Smoothing game progression through parts upgrade

[Kegereneku]

I have been informed that this first post isn't as explicit about what I'm actually suggesting than it could be. I'm thinking about rewriting it and redoing the picture entirely, but for now know that the 3 firsts pages of discussion are more constructive.

"Game progression" is an abstract notion in this game,

Progression in career mode (as of now) can only correlate to your advancement in the tech-tree and how much science you recovered. It doesn't matter if you explored every single bïomes and planets/moon, built thousand of small satellites or a dozen manned mission.

Furthermore, talking of "difficulty" in the game is also challenging as some players demonstrated that it was possible to max-out the tech tree on their VERY FIRST LAUNCH.

But as we know the game is not finished.

Some critical features needed to balance career mode are still absent (money, and "reputation" have been mentioned). Tomorrow, progression could depend on your Reputation, how much you explored a planet or how much budget you are given.

However, I fell that regardless of money and reputation, if the developers keep the tech-tree as it is now we might not fully appreciate the "progression".

What's my problem ?

- The technological progression doesn't feel natural (probes should come early but be limited in range by battery and comm array coming late).

- There's parts we should have right at the start, that we only get too late (I think new players would learn more easily with those available).

- The parts themselves never evolve, they are frozen in time as if they were the best right from the start.

My suggestion :

- Giving early access to more parts, that have to be upgraded (from v1 to v4).

- Thinking the order of unlocking so that "game changing" parts doesn't come too early (docking ring, RCS).

- Not fearing to make it HARD to reach orbit in career modes (Tutorial are here to simplify things).

The goodside : With evolving part can have 3 parts in one, reducing memory charge.

The downside : With evolving part all design efficiency would change over time. But, is it really a bad things to rethink our design regularly ?

Everything I said in a picture :

Edited May 14, 2014 by Kegereneku
may rewrite

[Red Iron Crown]

I strongly dislike the idea of parts with variable stats. It is a good thing to be able to evaluate a ship just by seeing a picture of it, especially when helping new players troubleshoot designs. Having better but different parts revealed later in the tree is better than a bunch of variants of one part (though there are some problems with that, too).

I'm confused by your charts, are you saying difficulty decreases as time goes on? Isn't that the opposite of just about every game?

[Ruinsage]

So you're saying that achieving orbit in the career mode is harder than doing a return mission to laythe in sandbox? That's just plain wrong. I agree that the tech tree should be overhauled, but not the way you suggest

[TechnicalK3rbal]

I concur. Nice job with the presentation, too!

[michaelhester07]

Gettin to orbit is way easier than gettin to Laythe. I haven't even been to Jool in a legit game (balanced mods). I've only been there with a suped up nuke rocket that produced 150Gs at max thrust. I wanted to see if I could make it to light speed.

Legit: I've been to duna and back, been to Eve but never returned, been to Moho but never returned. It's much harder to design missions to Jool and beyond at least in my opinion.

[Kegereneku]

I strongly dislike the idea of parts with variable stats. It is a good thing to be able to evaluate a ship just by seeing a picture of it, especially when helping new players troubleshoot designs. Having better but different parts revealed later in the tree is better than a bunch of variants of one part (though there are some problems with that, too).

I'm confused by your charts, are you saying difficulty decreases as time goes on? Isn't that the opposite of just about every game?

I understand the concern, maybe a color-code or a number of strip on the icon could do the differentiation easily

So you're saying that achieving orbit in the career mode is harder than doing a return mission to laythe in sandbox? That's just plain wrong. I agree that the tech tree should be overhauled, but not the way you suggest

Gettin to orbit is way easier than gettin to Laythe. I haven't even been to Jool in a legit game (balanced mods). I've only been there with a suped up nuke rocket that produced 150Gs at max thrust. I wanted to see if I could make it to light speed.

Legit: I've been to duna and back, been to Eve but never returned, been to Moho but never returned. It's much harder to design missions to Jool and beyond at least in my opinion.

You understood it the wrong way.

I only used "achieving orbit" as an example typical for new players. But it is harder to launch meaningful amount of cargo to orbit UNTIL you get better technology.

The problem is that for each new part you get, your ability to do thing increase NON-Linearly. Meaning that getting the technology to land on the Mun give you more than enough to land and Return from Duna.

