A more intuitive tech tree

[sherkaner]

I as said, I would take your picture as a concept demonstration rather than a route plan to polish.

It's expected to go through many change, Engines stats are going to change with the upgrade of the Aerodynamic model, new parts are to be expected, all might create new dynamic susceptible to ask for a reorder. Also one token guy might consider the Dockport .jr should come first as it is technologically less advanced...etc

Plus, in the end it's SQUAD who will have the last words.

Oh yeah, agreed. The only reason I'm talking details here is that it actually seems like I might be able to put something together to play with now. But for Squad, I hope this will mostly just show that this idea is a good one and can be balanced out to be a more satisfying approach than what we can currently.

[sherkaner]

OK Questions first:

1. Why did you make the stability enhancer dependent on the radial decoupler?

2. Why place the mini decoupler and separator after the medium?

3. Same question for the clampotron junior.

4. Same question for Oscar fuel tank.

5. I think I already know the answer but why make the klaw dependent on docking ports? It's a modified docking port out of laziness on Squads part (or time constraints) more than anything else.

6. What does the line connecting the "Mk2 Cockpit" and "Mk2 Liquid fuel fuselage short" mean?

7. Why is the structural intake last in that branch?

8. Why are the radial RCS tanks so late?

9. Why are the Xenon tanks dependent on all the RCS tanks before them?

10. Why make RCS thrusters dependent on the the little orange LFO engine?

11. Why make the O-10 and Vernor dependent like that and not the other way around? I think you went by function, rather than technology.

12. Why make the ion engine technically dependent on a battery? I know it's practically dependent, but you could do it the way you did the RTG. Available late, with no dependency.

13. Why is the gravioli detector not a part of the sensor branch?

You can probably tell a lot of these are veiled suggestions, but I'll go through my exact thoughts later when you answer.

First, thanks a lot for looking in detail and giving these suggestions. I'm going to reply here with my thinking on these, although I'm not very defensive at all about any of them. My thinking is generally based on a combination of gameplay and what I'll call storytelling (ie. in-game realism) reasons.

1. Gameplay: Although I like the idea of having the stability enhancer much earlier in the game, I thought it would be good to have it at least not in that set of first-column parts (which again, I might even consider to be starting freebies). Storytelling: I figured that R&D would apply radial decoupler technology to the stability enhancer's breakaway.
   
2. Yeah, I struggled with that and you'll see that I applied a similar chain to a variety of parts (nose cones, rover wheels, docking ports, fuel tanks, liquid/solid engines...) for the following reasons: Gameplay: The medium version is the one that the player is really going to need to use first, and so I considered the smaller and larger ones to be variations on that. I didn't want to start them with a smaller part that could be confusing by not being immediately useful. Storytelling: I head-canon'd my gameplay choice by saying that both miniaturization and up-sizing the nominal medium part would take R&D work, with the medium being the nominal case on which other versions would be based (since it would be needed first practically).
   
3. See #2
   
4. See #2
   
5. Hm, I just sort of found it in that category and didn't give it much thought (beyond adding that input line from the OKTO on the idea of it requiring some control tech). But yeah, it doesn't seem very connected. Perhaps I'll just make that a prerequisiteless level 2 part?
   
6. Holdover from an earlier version that I forgot to delete. Oops. Early on I thought that there might be a requirement of developing the cockpit to prove "Mk2 technology" before any other Mk2 parts, but I did away with that.
   
7. Unless I'm failing to understand something (very possible), I thought that was the most advanced intake part, looking at the specs. It's quite small, strong, radial mounted, and sucks as much air as the whole Mk1 fuselage intake. The intakes kind of confused me though to be honest. You'll notice I didn't even include the XM-G50 because it makes no sense to me. But I'm very open to guidance on a better way of structuring the intake tree overall.
   
8. Hm, in retrospect, no really good reason. Maybe I'll pull the Stratus-V parts back into level 1 as branches off the FL-R25 or even the FL-T200?
   
9. Mostly storytelling: They're similar-looking radial tanks. But especially with #8, maybe those are just prerequisiteless level 3 parts.
   
10. Gameplay: I wanted to avoid having the RCS thrusters in the first column since they won't be useful to a new player immediately (but I did want them available quickly). Storytelling: The Rockomax 24-77 serves as a proof-of principle for smaller thrusters not based on big LV-style motors with big bells, but quickly gets spun off into a separate chain of monopropellant and LF/O thrusters.
    
