Unlocking taller fuel tanks before shorter ones in the tech tree

[CaptRobau]

At the moment the tech tree has the player unlock the smaller fuel tanks of a certain size (1.25m, 2.5m, etc.) before the larger ones. This order doesn't work at all. The smaller ones allow the player to form taller tanks from multiple smaller ones, at no downside. As such unlocking the taller ones in the next node does not add extra gameplay decisions. It just makes your rockets less ugly and requires you to rebuild your launch vehicles to replace the multiple short tanks with the taller ones. Flipping the unlock order would create more interesting gameplay, would make career rockets look less ugly and would mean less launch vehicle rebuilding for aesthetic reasons.

How does shorter before taller make career more interesting? It forces you to build crude and big, before you can go smaller and refined. Let's take the 1.25m tech as an example of what the change could result in: you start with the first tech node and you get the FL-T800. Combined with a T-30 most will be able to get into space or at least in the upper atmosphere. But combined with the (lack of) other parts in that node, you'll have a difficult time to make a multi-stage orbital rocket. In the next node you get the FL-T400, the T-45 and the stack decoupler. This will allow you build a launch vehicle that can get you to orbit. Example: a couple of engines and T800s in the first stage, a single T800 and engine in a second upper atmosphere stage and a final stage with a T400 tank to push you through the vacuum of space into orbit. But the lack of smaller tanks will make more advanced designs difficult to make, as the large tanks are cumbersome to rotate. Service modules for maneuvering in space will benefit a lot from the smaller T-200 and T-100 tanks. So you'll be inclined to unlock the node that has them.

What does everyone think? Would this be better or not?

[Wanderfound]

Initially I thought no, but on consideration that actually makes sense. Small can do everything big can do, but not vice-versa.

[Kegereneku]

I see the logic gameplay speaking, but I disagree with it.

For verisimilitude with real rocket science we've never been limited by how small we could make the tank but how much mass we could propel with the engines we had. Leading the American to build HUGE thruster and Russian to build a LOT of smaller thrusters.

Also I really don't want to be forced to build "rude and crude", more like "finely tuned but limited". Just like I want thermometer and barometer before can material and crazy goo.

In any case the tech-tree HAVE to be remade, first because there's Better Than Starting Manned, then because even if I start with manned ship I want to be able to design a "Mercury" capsule as a new pinnacle of my Space Program, rather than being able to put 10 tons into orbit right of the bat but have no use for it so soon in the tech tree.

That was my logic some month ago for why I had suggested (as others) upgradable engine. Now I'll settle for smaller parts allowing to make unmanned sub orbital experiment.

[Starwhip]

I see the logic gameplay speaking, but I disagree with it.

For verisimilitude with real rocket science we've never been limited by how small we could make the tank but how much mass we could propel with the engines we had. Leading the American to build HUGE thruster and Russian to build a LOT of smaller thrusters.

Also I really don't want to be forced to build "rude and crude", more like "finely tuned but limited". Just like I want thermometer and barometer before can material and crazy goo.

In any case the tech-tree HAVE to be remade, first because there's Better Than Starting Manned, then because even if I start with manned ship I want to be able to design a "Mercury" capsule as a new pinnacle of my Space Program, rather than being able to put 10 tons into orbit right of the bat but have no use for it so soon in the tech tree.

That was my logic some month ago for why I had suggested (as others) upgradable engine. Now I'll settle for smaller parts allowing to make unmanned sub orbital experiment.

NEVERMIND: I though you said *all* the small instruments, for some reason. That would be REALLY overpowered, that GRAVMAX detector gives hundreds of science per flight for me.

I'm not sure about this. Perhaps the middle-sized ones, and then split into the two extremes?

[Red Iron Crown]

Initially I thought no, but on consideration that actually makes sense. Small can do everything big can do, but not vice-versa.

My thoughts, too. Smaller tanks allow more granular design, the larger ones force the player into simpler, more step-wise construction. This is a good suggestion, if a bit counterintuitive.

In any case the tech-tree HAVE to be remade, first because there's Better Than Starting Manned, then because even if I start with manned ship I want to be able to design a "Mercury" capsule as a new pinnacle of my Space Program, rather than being able to put 10 tons into orbit right of the bat but have no use for it so soon in the tech tree.

This I don't agree with. Kerbals don't have to follow the progression humans took, they seem far less risk-averse than humans are and to my mind would not resist the idea of doing things manned first. There's also the idea that the tech-tree is not meant to realistically simulate progression but to provide parts limitations to make the game easier for new players. The tech tree could certainly use some refinement but I'd be disappointed if manned flight was not available from day 1.

[Bill Phil]

In any case the tech-tree HAVE to be remade, first because there's Better Than Starting Manned, then because even if I start with manned ship I want to be able to design a "Mercury" capsule as a new pinnacle of my Space Program, rather than being able to put 10 tons into orbit right of the bat but have no use for it so soon in the tech tree.