By the time you plan go to Laythe, MOST technology accessible to you should make it EASY to design a 2 part (lander and orbital transfer ship) to do the job.

Formulating it another way, I want technological limit to be more used to shape game progression.

Reaching orbit would be slightly harder at first but the challenge would make the (example) "Mun to Duna" transition more interesting.

If the requirement to upgrade part allow to keep overachieving players challenged, it would allow the developer to give access to docking ring faster without fearing to unbalance the "progression" (as in : what you can achieve).

[Ruinsage]

So you your suggestion for it being too hard to reach orbit early career is to make the parts worse at first..

I can't figure out of you want to make the game harder or easier. You say it's hard to send "meaningful cargo*" into orbit early career, but want to implement something that in your own words means that "Reaching orbit would be slightly harder at first".

If you can reach laythe with a manned mission in sandbox but can't reach orbit in career, then you have been spending too much time over-engineering every launch.

And you have completely misunderstood difficulty curves. 1: they should not be linear, that would be overwhelming at first and boring at the end. 2: they go the other way, things are not the most difficult at first (again, you seem to have spend too much time over-engineering in sandbox, and now struggle with somewhat basic trials as you are used to throw mainsail asparagus at the problem), but are at the end.

Like this:

* I'd like to see what "meaningful cargo" is to you, I don't really send massive ships in orbit early in the game. Maybe you reach too high, the game is meant to take you through the "space program" with roughly the same steps as in real life. A.k.a. do a flyby before you land on the moon.

[regex]

The problem is that for each new part you get, your ability to do thing increase NON-Linearly. Meaning that getting the technology to land on the Mun give you more than enough to land and Return from Duna.

Unfortunately that's the nature of spaceflight. If you can land on the Mun, you only need a little more fuel to get to and land on Ike. If you can land on Minmus, you only need a little more fuel to get to and land on Gilly. A ship capable of landing on the Mun can do a fly-by of Jool. Delta-V is the deciding factor.

If you want to limit early progression you need to add meaningful time limits to flights, like life support or electrical usage for pods beyond the SAS, not cut-down parts that essentially just demand "moar boosters". Economy can accomplish some of that as well, but if it's hard for a veteran player it will be punishing for the new player.

[Ruinsage]

I just achieved orbit (landed it too) with nothing unlocked, so if you are really struggling with this, you need to play some of the tutorials.

[Sirrobert]

"

Furthermore, talking of "difficulty" in the game is also challenging as some players demonstrated that it was possible to max-out the tech tree on their VERY FIRST LAUNCH.

Really, this crap again?

First of all: It's not even possible anymore, with the addition of limited science transmission.

SECOND: The ONLY people that were able to do this were extremely skilled. You can't base your assesments of dificulty of a game on the achievements of a small elite group.

And YES this game gets easier as you play longer. But that has nothing to do with the tech tree. That has to do with YOU learning how the game WORKS.

You can't 'make it more difficult' for someone who already knows how the game works, except by, at the same time, making it IMPOSSIBLE for those that don't know how the game work.

We're doing science here. The more you know, the easier it becomes. This game's challange isn't in thougher enemys, it's ALL in knowing how the game works.

Compare it to a puzzle. Once you know how the puzzle works, it's easy to solve it. You can't make the puzzle 'more difficult'

[Weegee]

A lot of the thing you talk about (and more) are addressed in the BTSM mod. Not that a mod is the only solution, but it might interest you. Anyway, as others have said, the difficulty chart you presented doesn't make a lot of sense, and I'm not in favor of variable stats on parts. BTSM has intermediate engines, (which are stock engines on a smaller scale with different stats) but they are separate engines which make them more easily distinguishable.

[Kegereneku]

Sorry everybody for taking so long to answer.

FIRST, I say it once and for ALL : this is NOT because the game is "too hard" or "too easy" that I'm suggesting this.

I'm suggesting this because as it is now the Tech-tree of early Career-mode wouldn't make for an enjoyable "in-game progression".

Plus, the parts available at first and the way they are unlocked is fundamentally unlike how technology evolve.

Some might point out that proposing very few parts is necessary to simplify things for newcomer at first.

But as it is now it went way to far. There's a specific Tutorial to teach the player how to fly up to orbit, but the challenge is to learn how to design.

