Can i just say?

[nMitch]

Can I just say that I hate the tech tree? I mean yes NASA is developing better technologies all the time, However I think KSP deserves Science that actually means something. Like a surface sample should be used to analyze the Mun not unlock a new rock ya know? It would just be cool to get a sense of "Discovery" from the game. Agree or no?

[KasperVld]

I'm not sure what you mean with unlocking a new rock. Science in Kerbal Space Program is a currency, a gameplay mechanic.

[Van Disaster]

Mostly what I hate ( and what stopped me playing 0.22 actually, aside from general busyness ) was that the tree locked all your vehicular components, things that you'd expect to have developed outside a space program. I like the progression idea, I just want to progress in directly space-related areas like sensors, or comms, or exotic materials or something along those lines, not "wheels".

However it's made me look at making new trees, which is a whole game in itself.

[CaptRobau]

The tech tree is tailored to new players, rather than veterans. Which is why probes, planes and car parts are later in the tech tree than rockets and the like.

[Col_Jessep]

The tech tree is tailored to new players

I'm not exactly sure how putting things like batteries, solar panels, landing gear and ladders in the middle of the tech tree is supposed to help new players. I wonder how many new players just made it into orbit or into a transfer orbit to the Mun just to realize at some point that their rocket is uncontrollable for some reason. I'm saying 'for some reason' because I doubt a new player will realize immediately what went wrong.

There are really some interesting design choices that lead me to believe the whole science aspect is aimed at players who were bored with sandbox mode. If it is indeed aimed at new players it should be overhauled.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Col_Jessep

[Epthelyn]

If you don't like the tech tree, get one of the alternative versions made by the community, or rearrange it yourself. Set the tech level containing wheels to cost nothing, put it first (or in Start) and you're done

[SkyHook]

I wasn't going to say it first! I think that science as a currency to drive Research and Development is absurd and counter intuitive. Maybe that will change with newer updates but it really bothers me that R&D is not driven by the economy. The important thing to remember is that the entire career mode is currently focused towards newer players, from the severe lack of parts to the system that encourages exploration when the science points get scarce. Oh, and the tech tree's logic makes me want to drown a kerbal.

[Travisfv]

They way I see it is that research requires successful missions due to proof of concept. Say the government gives you a set amount of funding. You then have to prove what you are capable of. Less daring missions earn you less funding (less parts unlocked at once). Find a way to go interplanetary early and you'll reap the rewards (bigger budget, more parts unlocked).

Basically what I'm saying is that the government won't give you money to do R&D until you prove you can make it worth their while.

Sure money would be an easier representation, but this plays into a more political explanation, which let's face it, is very important to governments to show off what they can do.

[Tw1]

I agree, with the science as a currency point. I'd much prefer science as a set of activities you can do, so you can spend ages poking around and get meaningful data.

The way it's finite seems limiting to me. Sure, it's a way to make unlocking things harder, and it works for that. But it's not so good if you want to spend time at the place before shooting off again.

But what I'd really like is a second level of scene that's more data based. Surface mineral composition that varies based on your current lat and long is the kind of thing I mean.

[ArmchairGravy]

I don't have any issues with it. Unlock Stability, wham, you're orbital. Unlock General Construction and Science Tech, wham, Mun and Minmus flybys, and Minmus landing. Get those in, and you're off to the races.

[panfish5]

The reason of career mode is for new players to get a feel of all the new parts. It wasnt made for people that have played ksp for a long time to have another challenge, but its for the new players to familiarize themselves with the game then just being thrown at a bunch of parts like in sandbox.

[Travisfv]

I also think veteran players also need to realize that not everyone is on their level. I can't do a landing on eeloo with some duct tape and a can of whipped cream. Yes it's impressive when you can, but try to remember that this game is still trying to be accessible to simpletons like myself who still have to try really hard to reach Duna.

[boomerdog2000]

The reason of career mode is for new players to get a feel of all the new parts. It wasnt made for people that have played ksp for a long time to have another challenge, but its for the new players to familiarize themselves with the game then just being thrown at a bunch of parts like in sandbox.

There is some challenge to older players. "Do as much as you can with limited parts, that way you can unlock more parts faster." .22 forced me to do my first stock, manned Duna landing and return, which I very much thank it for forcing me to try things I'm uncomfortable with.