11. Gameplay: The Vernor is pricier and uniquely provides LF/O RCS functionality. Storytelling: Actually I didn't pay attention to this -- really I should have the Vernor follow from the LV-1R (ie. compact radial LF/O engine), not the O-10 (monoprop based). The O-10 feels like it should follow only from the LV-1R as well, as a monoprop-based derivative. I'll change that.
    
12. I went back and forth on that. Storytelling: It seemed "cute" to have it dependent on advanced electrical technology, given how ion engines work. But yeah, I could have it be a prerequisiteless level 3 part if it seemed onerous to force the player to plunge through battery tech to get there. I still sort of like it as is to make it feel more unique, but I could be convinced.
    
13. Storytelling: I vaguely was classifying the science instruments into "direct measurement" and "sample observation" and in my head canon the gravioli detector was using some kind of substance as a detection intermediate, sort of like those huge underground water pools for neutrino detection. But my feeling on this (and the science tree organization in general) is super super weak.
    

With all that said, honestly if you disagree with my reasoning on any of these, I'd tend to defer to your judgment as I'm not yet as deep a KSP player as you or many others. So definitely let me know and I'll work on a rev of this that I can use as a basis for a tech tree .cfg file for us to play with (although of course any of you guys would be able to mess with a .cfg file that I make anyway).

[ghpstage]

I like the idea of getting rid of bulk part techs, and swapping to the puchase of single parts. It would allow the tech tree to be spread out, with both a much higher total cost, and higher costs for later parts without hitting the feel of progress too hard. It would also allow for a lot of variety in play.

I wouldn't want the solar panel to be available at the start as it relegates batteries to solar reservoirs

Also, with this tech tree and the current physics model, Stayputniks could go to Jool with only the 909 engine tech!

Most of the other issues I have with the starter part arise from balance problems, for example,

• The external seat would currently allow EVA before it would normally be possible.
  
• External seat can also be used to fly a rocket through the atmosphere making it a very low weight option for early Mun and Minmus landings.
  
• Jet engines are currently far and away the most effective first stage for lighter craft
  
• Thermometer is repeatable and has a very high transmission rate compared to goo, so would be difficult to justify it coming earlier!
  

Another important change thats needed for any tech tree to work, is in the costs of techs and availability of science points. Right now, even on hard you can get science to clear most, if not all of the tree in the Kerbal SOI. Random missions giving science, particularly those silly orbital tests of small engines (30+!) only makes it worse.

The cost gradient for techs needs to increase, and the science multipliers need to be smaller near home, and larger on harder to reach bodies.

Edited December 27, 2014 by ghpstage

[sherkaner]

I wouldn't want the solar panel to be available at the start as it relegates batteries to solar reservoirs

Also, with this tech tree and the current physics model, Stayputniks could go to Jool with only the 909 engine tech!

Actually I agree with you, I think I'll move solar panels in a bit deeper. Not much though to be honest -- to me it's kind of silly to have to strap batteries all over a craft for lack of basic solars. I don't really see how that makes the game any more fun, or poses any interesting design challenges to the player.

Most of the other issues I have with the starter part arise from balance problems, for example,

• The external seat would currently allow EVA before it would normally be possible.
  
• External seat can also be used to fly a rocket through the atmosphere making it a very low weight option for early Mun and Minmus landings.
  
• Jet engines are currently far and away the most effective first stage for lighter craft
  
• Thermometer is repeatable and has a very high transmission rate compared to goo, so would be difficult to justify it coming earlier!
  

• I don't see what you mean.
  
• Well, I would be shocked if that ability doesn't go away in 0.91 with the aero revamp. Clearly the chair is not meant for atmospheric traversal ultimately.
  
• For rockets? If so that's news to me (although perhaps you're right), and would indicate that jet engines probably need some rebalancing as a part.
  
• I expected somebody to mention that, and you're right. I made the assumption (without saying so until now) that the thermometer's science return would be scaled back significantly to be placed where I have it. I'm actually assuming that *all* of the science instruments are going to go through a pretty enormous rebalancing as I don't think they make a whole lot of sense right now. So that part of my tech tree is probably the least immediately-correct section in the entire thing.
  

Another important change thats needed for any tech tree to work, is in the costs of techs and availability of science points. Right now, even on hard you can get science to clear most, if not all of the tree in the Kerbal SOI. Random missions giving science, particularly those silly orbital tests of small engines (30+!) only makes it worse.

The cost gradient for techs needs to increase, and the science multipliers need to be smaller near home, and larger on harder to reach bodies.