So I think Career-mode would profit of incremental evolution in the engines/technology available that would allow player's design to really "progress".

example : as of now we lack basic micro-rocket for a Mercury-like capsule, because without "upgrade" system the ones available are too efficient to be given too early in the game.

The addition of a Budget-mechanic to career-mode can limit the SIZE of rockets. But not balance the efficiency of its parts. This is why I'm suggesting "Upgrade" for parts.

I can't figure out of you want to make the game harder or easier.

[...........]

And you have completely misunderstood difficulty curves.

[...........]

the game is meant to take you through the "space program" with roughly the same steps as in real life. A.k.a. do a flyby before you land on the moon.

It's not so much a question of changing the difficulty than making the game more incremental in its progression, using technology upgrade.

Let's take your graphic :

This is common in video-game to give player's equipment/upgrade during their progression that make earlier challenge easier so they can go on progressively harder challenge without staying stuck.

But in our case the player is both (1) not allowed to research parts he need (2) is given the means to actually skip the the "real step of a space program". If I represented the Career-mode as it is now on your graphic the curve would in fact start "as high challenge" then decrease as soon as you get the right part to actually accomplish the challenge and get the skills.

You asked what I meant by "meaningful cargo" : Any mass sufficient to accomplish the mission. At first it is hard for new player, because they don't know "how to orbit", but later it's so easy that most player just over-engineer for the joy of over-engineering their over-engineered rocket rather than by actual challenge.

Unfortunately that's the nature of spaceflight. If you can land on the Mun, you only need a little more fuel to get to and land on Ike. If you can land on Minmus, you only need a little more fuel to get to and land on Gilly. A ship capable of landing on the Mun can do a fly-by of Jool. Delta-V is the deciding factor.

If you want to limit early progression you need to add meaningful time limits to flights, like life support or electrical usage for pods beyond the SAS, not cut-down parts that essentially just demand "moar boosters". Economy can accomplish some of that as well, but if it's hard for a veteran player it will be punishing for the new player.

I don't think we are on the same page.

It is exact that increasing your range in space can only require "a little more Dv", but this "little more Dv" require a Substantially bigger launcher and as of now this isn't a problem even with LV-T30 and before learning about asparagus staging you can send probes anywhere.

That's another subject but to me a "time limit" wouldn't be an appropriate solution, probes are eternal and by the time you get it (because of the sequential unlock) you get them at a point where (budget aside) good use of what you have would get you anywhere anyway.

My suggestion (upgrading parts mostly) wouldn't punish the new player as I suggest giving access to more technology (albeit less efficient), the only increase in difficulty would be barely in term of complexity.

I just achieved orbit (landed it too) with nothing unlocked, so if you are really struggling with this, you need to play some of the tutorials.

That's actually the problem. You get right from the start the technology to do about anything.

Really, this crap again?

First of all: It's not even possible anymore, with the addition of limited science transmission.

SECOND: The ONLY people that were able to do this were extremely skilled. You can't base your assesments of dificulty of a game on the achievements of a small elite group.

And YES this game gets easier as you play longer. But that has nothing to do with the tech tree. That has to do with YOU learning how the game WORKS.

Sir, you are a moron with all the respect you did not give to other.

Regardless of the change in Science-point (and again the absence of budget limitation) it is a clear demonstration that it is possible to go anywhere.

Do not twist what I said, the skills required for THAT stunt were high, but the skills needed to plot a mission to Duna is no different than for Eeloo and is perfectly possible using early tech.

As for the last phrase I quoted from you, I disagree.

Yes your skills will get better, but the tech-tree doesn't encourage that as the part needed for an actually skillful&efficient (at the opposite of clumsy&inadequate) are not possible to unlock when you need them.

A lot of the thing you talk about (and more) are addressed in the BTSM mod. Not that a mod is the only solution, but it might interest you. Anyway, as others have said, the difficulty chart you presented doesn't make a lot of sense, and I'm not in favor of variable stats on parts. BTSM has intermediate engines, (which are stock engines on a smaller scale with different stats) but they are separate engines which make them more easily distinguishable.

That sound very interesting.

More than just giving access to unmanned rocket (following a coherent evolution) it actually try to make the challenge gradual to the technology developed. It really sound like the direction I would want KSP to take.

