed very early. The only thing that really improved until today are computers. Ofcourse that may not be true for Kerbals at all.

That's certainly true for a lot of it, but there are significant improvements in Materials Science, certain fuels, computing and modelling, etc. which can open up new avenues for research (Carbon Fibre being a key example) But yes, you're right, the theory behind it was very much well established very early on. Obviously new types of propulsion can appear off the back of advances, such as VASIMIR, SABRE, NERVA, etc, but even Aerospikes, which are seen as a very good solution to space flight SSTO issues, were theorised right at the beginning.

Perhaps there could be two tiers of tech-tree; one for improvements of current technology, and one for advancements in propulsion as they are realised?

It's a very, very large area to cover off and whatever occurs, not everyone will be completely satisifed in its implementation

[Guest Capt_wheelchair]

Here's a mock up of what the tier system could be.

-it apply's general progression on the player, players are at first limited to sub orbital flights and basic planes.

-then in tier 1 they gain orbits and RCS, planes become more advanced, docking is possible in orbit, a mun trip is still unlikely.

-in tier 2 mun becomes possible, rovers are unlocked, and Apollo style missions are feasible with a basic lander and rover.

-Tier 3 brings large lander and 3m parts, but interplanetary missions would still be quite difficult, probes could probably make duna or something similar.

-Tier 4 brings space stations and space shuttles

-Tier 5 finishes off the stock parts with ION engines and the NERVA. also included are the hitchiker and giant rover wheels.

-Mods would be available after tier 5, so you can continue to gain science and earn mod parts after the stock parts have all been unlocked.

*I didn't make this, someone else did, and max already said it was way off from what the tech tree is going to look like.*

[Guest]

To me having a tech tree based around "science points" is a letdown. Progress in a certain field requires effort in that field of study. I don't go to the sun to learn about cyrogenics in the same way i don't go to the ice caps to learn about plasma. Making the game progress with "science points" closes a lot of opportunities for a complex progression system and is just asking for grinding abuse. It would work better with something like: "Your intense studies of radiation emitted by the sun with your probe has allowed you to fabricate receivers to remove static from the background. You can now send data back with less loss" Instead of "That magical science stuff you abused at the edge of the solar system makes your rockets work better hur dur" Things you do should be relevant to that field of study in your space program and not work like a "it does everything sauce".

[Awaras]

To me having a tech tree based around "science points" is a letdown. Progress in a certain field requires effort in that field of study. I don't go to the sun to learn about cyrogenics in the same way i don't go to the ice caps to learn about plasma. Making the game progress with "science points" closes a lot of opportunities for a complex progression system and is just asking for grinding abuse. It would work better with something like: "Your intense studies of radiation emitted by the sun with your probe has allowed you to fabricate receivers to remove static from the background. You can now send data back with less loss" Instead of "That magical science stuff you abused at the edge of the solar system makes your rockets work better hur dur" Things you do should be relevant to that field of study in your space program and not work like a "it does everything sauce".

Yeah, and what Harvester said about "the issue being that there wasn't enough science to do at the very early stages of a Career game" has me worried. I personally don't really like planes in KSP (the weird aerodynamics in the game being one of the issues) and have never spent much time flying them. If I am forced to spend a lot of time at the beginning of the career mode flying around Kerbin collecting lichen from different 'biomes' just to unlock the ability to even reach orbit, I will be a sad panda.

[trvtannenberg]

Keep in mind that those where just suggestions. Getting an unmaned craft of any kind more than 2 feet of the ground could be enough to gain information for the need of a navball.

I'm just so excited to see this new part of the game!

Ahh, so this is just about redundancy.

[allmappedout]

To me having a tech tree based around "science points" is a letdown. Progress in a certain field requires effort in that field of study. I don't go to the sun to learn about cyrogenics in the same way i don't go to the ice caps to learn about plasma. Making the game progress with "science points" closes a lot of opportunities for a complex progression system and is just asking for grinding abuse. It would work better with something like: "Your intense studies of radiation emitted by the sun with your probe has allowed you to fabricate receivers to remove static from the background. You can now send data back with less loss" Instead of "That magical science stuff you abused at the edge of the solar system makes your rockets work better hur dur" Things you do should be relevant to that field of study in your space program and not work like a "it does everything sauce".

I agree, I actually made a post about this very recently here where I think that you should have difference sub-disciplines of science to help focus your research.

[Leberschnitzel]

"Your intense studies of radiation emitted by the sun with your probe has allowed you to fabricate receivers to remove static from the background. You can now send data back with less loss"

I like that Idea. It could work like leveling weapons in vanilla wow: You do a specific research more often, then you gain small experiences in that field and improve that way.

I think both thinks combined would be nice: Research points for Hardware unlocks, the research itself with that hardware than increases the efficiency / useability of that hardware.

Ahh, so this is just about redundancy.

I don't understand the statement, could you please be more specific in your mockery?

[dazhat]

Yeah, and what Harvester said about "the issue being that there wasn't enough science to do at the very early stages of a Career game" has me worried. I personally don't really like planes in KSP (the weird aerodynamics in the game being one of the issues) and have never spent much time flying them. If I am forced to spend a lot of time at the beginning of the career mode flying around Kerbin collecting lichen from different 'biomes' just to unlock the ability to even reach orbit, I will be a sad panda.

Don't worry you wont have to. Rockets are easier than planes. That's why there were rockets hundreds of years before planes. The Hwacha

[boomerdog2000]

You can always do a sub-orbital hop to land a probe in one of Kerbin's other biomes.