Edited December 24, 2013 by boomerdog2000
typo

[Sirrobert]

I'm not exactly sure how putting things like batteries, solar panels, landing gear and ladders in the middle of the tech tree is supposed to help new players. I wonder how many new players just made it into orbit or into a transfer orbit to the Mun just to realize at some point that their rocket is uncontrollable for some reason. I'm saying 'for some reason' because I doubt a new player will realize immediately what went wrong.

There are really some interesting design choices that lead me to believe the whole science aspect is aimed at players who were bored with sandbox mode. If it is indeed aimed at new players it should be overhauled.

First learn how to fly a 3 part rocket before you get to play with other things

[rkman]

I'm not sure what you mean with unlocking a new rock.

Op probably means "rocket", by which he actually means "rocket engine".

Science in Kerbal Space Program is a currency, a gameplay mechanic.

I can see the logic in that, but i also share the op's objection to it.

[Botch]

I like science and the tech tree. It gives you some goals and constraints and prompted me, at least, to play around with different designs and parts. I've had the game for a year and have landed everywhere (but Tylo--forget Tylo). Career mode gives me a new way to play.

I think criticizing the tree for not giving you all the parts you "need" at first is off base too. For me one of the daunting things when I first started playing was picking parts. The tree allows new players to learn them in a pretty structured way. And as you get more and better parts you can start planning the more involved missions while honing your skills. Sure we can quibble about tweaking stuff ...

[Luckless]

I personally enjoy the challenge of the tech tree and the different ways you can approach the game.

It offers a reasonable amount for new players to get adjusted to. I'm sure it can be evaluated and improved, but I can't say it is horrible or anything.

As a more experienced player I have to say that I like unlocking bits. It offers different ways to play and self challenges to set. Do I play it slowly with limited unlocks? One at a time, at least one mission before the next unlock, complete each level before going deeper into the tree? Or do I try and blitz it, and see how few missions I can go with to unlock everything?

[nMitch]

I'm not saying I hate the idea of progression thats actually pretty cool. But I mean the way "Science" works dosent make sense to me. Like I don't see Bill Nye saying "Water on Titan!? Solar Panels! and this temperature reading? Bigger Wheels!"

I'm not sure what you mean with unlocking a new rock. Science in Kerbal Space Program is a currency, a gameplay mechanic.

rocket* But there is going to be Currency in the game at part cost, why not let the money you earn from missions unlock parts, like Funding for R&D. Then we can let "Science" be Science.

[Roastduck]

My only issue with the tech tree, as someone who only bought the game in the past week, is the airplane stuff is interspersed with the rocket stuff. It makes my hesitant to buy new tech, because I don't know if the next tech revealed will be of any use to me, since I'm focused on the rocketry side. There should be more separation between the two, I think.

rocket* But there is going to be Currency in the game at part cost, why not let the money you earn from missions unlock parts, like Funding for R&D. Then we can let "Science" be Science.

I think the money system will be intended more to motivate players to make parts recoverable, particularly if they start making objects burn up in the atmosphere. It's one thing to have a massive main stage with twelve billion parts, but what about when you have to start buying parts? Now I'll be more motivated to put parachutes on my SRBs and stuff like that

[Crown]

I like the Tech Tree.

It threw me back to the time I way playing 0.18. Made me have to think about rocket design and how to build good rockets with less parts. It doesn't overwhelm a player with 150 parts and lets the advanced player to think about his designs. Surely it needs some improvement but I like it.

[3mon]

I guess if you dont want to unlock parts with science and all that, sandbox mode is for you.

That said, as for the tech tree itself: i think the manned parts unlocking before the unmanned parts just makes no sense, wether you are a veteran or not. Hell i want to start my program by sending a satellite to at least see what is up there! And the same thing happens with the batteries and solar panels. I mean, really, if it is for the guided progression's sake, it almost makes no difference in 'teaching' you how to start flying if you have a manned or unmanned ship. Also, i think the landing gears and wheel parts are too deep within the three, same logic of manned vs unmanned applies if you want to send a rover to explore before sending poor Jebediah blind to the mind-boggling hugeness of space

[Arran]

I find the Techtree a challence that i can create, it also could be also nothing more as a small hurdle, depends on how i approach it, i play the game now over a year, been there done that, but the limited parts creates a whole new set of challenges if i let myself to it.

Combined with my 3 favorite mods, (Remote Tech2, Kethane, KAS) it gives me an challenge to set up bases and distribution in a challenging way.