Though it might actually get too hard for some players (life support & reentry).

[Sirrobert]

Sir, you are a moron with all the respect you did not give to other.

Regardless of the change in Science-point (and again the absence of budget limitation) it is a clear demonstration that it is possible to go anywhere.

Do not twist what I said, the skills required for THAT stunt were high, but the skills needed to plot a mission to Duna is no different than for Eeloo and is perfectly possible using early tech.

And once again.

HOW IS THAT A PROBLEM?

[Dodgey]

WHOA little bit toasty in here. Kegereneku that ad homonin was uncalled for and unconstructive. A misunderstanding is no reason to resort to a personal attack. I myself am confused. Having a look at your tech tree I can't really see any difference between yours and the stock one. What I think you are trying to do is increase the difficulty jumps from going from say Duna to Jool. Am I correct?

[allmhuran]

Really, this crap again?

First of all: It's not even possible anymore, with the addition of limited science transmission.

I don't remember seeing anyone do a single-launch-maxout before (got a link?), but I wasn't following KSP very much for a couple of updates there. What I'm inferring is that it was somehow achieved via multiple-transmission, but on a first launch your only source of power is the engine, so you can't transmit indefinitely.

I did start paying attention again at 0.23.5 and it actually is possible to max out the entire tech tree in a single launch. I was going to do a 3 part video of exactly this, but given that part 1 only got 6 upvotes on reddit and has been watched all of 200 times, I figured it's not worth my time to do that.

In any case, part 1 (which should be enough to give you the idea of how it was done) is here: http://youtu.be/MrqhNfMyLCs

Edited May 12, 2014 by allmhuran

[Comrade Jenkens]

I'm all for upgradable parts as the tech tree progresses. At the moment it seems that large parts are more efficient, more powerful and lighter than the smaller parts which is fine as they are at the end of the tech tree. However I don't want to feel forced into using them to there should be options to bring the small parts in line as the tree progresses.

And I like the idea of a coloured marker or stripe on the parts to show how much they've been upgraded.

[Ruinsage]

I'm all for upgradable parts as the tech tree progresses. At the moment it seems that large parts are more efficient, more powerful and lighter than the smaller parts which is fine as they are at the end of the tech tree. However I don't want to feel forced into using them to there should be options to bring the small parts in line as the tree progresses.

And I like the idea of a coloured marker or stripe on the parts to show how much they've been upgraded.

The reason why the larger parts are better is that you would only need to use the small parts to get to places within the SOI of kerbin. As soon as you attempt to go to another planet, you need large parts, simply because you need so much delta-V. And yes, it's possible to use asparagus designs with small parts and still get to duna, but the game is not going to be balanced for asparagus.

Sorry everybody for taking so long to answer.

Plus, the parts available at first and the way they are unlocked is fundamentally unlike how technology evolve.

How so? You start with a small and somewhat inefficient engine, then you unlock parachutes, electricity and the like. Then you get more efficient and complicated parts. That's pretty much how technology evolves (or at close to it as we can get without making the game too complicated for new players)

Some might point out that proposing very few parts is necessary to simplify things for newcomer at first.

But as it is now it went way to far. There's a specific Tutorial to teach the player how to fly up to orbit, but the challenge is to learn how to design.

Just because there is a tutorial doesn't mean that you should throw new players into the deep end immediately after they complete it. The whole point of a tech tree is to introduce new parts a few at a time as they become necessary.

The addition of a Budget-mechanic to career-mode can limit the SIZE of rockets. But not balance the efficiency of its parts. This is why I'm suggesting "Upgrade" for parts.

Not true, and if this is another "the new parts are too OP thread, then go whine somewhere else.

The more efficient parts will be more expensive, and that will balance for efficiency.

It's not so much a question of changing the difficulty than making the game more incremental in its progression, using technology upgrade.

Let's take your graphic :

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UPnFbVFn4d4/ThIlIMZ3SnI/AAAAAAAABak/ceBriAL6kkU/s320/Phases.jpg

This is common in video-game to give player's equipment/upgrade during their progression that make earlier challenge easier so they can go on progressively harder challenge without staying stuck.

