About the Tech Tree

[ddavis425]

The tech tree is supposed to represent advancement in technology, not just gradually introduce new parts. It's glaringly obvious that Squad intended the tech tree to slowly introduce all the parts to new players (Devs have said this several times), not for actual career mode purposes. It seems like Squad has ditched the tutorial system without even properly fleshing it out. I'm assuming that the layout we saw in all the media group videos and on KSPTV is close to the final product. I doubt Squad has the time to change the nodes very much before release.

The nodes should unlock parts based on technological progression, for example:

1. Probe cores, basic antenna, small SRBs, fuel tanks (all 1.25m sizes, there's no point in making them span multiple nodes), liquid engines with low efficiency and high chance of overheating (With the budget system you will only be suborbital here)

2. Higher engine efficiency, solar panels, reaction wheels (from this point on each node will slightly improve the engines, branching nodes will do this too, with the budget system you may have enough to reach orbit now)

3. Manned pods, ladders (kerbals may not leave ladders or they will float away, since jetpacks are disabled at this point), return equipment like parachutes

4. Science Equipment, better antennae to transmit more information

5. Large engines and fuel tanks, larger SRBs

6. Landing legs and rover wheels (at this point with the budget system you should be able to land on the Mun/Minmus)

7. Jetpacks on EVA suits

8. Nuclear Engines and RTGs

9. Xenon Engines and tanks

10. The resource system if it ever comes

(I didn't think about this layout too much, there's bound to be problems with it. It's just an example after all.)

The tech tree we have seen so far has many flaws such as liquid fuel tanks of the same diameter being on multiple nodes, which makes no sense since you can just stack the small tanks to get the same effect. Also ladders are pretty far down the tree when they are an extremely basic technology. There appears to be no penalties or handicaps at the start such as inefficiency. The tech tree system definitely has potential but only if it is correctly implemented.

Feel free to add to this or criticize it, but don't just come here to tell me not to criticize something that isn't out or that I shouldn't go against what Squad thinks is right.

[satcharna]

I agree completely with this list, and would like to voice my disappointment in Squad for their recent decisions regarding the game in general.

[Boex]

All I can say to this - it's a game. With little green men.

It's not about realism.

"I shouldn't go against what Squad thinks is right."

Trust me. I've been playing this game for 2+ years now. Squad don't make mistakes when it comes to gameplay.

"which makes no sense since you can just stack the small tanks"

It makes perfect sense. Ever built a largish rocket with tiny parts? It's unstable as hell! The larger length parts combat this instability.

"no penalties or handicaps at the start such as inefficiency"

Poor efficiency engines without gimbals, and almost too much thrust for landing.

Small tanks and no struts leads to instability.

No fuel lines or decouplers to aid efficiency.

I'd call those pretty big handicaps...

Ladders...? Perhaps those should be a little simpler to get, but really, you don't need them until docking or landing on higher gravity planets...

Anyway, whatever Squad does, someone is going to dislike it...It's a lose-lose for them, really. Just enjoy it, be happy!

Edited October 14, 2013 by Boex

[satcharna]

All I can say to this - it's a game. With little green men.

It's not about realism.

I beg to differ. Perhaps realism shouldn't be the big focus, but they certainly could at least give us a little of it. Besides, sending up manned capsules before ever inventing a heatshield (as evidenced by how you can't decouple the pod) is plan daft, and something I hope Squad realizes.

"I shouldn't go against what Squad thinks is right."

Trust me. I've been playing this game for 2+ years now. Squad don't make mistakes when it comes to gameplay.

Everyone makes mistakes, Squad are not immune. I agree that for the most part, the game is great, but everyone needs criticism, especially constructive criticism, which is what this is. It improves the quality of everything.

"which makes no sense since you can just stack the small tanks"

It makes perfect sense. Ever built a largish rocket with tiny parts? It's unstable as hell! The larger length parts combat this instability.

You want what is basically a bug caused by an imperfect physics engine to be considered a feature? Real rockets don't wobble. I'm not saying you should be able to build something stupidly long and slim, but surely something is wrong when rockets can actually turn over on themselves without snapping.

"no penalties or handicaps at the start such as inefficiency"

Poor efficiency engines without gimbals, and almost too much thrust for landing.

Small tanks and no struts leads to instability.

No fuel lines or decouplers to aid efficiency.

I'd call those pretty big handicaps...

What he meant was that starter engines should be inefficient, and that research would make them more efficient, both in specific impulse and in TWR.

Ladders...? Perhaps those should be a little simpler to get, but really, you don't need them until docking or landing on higher gravity planets...

Anyway, whatever Squad does, someone is going to dislike it...It's a lose-lose, really.

Indeed it is, and that's why I'm hoping they'll actually look at all the criticism they're getting and completely overhaul the tech tree. If not for .22, then at least for .23.

[jeti140973]

True, some of the choices seems odd - like the struts being considered high-tech components. But like the OP says, focus has clearly been to provide an easy learning curve, and not being too distracted by realities. Harvester has earlier explained that making a game such as KSP is not about realism, but about authenticity. It is primarily a game. So the tech tree is not a mistake, but a deliberate choice. Of course, some disagrees. However, I wouldn't worry too much about it. One of the previews from the media groups mention that the tech tree is EASILY moddable.