Granted, there are easier approaches, and i can think of them all, but currently i noticed when i am trying now as soon i am able to get myself a Kethane dril, autonomously working, (No Kerbals aboard) around half way the Tech tree when only the bare minumum of parts for this endevour is unlucked, gives a huge challenge, that slows somehow my progress down by alot..

Setting up Sattelites with no RCS available, making a Kethane drilling unit without docking ports, and all those little things posses really fun for me.

Sure, i could wait a bit, get some more science and then build everything with the needed parts is alot easier, quicker and smarter, i all can understand, but it removes for me a challenge..

The limited parts, also drove me into trying to get to eve and back with limited parts, with just 1.25mtr rockets, and it drove me near mad to get it done.

I'm not actively hunting science points, but try to push at each tier myself as far as i can go with the limited parts i have available each tier..

My first Tier 1 challenge, can i get around the mun just by using boosters, an single engine and those small tanks and just one decoupler type.

It was harder as i imagined, but i managed..

Again i know, i make it for myself harder as i should, but i just can help it, most stuff after a year of playing the game, things are pretty easiy for my by now, Mods help to only an degree, and i just pretend that with not hunting for science points, i kind of limited amount of parts due production limitations.

To me the current R&D system is still in incomplete placeholder, that is missing alot of functionality to make it an challenge for expierenced players.

So i need to set my own challenges.. what is working for me... that said it ofc may not be your thing..

When i started in 0.22 with the R&D it took me just a less then a dozen flights to unlock the whole tree, hunting sciencepoints, going for the biggest amount i could collect each flight. Now with my current approach (Thanks to archievements mod so i can track it) over 30 launches now, but just hanging at T5 because i setting up an Sat network, so i can start sending probes out of the Kerbin SOI.. (yes its easier to just send a manned ship, but this is about creating a challenge, not how to play it easy)

I like the techtree, but its far from complete, what makes its atm just a curiosity and only a challenge if you make it a challence yourself.

The game doesnt make it a challenge in its current setup for the expierence and beyond player, but it does help less expierenced players to get easier into the game, less parts = less confusion.

[Travisfv]

I'm not saying I hate the idea of progression thats actually pretty cool. But I mean the way "Science" works dosent make sense to me. Like I don't see Bill Nye saying "Water on Titan!? Solar Panels! and this temperature reading? Bigger Wheels!"

rocket* But there is going to be Currency in the game at part cost, why not let the money you earn from missions unlock parts, like Funding for R&D. Then we can let "Science" be Science.

But how do you then quantify how successful a mission was? If you fly to laythe and get there and do no science, how can you be rewarded? What kind of government would fund a program that isn't doing anything but planting a flag and walking away.

Science earns you that money, which in turn unlocks you more parts. Sure, a temperature reading on laythe doesn't get you a new wheel, but the fact that you went there and got it increased your funding and thereby allowed you to research new parts for future missions.

[Kerbart]

Can I just say that I hate the tech tree? I mean yes NASA is developing better technologies all the time, However I think KSP deserves Science that actually means something. Like a surface sample should be used to analyze the Mun not unlock a new rock ya know? It would just be cool to get a sense of "Discovery" from the game. Agree or no?

...because NASA discovered the Space Shuttle on the moon?

Research is in the end driven by funding. Funding is supported by success. “Look, we discovered that Kerbin is round.†“Awesome, that puts that to rest. Here's some funding for more research. I hear you're interested in being able to power electrical devices on board of your rocket, maybe you should research batteries for use on board spacecraftâ€Â

What's the problem with that?

[Nano606]

I like the tech tree for the extra load of achievement when you return a ship back with all that juicy science. The only issue is that it is not long enough and i have worked out i can complete the whole thing in 4-5 launches. I have completed the tech tree so many times that it no longer holds much sense of achievement. Now with the extra biome's at Minmus i dont even have to visit another planet to top the tree out, that to me is a failing of the science unlocking system. But it is not really tailored to people of my experience level, so i can understand why it is the way it is.

The lack of ladders is not a problem in the earlier stages because unless you are leaving Kerbins SOI there is no moon you need to use them on, Jetpacks are enough for the Mun and Minmus. Only if you are leaving Kerbins SOI are they needed, and if you are at that stage so early on in the tech tree, it is an much needed added challenge. The lights being unlocked so late are the strangest thing that i dont understand.