You're right, but I'm not going to concern myself about that too much. I'm more interested in getting the general flow of the R&D right, and the costs can trivially be adjusted later to fit it. That said, I'll at least try to come up with some sensible costs with an updated .cfg file, but don't expect me to put a huge amount of thought into fixing the overall game-pacing problem.

[Baythan]

• Jet engines are currently far and away the most effective first stage for lighter craft
  

@ghpstage: The problem with this point is that there's no way to make even a rudimentary airplane WITHOUT the basic jet engine. Strapping wings onto liquid rockets is NOT the way I would do my starting career mode. As I've said, I want to do things the "Wright Way" with airplanes first instead of rockets. I wouldn't mind prop engines instead, from something like the Firespitter mod, as a stock starting point for airplanes. Until we get something like that, basic air intakes and a basic jet engine should be available from the beginning.

• For rockets? If so that's news to me (although perhaps you're right), and would indicate that jet engines probably need some rebalancing as a part.
  

@sherkaner: I don't think the jet engine is a good engine to use for a rockets as it's efficiency drops quickly above 5km.

[sherkaner]

I like it!

Also, I think the QBE probe might be too early, but I don't know what pilot skill level it has programmed in.

By the way, I looked into the piloting abilities of the various drone cores and actually (mostly by accident), I think I've gotten the order just right. Stayputnik has nothing, QBE has only basic SAS as does OKTO, HECS adds prograde/retrograde hold, then heading into R&D level 2 OKTO2 adds radial/normal hold, and then beyond to the RC and Mk2 cores that add the rest.

By the way, I imagine that probe cores in this system will be -- even if available early -- be quite pricey since piloting skills are at a premium. Given that even basic SAS is a big deal now though, I imagine the costs for go up to even QBE may be pretty significant.

[CaptainKipard]

!!!!!!!! I just finished writing my long response and the page refreshed and only auto-saved a small part.

God damnit this is annoying!

Edited December 27, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[sherkaner]

!!!!!!!! I just finished writing my long response and the page refreshed and only auto-saved a small part.

Gah, don't give up, I want to hear it!

[ghpstage]

Actually I agree with you, I think I'll move solar panels in a bit deeper. Not much though to be honest -- to me it's kind of silly to have to strap batteries all over a craft for lack of basic solars. I don't really see how that makes the game any more fun, or poses any interesting design challenges to the player.

Yes, getting them early is fine, but for early satellites and even Mun probes, being able to use massed batteries are an interesting option imo. Makes you think about the power usage a little bit.

• I don't see what you mean.
  
• Well, I would be shocked if that ability doesn't go away in 0.91 with the aero revamp. Clearly the chair is not meant for atmospheric traversal ultimately.
  
• For rockets? If so that's news to me (although perhaps you're right), and would indicate that jet engines probably need some rebalancing as a part.
  
• I expected somebody to mention that, and you're right. I made the assumption (without saying so until now) that the thermometer's science return would be scaled back significantly to be placed where I have it. I'm actually assuming that *all* of the science instruments are going to go through a pretty enormous rebalancing as I don't think they make a whole lot of sense right now. So that part of my tech tree is probably the least immediately-correct section in the entire thing.
  

• External seats don't allow crew reports, they are counted as EVA instead. In career right now, to go EVA offworld you need a building upgrade, but swapping to the external seat on the pad would be fair game.
  
• Hopefully yes
  
• If you look in this thread about sub 18ton Mun landers, it is dominated by lightweight, very cheap, jet lifted rockets. The efficiency in the low altitudes where rockets suck is insane. It would allow for very early (maybe even immediate?) Mun and Minmus landings.
  
• 'Hence why I mentioned them as 'balance issues', it covers all of these but I suspect a lot of it will slip through!
  

You're right, but I'm not going to concern myself about that too much. I'm more interested in getting the general flow of the R&D right, and the costs can trivially be adjusted later to fit it. That said, I'll at least try to come up with some sensible costs with an updated .cfg file, but don't expect me to put a huge amount of thought into fixing the overall game-pacing problem.

Yep, it would be a heck of a lot of work. Wasn't suggesting that you do it, I hadn't even realised it was a mod concept

@ghpstage: The problem with this point is that there's no way to make even a rudimentary airplane WITHOUT the basic jet engine. Strapping wings onto liquid rockets is NOT the way I would do my starting career mode. As I've said, I want to do things the "Wright Way" with airplanes first instead of rockets. I wouldn't mind prop engines instead, from something like the Firespitter mod, as a stock starting point for airplanes. Until we get something like that, basic air intakes and a basic jet engine should be available from the beginning.