[Superfluous J]

I think the larger fuel tanks should be farther down the tree (than the smaller ones, not than they are now. I don't know exactly where they are now) because it takes more brains (honed by SCIENCE) to develop structures so large. Say, orange tanks in the same node as struts, or one node later to show the application of the strut technology.

[Teodzero]

When he has to choose between gameplay and realism (common sense), good game designer always picks gameplay. That wat makes him a good game designer.

[satcharna]

When he has to choose between gameplay and realism (common sense), good game designer always picks gameplay. That wat makes him a good game designer.

Except the best decision would have been to improve the tutorials, instead of turning the entire career mode into a mediocre tutorial.

[tme33]

I agree that some of the tech tree components seem odd, but it it probably won't take very long before a mod comes out that adjusts the order. The devs have made it clear that the tech tree is designed to help ease new players into the game, and that the order was not necessarily focused on realism.

[boomerdog2000]

Except the best decision would have been to improve the tutorials, instead of turning the entire career mode into a mediocre tutorial.

This would make sense if players would actually use the tutorials. I've seen the exact opposite argument, where someone didn't play the tutorials and wanted the normal game to be more new player friendly.

[jeti140973]

Except the best decision would have been to improve the tutorials, instead of turning the entire career mode into a mediocre tutorial.

Most, if not all, games have progression as a major component. You start out small, and develop over time. It is part of the fun to get better, and encounter harder challenges. True, you could say that is what tutorials are for, but I think the trend is, generally, to integrate tutorials into the main game. KSP is not a sandbox game anymore. Is is a game WITH a sandbox mode.

But again, listen to Scott Manleys interview with Harvester. The tech tree will probably see lots of changes.

[jwenting]

True, some of the choices seems odd - like the struts being considered high-tech components.

light weight, high tensile strength, very stiff, struts would definitely be high tech.

Maybe they can introduce a low tech strut that weighs 20 times more per unit length, and can only be say 5 meters long before it buckles when put under load.

[Person012345]

Personally I'm waiting to actually try it before judging how terrible/amazing it is.

[pizzaoverhead]

This would make sense if players would actually use the tutorials. I've seen the exact opposite argument, where someone didn't play the tutorials and wanted the normal game to be more new player friendly.

That is an argument for improving the tutorials, not replacing them with a gameplay mode twisted into a tutorial.

Except the best decision would have been to improve the tutorials, instead of turning the entire career mode into a mediocre tutorial.

I think the trend is, generally, to integrate tutorials into the main game.

Improvement and integration is the correct solution. It's well known that hiding instructions in a manual (RTFM) or separate menu means that they won't be seen. The player wants to play the game, not learn about keybindings. Generally when you hit the "new game" button in any game, it teaches you how to play it somehow. That's either a skippable tutorial section, or one or more tutorial missions which increase the feature set. The key is to give them gameplay as soon as possible without overwhelming them. The ideal situation for a new player would be to hit the new game button and be given a run-through of flight controls in a fixed scenario, then graduating through to a full flight from launch to splashdown. This would be followed by their first building experience with a few parts, dropping them off at the bottom of the tech tree with a knowledge of how to use the equipment they start off with.

You're now free to use the tech tree for gameplay instead of training. Gameplay's what we want from career mode, right?

[A] good game designer always picks gameplay.

Gameplay comes from rewarding the player's successful balancing of objectives against constraints with progression. You can see this in the suggestion:

There appears to be no penalties or handicaps at the start such as inefficiency.

What he meant was that starter engines should be inefficient, and that research would make them more efficient, both in specific impulse and in TWR.

Objective: Launch a rocket somewhere.

Constraints: Limited partcount; prototype engines are inefficient.

Progression on success: A combination of research and experimentation results in new parts becoming available and the prototype engines becoming more efficient.

However, I wouldn't worry too much about it. One of the previews from the media groups mention that the tech tree is EASILY moddable.

It's been stated that there are hidden nodes that can be unhidden for mods to use, but that the main tree has been locked from being moddable until 0.22.1 or 0.23, with the goal of tracking player usage.

Personally I'm waiting to actually try it before judging how terrible/amazing it is.

You're free to not discuss it if you want. Others enjoy debating using the facts we have so far. The "official unofficial 0.xx release thread" has always been popular.

Edited October 15, 2013 by pizzaoverhead

[boomerdog2000]

That is an argument for improving the tutorials, not replacing them with a gameplay mode twisted into a tutorial.

But the player didn't want to play the tutorials. It doesn't matter how amazing the tutorials are if the player doesn't use them.

It's not like the tech-tree is holding your hand. It just restricts the part count so a new player only deals with 1 type at a time to figure out how they work. While experienced players are challenged to do more with less to unlock their favorite parts faster.

[satcharna]

But the player didn't want to play the tutorials. It doesn't matter how amazing the tutorials are if the player doesn't use them.

It's not like the tech-tree is holding your hand. It just restricts the part count so a new player only deals with 1 type at a time to figure out how they work. While experienced players are challenged to do more with less to unlock their favorite parts faster.