Of course, if you think about it, if history was different, we would have started manned. BIS had a moon vehicle design in the 1930s. The THIRTIES. So in actuality, starting manned kind of makes MORE sense.....

Although I think manned isn't the right word....

On topic: I see the point, but I got into orbit with 1st node parts, so I don't see how changing the order would do much good.

[Whirligig Girl]

YES! The taller fuel tanks DEFINITELY need to be unlocked first. The only advantage of longer tanks really is less partcount. If you unlock longer tanks first you are more limited in what you can do, because you can't fine-tune the fueltank size nearly as much.

[Kegereneku]

My statement that there is indeed Better Than Starting Manned -regardless of how insane Kerbal are- also addressed the Gameplay itself.

This is not a matter of historical reenaction. This is physics, tech progression & Design choices.

Manned rocket are necessarily bigger and heavier. Mass-to-Orbit is the universal indicator of our progression.

To make manned-rocket "novice friendly" require to hand them the most interesting engines before one even get to learn about energy usage, torque wheels, proper staging, and it bypass occasions to learn several other game mechanic.

Giving also access to probes (or probe sized parts) would allow :

- to do Better Than Starting Manned.

- a proper game balance (one of the first thruster you have are Solid Booster, giving so much acceleration it should knock-out Kerbals)

- a believable technological progression (it's not like probes aren't NERFED to favor Kerbal)

- to learn control/staging without killing kerbal or reverting

- to learn about energy consumption before stranding a Kerbal in orbit

- To do part-testing contract with absurd fine-print. (Contract were also a place-holder, like many other feature)

...etc

Plus, since Kerbal will gain XP it's said they'll "improve engine efficiency" just by being there anyway.

I insist that right now the Tech-tree is a place-holder, it haven't seen any major change since it's first crude implementation (as there was nothing to balance), thus it is illogical (ex : being unable to just BUY structural part/decoupler you need), it spread like a tree just the sake of being called tech-tree (this isn't the only way to ever represent technological progression) and the research cost increase in a primitive logarithmic curve (as there was no biomes further further than Minmus).

In the end this isn't a question of replacing manned-capsule by unmanned-probes, this a question of making Orbit something to be proud of again without nerfing the engines and while respecting said Mass-to-Orbit universal indicator.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Kegereneku

[Red Iron Crown]

That makes no sense to me. Just about any engine can get a manned pod to orbit, I don't see how starting manned requires "the most interesting engines". Mass-to-orbit is not an indicator of progression, if so real life rocketry hasn't progressed since Saturn V. Probe cores can be considered overpowered compared to manned pods, as they are much less massive with no penalty in control. There is no indication that kerbals are as sensitive to G-forces as humans. Kerbal XP will not affect engine efficiency, that planned mechanic has been dropped. Getting to orbit is still something to be proud of, I don't see how starting with a probe core changes that.

[David H]

What about changing the amount of fuel in each tank as well.

Example

The small tank holds 5 tons of fuel.

Medium holds 11.5 tons.

Large hold 25 tons.

Its cheaper easier to build ship and put together a few small tanks than it is to bring in one large oversize tank.

Would also change the way you design.

2 small tank (or currently 1 medium) gets you just shy of orbit and a rendezvous of station.

Add another small and now you have to much leftover. Also I designed my ship to carry X number of tons. Adding 5 more tons would require another booster/fuel tank and engine.

If changed 1 medium would get me up rendezvous and just enough to deorbit the case.

This would justify opening small tanks 1st.

Leave the cost as is.

With new technology tanks become thinner lighter larger and cheaper to build.

Edited November 5, 2014 by David H

[prophet_01]

I think small tanks first are a good idea. Regarding the gameplay that would slow down the early progress of experienced players and make the tech tree actually matter. At the moment I think most of us could easily pull of a munar (or at least minmus) landing as soon as decouplers are available. I think that isn't a good thing. At least it would make it harder to do so right away and it might bring the mission profiles vloser to a more realistic progression.

That part of gameplay appears to me as being much more relevant than a somewhat historical tech tree.

also, people who are new to the game are entertained by the comic style and the reason why they aren't initially scared is the goofy art style. Kerbals in rockets that scream or grin like idiots are a big part of the game's charm. Imo that should stay the way it is

Edited November 5, 2014 by prophet_01

[bv1]

Why not just give better incentive to use larger tanks? Simply reduce their dry weight and cost.

[Laie]

Hmmm. Trying to recall my first steps in KSP, I think I quickly stacked a lot of tanks on each other, only to discover the concept of wobblyness and the value of struts and launch clamps (which I wanted to unlock with that launch).

+1 to what Prophet said about Charming' Jeb.

[Jouni]

Large fuel tanks already reduce the part count and make rockets more rigid. Both are substantial benefits when you start building big, so we don't really need any more incentives for using them.