But in our case the player is both (1) not allowed to research parts he need (2) is given the means to actually skip the the "real step of a space program". If I represented the Career-mode as it is now on your graphic the curve would in fact start "as high challenge" then decrease as soon as you get the right part to actually accomplish the challenge and get the skills.

That's a load of crap. You don't get stuck with the current tech tree, and if you do then you need to improve. Just because you want docking ports earlier isn't the same as not getting the parts you need. And yes, you can skip the steps of the actual space programs, if you know how to do it, but new players are unlikely to, as they are slowly learning how to do things. Of course starting with the knowledge to get to duna will make it easy to skip some steps, you can't balance for that, and trying to is moronic.

I don't think we are on the same page.

It is exact that increasing your range in space can only require "a little more Dv", but this "little more Dv" require a Substantially bigger launcher and as of now this isn't a problem even with LV-T30 and before learning about asparagus staging you can send probes anywhere.

Which is why probes get's much less science.

My suggestion (upgrading parts mostly) wouldn't punish the new player as I suggest giving access to more technology (albeit less efficient), the only increase in difficulty would be barely in term of complexity.

Giving the new player access to a lot more technology with the addition of labeling them with efficiency upgrades will make the game a lot more complex and overwhelming for new players, not "barely increase the difficulty"

Sir, you are a moron with all the respect you did not give to other.

Regardless of the change in Science-point (and again the absence of budget limitation) it is a clear demonstration that it is possible to go anywhere.

Do not twist what I said, the skills required for THAT stunt were high, but the skills needed to plot a mission to Duna is no different than for Eeloo and is perfectly possible using early tech.

I also don't see a problem with that.

if you want to balance the early game for experienced players, then you are the one that is a moron.

[Kegereneku]

And once again.

HOW IS THAT A PROBLEM?

The part you put in BOLD isn't the problem, the problem is that by the time you unlocked 10% of all tech you are likely to be able to reach any planet, do any challenge, regardless of the skills necessary.

My "the skills is the same" is here to highlight that once the player know how to do basic orbital maneuver like an Hohmann Transfert, he isn't challenged by the "difficulty to pilot" but the "difficulty to design", something I feel the tech-tree doesn't address well.

For a Game that is emulating the difficulty of actual space agency to send any gram on another planet, being able to plan a Duna(orbit)-Manned-Return before the Mun doesn't "feel right".

But then, people can like incomplete game if they want and refuse any change. It's all subjective.

WHOA little bit toasty in here. Kegereneku that ad homonin was uncalled for and unconstructive. A misunderstanding is no reason to resort to a personal attack. I myself am confused. Having a look at your tech tree I can't really see any difference between yours and the stock one. What I think you are trying to do is increase the difficulty jumps from going from say Duna to Jool. Am I correct?

Indeed, it was slightly over called for, however I think you got to tell them.

About the difficulty jump, yes it can be seen like that.

I prefer to say that it increase the number of "step" and might require you to start with probes before you send a manned mission. (the game is unjust against probes but that's something else)

The idea is that rather than "unlocking 100% efficient parts" in a near-sequentially manner, with HUGE progression step, you would be able to "upgrade in parallel 50% efficients parts" in a less-sequentially manner, with more reason to switch between parts as their efficiency change.

And the whole thing would make the design process less frustrating.

An example is that you would be able to obtain a 50% efficient micro-engine for your Mercury-like flight.

- Without being forced to use a ridiculously powerful, heavy and unrealistic LV-T30 because you had nothing else.

- Without the developers risking to give you an engine too efficient allowing you to waltz on any orbit at the point of the game.

Talking of "sequential unlocking" my drawing also tried to suggest that while you can unlock [Part A at 50%] earlier, you need [Part A at 75%] to unlock [Part B].

The reason why the larger parts are better is that you would only need to use the small parts to get to places within the SOI of kerbin. As soon as you attempt to go to another planet, you need large parts, simply because you need so much delta-V. And yes, it's possible to use asparagus designs with small parts and still get to duna, but the game is not going to be balanced for asparagus.

Are you sure you really understand the relationship between thrust, specific impulse, the mass of the engines and the resulting Delta-V ?

Bigger engine are usually for ascent stage as they "give more thrust", but 8x LVT-30/45 can be more efficient than one Mainsail. And once you are in orbit small high-ISP smaller engine rules. Which mean that to go to another planet you actually need "weight efficient engine" regardless of size.