My comments weren't a rejection of early aircraft, or even jets, just commenting on the balance issues that would arise with physics as currently implemented (I really think people could land on the Mun on the first launch!). Better aerodynamics and rebalancing will hopefully alleviate this issue.

Also, +1 to props!

[CaptainKipard]

I'll abbreviate it, so it might look rude. Sorry.

1. Gameplay From the beginning of the game you have the opportunity to test parts "landed at kerbin" The part is useful for holding weird test monstrosities.

Storytelling Afaik all rockets since V2 had a launch tower or stabiliser of some sort.

2, 3, 4. OK, but it might be a good idea to rearrange for early access to small unmanned craft first if the new aero model comes with fairings.

5. Asteroid detection is available at tier 3 of the tracking station.

6. OK

7. I don't understand intake configs myself. Here's an explanation.

8. Branch radial tanks off of FL-T200. Keep as separate branch from stack tanks. I only use stack RCS tanks for resupply ships or if RCS is the primary propulsion method.

9. Prerequisiteless level 3 parts sounds ok.

10. Sounds reasonable.

11. Sounds alright.

12. Gameplay Ion missions near the sun can get away with solar panels and not much power storage.

Storytelling I think more power storage would be a requirement of Ion propulsion only after it's been theorised, but it doesn't make sense to have the large battery after the engine, so keep them separate but still on the same tier. Engine with no prerequisites.

13. It only irks me because it looks like all other sensors.

If you look in this thread about sub 18ton Mun landers, it is dominated by lightweight, very cheap, jet lifted rockets. The efficiency in the low altitudes where rockets suck is insane. It would allow for very early (maybe even immediate?) Mun and Minmus landings.

FAR nerfs all jet engine thrust values by a half. I imagine when the new aero model arrives the stock configs will undergo something similar.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[sherkaner]

I'll abbreviate it, so it might look rude. Sorry.

1. Gameplay From the beginning of the game you have the opportunity to test parts "landed at kerbin" The part is useful for holding weird test monstrosities.

Storytelling Afaik all rockets since V2 had a launch tower or stabiliser of some sort.

2, 3, 4. OK, but it might be a good idea to rearrange for early access to small unmanned craft first if the new aero model comes with fairings.

5. Asteroid detection is available at tier 3 of the tracking station.

6. OK

7. I don't understand intake configs myself. Here's an explanation.

8. Branch radial tanks off of FL-T200. Keep as separate branch from stack tanks. I only use stack RCS tanks for resupply ships or if RCS is the primary propulsion method.

9. Prerequisiteless level 3 parts sounds ok.

10. Sounds reasonable.

11. Sounds alright.

12. Gameplay Ion missions near the sun can get away with solar panels and not much power storage.

Storytelling I think more power storage would be a requirement of Ion propulsion only after it's been theorised, but it doesn't make sense to have the large battery after the engine, so keep them separate but still on the same tier. Engine with no prerequisites.

13. It only irks me because it looks like all other sensors.

1. True, agreed.

2. Good point. It seems like a not-insignificant gameplay change to have people starting with the super-small parts, but I see what you mean.

5. Ah, right. Level 3 prereqless it is.

7. Uuugh. If anybody can cut through that and tell me if my intake tree could be done more sensibly, please post it up. But this also seems like a thing that should (I would hope) be reworked along with 0.91 aero.

8. Agreed.

12. Agreed.

13. Sensible, I'll put that back. For the sake of the .cfg file, I may also redo that whole section for the realities of the current science system (ie. Goo needs to come first) as much as it annoys me.

I'll post a new version soon.

Edited December 27, 2014 by sherkaner

[Baythan]

13. Sensible, I'll put that back. For the sake of the .cfg file, I may also redo that whole section for the realities of the current science system (ie. Goo needs to come first) as much as it annoys me.

It does seem a very Kerbal thing to take some weird goo from an unknown source and run crazy tests on it before you bother gathering weather data. Who cares if its hot, cold, windy, rainy, high pressure or low pressure when you launch a rocket? It's not like O-rings do funny stuff in cold weather.

[sherkaner]

Okay, version 2 of the per-part tech tree:

I think I worked in nearly all of the suggestions made, as well as some other tweaks and fixes. I even took at shot at the wings, although it still feels pretty bogus -- at least it's something though. I'm going to start trying to beat this into a .cfg file -- I'm pretty hyped to actually play this.