But KSP is the kind of game that really needs more of a tutorial than just getting less parts early on. I wouldn't be surprised if half the new players who get it just burn straight up and wonder why their rockets just fall back down again. It would be better to make a logical tech tree, and make the early few probe missions an actual tutorial, complete with "start burning to the east now, it's called a gravity turn and helps put you in orbit", with the conclusion rewarding you with a manned pod, rewarding you with the fun of shooting up Jeb, only this time you actually know what you should be doing to put him in space, unlike the other scenario where you just burn randomly and likely end up killing him on your first few missions instead.

[jwenting]

Personally I'm waiting to actually try it before judging how terrible/amazing it is.

me too. But a lot of people are going to complain about it, no matter what it is. Many of them would complain about it indeed irrespective of what it is because they live to complain, nothing is ever good enough for them, even were it exactly what they themselves described should it should be, implemented exactly to their specifications and signed off by them.

[boomerdog2000]

But KSP is the kind of game that really needs more of a tutorial than just getting less parts early on. I wouldn't be surprised if half the new players who get it just burn straight up and wonder why their rockets just fall back down again. It would be better to make a logical tech tree, and make the early few probe missions an actual tutorial, complete with "start burning to the east now, it's called a gravity turn and helps put you in orbit", with the conclusion rewarding you with a manned pod, rewarding you with the fun of shooting up Jeb, only this time you actually know what you should be doing to put him in space, unlike the other scenario where you just burn randomly and likely end up killing him on your first few missions instead.

I agree. Personally I always use tutorials. I just wanted to call attention to the fact that there are those people who will not and then complain when things go wrong.

Actually I think I was just on a thread with a sort of toggleable mandatory first tutorial suggestion like you were talking about.

EDIT: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52606-Probes-before-Kerbonauts/page4

[Frostiken]

When he has to choose between gameplay and realism (common sense), good game designer always picks gameplay.

Except this ridiculous myth needs to die because the two aren't mutually exclusive. What you're saying is that this game would be ruined if you unlocked probe cores before manned flight. If that's not what you're saying then why even bring up this ridiculously cliche 'gameplay > realism' trope?

[Eric S]

Except this ridiculous myth needs to die because the two aren't mutually exclusive. What you're saying is that this game would be ruined if you unlocked probe cores before manned flight. If that's not what you're saying then why even bring up this ridiculously cliche 'gameplay > realism' trope?

Because while it wouldn't ruin it, it would harm it. Between capsules being easier without rebalancing parts and the hook of having the kerbals in the corner, capsules first makes sense from a gameplay perspective. If you really want to start with probes, you can mod it. Most experienced players won't have a problem modding it and the gameplay differences wouldn't matter to them. This isn't necessarily true for new players, on either count.

[betaking]

I think its odd we get suborbital capsules, but not something like a probe core and a basic instrument which could be used to record/transmit information.

[Animal Mother]

Its the first time that R&D has been implemented into the game, and it is still very much in development. As with most things in the game, there tends to be at least two developmental passes with the game's code/assets. I would give Squad the benefit of the doubt for now, as there are several features of the game that hasn't been developed, which will ultimately change how the tech tree looks; mining, space telescopes, fairings, solid-booster fuel plugs. When the new aerodynamic model is implemented, the order of parts in the tree will change based on necessity (nose cones for example)

[Chris_C]

Has anyone made a tech-tree poster yet... I'd really like to know what to research to get to specific parts....

[nholzric]

I agree that the tech tree is a little bizarre, but after playing for a few hours, it's also a lot of fun!

Other folks have mentioned that the tech tree looks more like the development of KSP than of "actual" technology and I agree - and it really seems to work from a game play perspective. I know this is anathema to the spirit of KSP but recently not many of my rockets have blown up, usually they just fail to reach orbit or run out of batteries, or run out of RCS, or get their docking ports on backwards. But last night when I was playing with the tech tree rocket pieces were flying everywhere again, it was great!

As I am playing, and thinking about collecting science from everywhere, I am worrying that eventually all the science will be used up from Kerbin, the Mun, and Minmus. So I'm thinking about how to get every last drop of science out of the solar system and realizing I'll eventually have to land on Eve. I don't want to land a Kerbel because I don't know if I can get them back and presto - I'm really looking forward to probe technology! To me, this is why probes do not start out the tech tree. Not that I could land a probe on Eve with only a basic rocket anyway. Also, because getting to the Mun and Minmus is so "easy", and because there's such a scientific bonus of having Kerbels on board, I wouldn't send probes there anyway. It seems to me like probes are for one-way trips hence later in the tech tree.

Long story short, I'm digging the new tech tree. It's lots of fun. It makes sense both in a Kerbel sort of way and game-play wise, if not scientifically.

[stormy1997]

I don't know what all the discontent with the progression system is. We have to remember, Squad is not attempting to develop a Human space program simulator, but a Kerbal Space Program. Sure, humans made probes first, but would Kerbals, the same guys that strap SRBs to chairs, really want to send up boring probes before sending themselves into outer-space? I think it works great with Kerbal mentality.