The game HAVE to be balanced for asparagus. By that I mean that even if the Devs consider Asparagus "not the way it should be played", they'll have to make sure a well made Asparagus won't allow too much more than linear staging.

How so? You start with a small and somewhat inefficient engine, then you unlock parachutes, electricity and the like. Then you get more efficient and complicated parts. That's pretty much how technology evolves (or at close to it as we can get without making the game too complicated for new players)

Just because there is a tutorial doesn't mean that you should throw new players into the deep end immediately after they complete it. The whole point of a tech tree is to introduce new parts a few at a time as they become necessary.

Last I know you start with a 100% efficient LVT-30, an engine that stay weight-efficient until you gain access to a 100% efficient Skipper.

The whole problem of a bundle-centered tech-tree in an incomplete game is that it can be maladjusted, unbalanced and not as fun as alternatives (like a part-centered tech-tree + upgrade).

On the other hand, the mere ability to upgrade both a LV-T30 and a LV-909 allow a player to build an interesting rocket while keeping the early game challenging.

Some people might consider New-players as idiot with attention-deficit disorder that need to be carefully guided to orbit without distracting them with "too many parts".

Me, I KNOW that new players aren't moron, that if they see (OH MY GOD !) two engines, they'll get it that the smaller one should be used on later stage. (or have fun testing)

And I THINK that new players would prefer to have more part to play with even if the game make it slightly more challenging to reach orbit. (so they don't skip step accidentally)

And the same way, if you tell player that you can upgrade the engine 2 or 3 times, it won't be anywhere more difficult than understanding DeltaV which is a requirement to appreciate the game.

Kerbal Space Program may look cartoon, it may be voluntarily easier than Orbiter but it still aim player who like that sort of complexity.

Not true, and if this is another "the new parts are too OP thread, then go whine somewhere else.

The more efficient parts will be more expensive, and that will balance for efficiency.

No, no, here that's just you trying to discredit me.

Yes the more efficient parts will be more expensive, but if you need a small engines but the game frustratingly (against common sense) don't let you develop one, this is NOT balanced.

Once Again : The addition of money and budget in Career-mode will balance the SIZE of the rocket. However it won't balance it's usefulness.

That's a load of crap. You don't get stuck with the current tech tree, and if you do then you need to improve. Just because you want docking ports earlier isn't the same as not getting the parts you need. And yes, you can skip the steps of the actual space programs, if you know how to do it, but new players are unlikely to, as they are slowly learning how to do things. Of course starting with the knowledge to get to duna will make it easy to skip some steps, you can't balance for that, and trying to is moronic.

There's a misunderstanding.

You don't get "stuck" as much as you get "frustrated" of not being able to develop a smaller (engine or structural) part that would totally fit on your rocket, and are stuck into building a big machine that explode on the launch pad.

You can actually balance for the skill of the player, but what matter more to me is to make the game progression more interesting.

The way I see it :

- If you only balance using money, the skilled player will still be able to do anything because the parts are given at 100% efficiency, and the new player will still be trying to make up for the lack of parts.

- If you balance using both money and upgrade, the skilled player will have more challenge trying to "outrun" the game, but the new player will get parts more adapted to what he is trying to do (ex: an unmanned probes to scout the Mun).

Said another way, right now you need to use glitchs or exploits in the game to build the rocket you need.

On the long run there is no actual difference between players and my suggestion is STILL for Developers to make a tools more suited to technological progression.

Some games abuse upgrade mechanism to artificially inflate their longevity, but I think KSP is not using it enough (yet ?).

Which is why probes get's much less science.

Actually that's because they are realistically superior to manned mission.

But talking of game-design some players (like me) asked for Antenna to be used to limit the range of probes, so it doesn't need to be nerfed illogically.

We have suggestion thread because the way the game is NOW isn't necessarily the best way it could be.

For example the grindy nature of science now.

Many players would prefer a game more centered around millstones than around farming science-point.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Kegereneku

[Sirrobert]

You ever landed and returned something on Duna without docking ports?

Cause you unlock those alot later, and they sure as hell make extraplanetairy stuf alot easier.

Sure you CAN fly to Eloo with the bare basics, but it becomes alot easier when you unlock docking ports, or 2,5m parts, or even further, 3,75m parts.