[sherkaner]

By the way, a side thought occurred to me while I was putting this together: A possibly interesting "very hard mode" option using this tech tree could be to not actually allow the player to choose the pathway through the tree by researching a part directly, but instead just give resources to one of the four R&D "departments" (the 4 color groups I have on the left) and have the actual part unlocked within that department as a result be random. New developments would still have to follow the pathways of the tree, but which branches you take wouldn't be under your direct control, but come as the result of what the boys in R&D happened to come up with. So you'd still be able to focus your effort generally, but you might have to adapt your plans if your team ended up making you really good at certain things you weren't quite expecting.

Definitely should only be an option for very experienced players, but it seems like it might be neat.

[Kegereneku]

"You changed it, now it suck."

That Joke aside, I just noticed you put the RC-001S Remote Guidance Unit after the OKTO2, although they have a SAS level 2.

I think the majority of player (I mean me in our case) would want to make unmanned launch vehicle sooner. Also, from a point of view of verisimilitude the RC module is larger than the OKTO2 which would require miniaturization.

Also, for the thermometer... I really DON'T understand why people would accept it to be more high-tech than the Mystery Goo.

And it's not only a question of pseudo-realism, as a matter of gameplay at the start of a career game you are going to be flying everywhere around KSC trying to use as much as possible the radio and gather as much data as you can, But the Mystery Goo is a one use/always recover tools.

If only my opinion mattered I would have all light&reusable science instrument available as soon as technologically credible (also that's what new player are more likely to be able to stuck on the Mun than several canister they hoped to recover)

Last I would have put the TTA-18 stability enhancer as a Tier 4 technology with every single part as a prerequisite, just saying.

I said "that joke" aside, not all

By the way, a side thought occurred to me while I was putting this together: A possibly interesting "very hard mode" option using this tech tree could be to not actually allow the player to choose the pathway through the tree by researching a part directly, but instead just give resources to one of the four R&D "departments" (the 4 color groups I have on the left) and have the actual part unlocked within that department as a result be random.

meh... it would feel fake difficulty to me.

Scientists "discover" stuff accidentally, Engineers find practical solution to problems. I know we are using "science" to fund their engineering but that's an acceptable break from reality (or until someone find a revolutionary solution)

Also, the reason we wanted an Open-system in the first place was to avoid being asked to grind science to get to the part we really wanted.

[sherkaner]

That Joke aside, I just noticed you put the RC-001S Remote Guidance Unit after the OKTO2, although they have a SAS level 2.

I think the majority of player (I mean me in our case) would want to make unmanned launch vehicle sooner. Also, from a point of view of verisimilitude the RC module is larger than the OKTO2 which would require miniaturization.

Ehhh, the RC-001S has more capability (has reaction wheel as well as extra direction hold features) and costs a lot more than the OKTO2.

Also, for the thermometer... I really DON'T understand why people would accept it to be more high-tech than the Mystery Goo.

And it's not only a question of pseudo-realism, as a matter of gameplay at the start of a career game you are going to be flying everywhere around KSC trying to use as much as possible the radio and gather as much data as you can, But the Mystery Goo is a one use/always recover tools.

If only my opinion mattered I would have all light&reusable science instrument available as soon as technologically credible (also that's what new player are more likely to be able to stuck on the Mun than several canister they hoped to recover)

I don't entirely disagree with your reasoning, but as the parts stand there's no question that the thermometer is just a simply better instrument than the Goo, so from a gameplay point of view, I think the order I'm using has to be the way it is. That said, I'd be in favor of Squad rethinking the nature of science instruments to feel less silly, in which case that ordering would be rehashed.

meh... it would feel fake difficulty to me.

Scientists "discover" stuff accidentally, Engineers find practical solution to problems. I know we are using "science" to fund their engineering but that's an acceptable break from reality (or until someone find a revolutionary solution)

Also, the reason we wanted an Open-system in the first place was to avoid being asked to grind science to get to the part we really wanted.

True.

[klgraham1013]

By the way, a side thought occurred to me while I was putting this together: A possibly interesting "very hard mode" option using this tech tree could be to not actually allow the player to choose the pathway through the tree by researching a part directly, but instead just give resources to one of the four R&D "departments" (the 4 color groups I have on the left) and have the actual part unlocked within that department as a result be random. New developments would still have to follow the pathways of the tree, but which branches you take wouldn't be under your direct control, but come as the result of what the boys in R&D happened to come up with. So you'd still be able to focus your effort generally, but you might have to adapt your plans if your team ended up making you really good at certain things you weren't quite expecting.