And that is your dificulty. The more you unlock, the easier it will become

[Kegereneku]

As I said in my very post, defining progression or difficulty is more complicated than we can think. Especially since the whole community is full of talented players posting dozen of Mun-base and probes on Laythe. People not only think "it's not complicated to reach orbit" but "it shouldn't be"

However we are talking of a Career mode where your space agency will evolve with technology and hopefully emulate a real space agency (in better).

What's this mean is that we need a slower-but-more-fulfilling progression. Achieving orbit at the 2nd flight and the Mun in 3/4 isn't what I would call fulfilling.

But slowing the progression doesn't mean depriving the player from actually useful technology or engines and asking them to grind science-point. And that's why I suggesting all this : Let's have the engines and tech ! Just make them less efficient at first (for the same price).

For your question :

Duna gravity being way lower than Kerbin you can get away with a multi-stage ascent-return stage fairly easily. Fortunately a mission budget is unlikely to allow that.

I once took and returned a Kerbun out of Laythe before we had docking. I used two ship and transfered the crew.

So yes, docking is more or less the ultimate invention that truly allow everything that's why it come late in fact, but it shouldn't have to historically docking was possible very soon.

So put aside the tech-tree (way to rigid for me) the creation of a budget gameplay mechanic also have a very important role to play to keep player from launching infinite amount of tanker.

[Red Iron Crown]

I believe historically accurate progression has been compromised in KSP for game balance reasons.

Orbit should be relatively easy to achieve if you know a bit about what you're doing because it's the first or second goal most players attempt. I think making it so difficult that it's a challenge for experienced players would do new players a disservice.

[Comrade Jenkens]

The reason why the larger parts are better is that you would only need to use the small parts to get to places within the SOI of kerbin. As soon as you attempt to go to another planet, you need large parts, simply because you need so much delta-V. And yes, it's possible to use asparagus designs with small parts and still get to duna, but the game is not going to be balanced for asparagus.

That still doesn't explain why they should be more efficient as well. By that logic Saturn V should be more efficient than something like Falcon 9 which definitely isn't the case. I've always used 1.25m rockets to put probes round the system.

[Sirrobert]

Really? What sounds more fulfilling (and less boring) to you?

Getting orbit after 2 launches, or being forced to grind sub-orbital rockets for 10 launches before you even stand a chance?

If you have less efficient engines, it's EXACTLY THE SAME as not having the technology.

Either I can STILL get to space with my less efficient engine (ergo making your entire point worthless), or I might not have it, because I can't get any further with it than without it

[Comrade Jenkens]

Really? What sounds more fulfilling (and less boring) to you?

Getting orbit after 2 launches, or being forced to grind sub-orbital rockets for 10 launches before you even stand a chance?

If you have less efficient engines, it's EXACTLY THE SAME as not having the technology.

Either I can STILL get to space with my less efficient engine (ergo making your entire point worthless), or I might not have it, because I can't get any further with it than without it

At no point did the OP suggest nerfing engines to the point where they are unusable. The idea of upgrading engines means that at the start of career mode an engine such as the LV-230 could have say 200kN of thrust and an ISP of 320. This would be well suited for attaining orbit still. By the end of the tree you could be using the same part still but for the type of missions you'd be more likely to be working on then such as Jool tours. By then the LV-T30 could have something like 250kN of thrust and an ISP of 380.

This way the same parts could remain useful throughout the game without forcing the player to build in a certain way in order to progress.

[Carmoldu]

I think you have a point. It's a bit surrealist that you can make rockets but don't have wheels, for example. I think that the most frustrating thing related to this when starting is that you don't have any way to store electricity, for example... A tech tree like the one you purpose would certainly solve that problem. Actually interstellar mod is using this for their parts: you get "interstellar science points" using their lab and with this points you can upgrade their parts in order to make them more efficient.

I think that the problem here is that you are not explaining yourself well and is causing a huge misunderstanding... It's not about making the start harder by nerfing everything, but giving the basics to build a consistent rocket from the start. As this would fasten out the process of completing the tech tree, a way to make this process slower and more challenging is by making parts upgradable. This would also be fairly more similar to a real project process: you have various areas covered (power, engines, controll, whatever...) and you advance in this branches.