Definitely should only be an option for very experienced players, but it seems like it might be neat.

A part of me really likes this idea. The same part of me that likes random failures.

That part of me is masochistic. I'm not sure if I should always listen to it.

[CaptainKipard]

Cool, cool. Just one thing. You said you'd put the radial RCS tanks after FL-T200, but you put it after the FL-R10. Was that an accident or did you change your mind?

I'm really looking forward to playing this. If you create a dev thread in the mod dev section I'll totally help you with some MM patches for other mods too.

Apart from that we can continue other discussions related to the tech tree here.

[sherkaner]

Cool, cool. Just one thing. You said you'd put the radial RCS tanks after FL-T200, but you put it after the FL-R10. Was that an accident or did you change your mind?

Yeah, a bit. I did move them up, but decided that I wanted the player to go from the cylindrical LF/O tank to a cylindrical monoprop tank before branching off into the radial monoprop tanks.

I'm really looking forward to playing this. If you create a dev thread in the mod dev section I'll totally help you with some MM patches for other mods too.

Apart from that we can continue other discussions related to the tech tree here.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to it too. I've been making some progress of making a .cfg file for Tech Manager. Since this tree is going to be pretty damn big, I've been using the little Tech Tree Editor app that somebody else made. It's working, but there's some bugginess making it a little difficult; it's definitely going to take some real time. Nonetheless, I'm getting it to work and I've already gotten the Pods, Habitats, Labs & SAS section pulling up in the game.

Once I get it done, I'll post another dev thread with it yeah. Although I'm hoping Squad is still paying attention to this suggestion thread, as deep as it is now...

[sherkaner]

Ugh, I'm kind of stopped now actually. I'm finding a lot of weirdness in TechManager when trying to define a tree that's totally different from stock. It seems like most people are just using it to rearrange stock nodes or add on mod parts, but not really the dramatic stock parts reorg that I'm trying. So I think I'm running into problems others haven't seen. Hopefully I hear back from the developers.

[Baythan]

I might have some suggestions for the wings, mostly in that it looks like you've put ALL the canards into the same node as well as splitting tailfins and rudders across two nodes (mixing some of them with canards). Given that one of the canards is called the 'advanced canard' I would think it should go one node over to the right after regular/basic canard. But then I STILL haven't unlocked canards in my current career mode, so I don't know how different they are.

I'm not entirely sure the lift surfaces need to go very far across the tech tree anyway, as its not the wings that will get a spaceplane into orbit, its the engines and fuel tanks. All the different types of wings are mostly for aesthetics rather than functionality until you install FAR or the aero model gets updated for stock. Once we get the new aero model, the whole wing section will probably change.

[sherkaner]

Once we get the new aero model, the whole wing section will probably change.

Yeah, that's why I'm only putting perfunctory attention into that section.

[sherkaner]

Okay, progress being made! Take a look at a sneak peak screenshot (with something like 1/4 of the nodes done):

I tracked down the bug I ran into in TED/TM and found a workaround, so I've been pounding away at implementing the tree from my last diagram. You'll see that I'm using the icons as sort of indicators of different development "lines". Everything seems to be working well. Some of the lines are a bit messy, but I think I can move some nodes around a bit to make those more clear ultimately.

One thing I've noticed is that depending on the flags I set in the nodes, development can actually go backward to earlier nodes, which was something I didn't realize was possible. I think I actually like it, especially given the very different paths you can take with this tree. It would allow a player to get deep in one line, then "bridge" a bit over to a nearby line and get a few related parts without having to build up from the bottom.

I think the only big concern I have right now is the R&D level breaks. From what I can tell, the status of the R&D facility is hard-coded to set a threshold on node costs. Unfortunately this type of tree will generally have much lower node costs in general, and so these thresholds won't work well at all. I'm really not sure how to get around this right now -- it might require a real mod to go in and tweak the effect of the R&D facility level? If anybody here has any ideas on this, I'm very interested. In the meantime, I'm going to keep plowing ahead on this as worst case it would still be plenty playable without the R&D facility aspect. I still have lots of work to on this.

Edited December 29, 2014 by sherkaner

[CaptainKipard]

Here's another suggestion for stock then.

• The ability to define tier placement of nodes
  

I hope you start a dev thread soon.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[sherkaner]

It's coming along, folks...

That's about 2/3 of the tree. Maybe couple more days and I'll have a first draft of the whole tree. It'll take more work after that to fill in node science prices sensibly, but I might post a draft without that just to gather feedback.