A more intuitive tech tree

[tuckjohn]

By the way, do you think a descending or ascending tree would be more natural if I go this way? I tend to think descending for some reason, but I don't know if there's some gaming convention that I'm not aware of.

I think that a bottom-to- top tech tree would be fitting, as you are researching to go higher and further!

Also, I don't know if this has been suggested yet as I have not read though this entire thread, but I have an idea for a "starting" node: you start with say; 100 science; and choose what "genres" of the research tree you want to invest in; eg. Science, rovers, and planes; and have a very wide and not long (almost the opposite of the stock tree now) tech tree. If this or something like it has already been said, sorry for taking space

[CaptainKipard]

I think that a bottom-to- top tech tree would be fitting, as you are researching to go higher and further!

I don't know why but this makes me rage inside.

Also, I don't know if this has been suggested yet as I have not read though this entire thread, but I have an idea for a "starting" node: you start with say; 100 science; and choose what "genres" of the research tree you want to invest in; eg. Science, rovers, and planes; and have a very wide and not long (almost the opposite of the stock tree now) tech tree. If this or something like it has already been said, sorry for taking space

That's pretty much what we've been talking about. If you want to discuss the tree mod based on this suggestion, then go to the OP and click the link.

[klgraham1013]

I think that a bottom-to- top tech tree would be fitting, as you are researching to go higher and further!

It sort of sounds like an infomercial.

In anycase, I'm fine with the tree expanding upward.

[CaptainKipard]

In anycase, I'm fine with the tree expanding upward.

Yeah but if tree progress down, gravity make fast unlocking.

[tuckjohn]

Yeah but if tree progress down, gravity make fast unlocking.

What are you trying to unlock? Rocket parts. To do what? To go higher into space, and as a result, the tech tree! For it to look good though it would have to have some kind of gradient in the background. It would not look good to have just a flat-looking background with this idea, as the stock tech tree does now.

[tater]

The tech tree cart is before the horse.

You should decide to unlock certain tech, THEN use it/test it on missions that might then get you science.

Apollo was designed to get to the moon, they did not get to the moon to develop apollo via the study of lunar geology.

Such a paradigm would have the player select a strategy for their program (unlike the current strategies, these would be goals for their space program), which would unlock various tech. They would then test it in cool ways, which would be what would provide the points to open further tech. There might be a couple possible at a time.

Strategies might be like:

1. Orbital presence (stations and satellites in Kerbin orbit)

2. Mun or Bust! (think Apollo)

3. Planetary probes (JPL)

4. Eggs out of the one basket (Duna exploration for possible colonization)

5. Fly to orbit (X-15 to spaceplanes as the focus)

6. etc.

Each would set up a tree with certain items already unlocked, but the path started. Other lateral tech still possible, but the path of least resistance would be the "strategy" path---which the player could change at some cost.

Contracts and rewards would be tweaked based on the strategy. Not thought out, this is stream of consciousness, but it could work.

[klgraham1013]

Yeah but if tree progress down, gravity make fast unlocking.

I don't know. That sounds like hacks to me.

[sherkaner]

I've decided to go with top-to-bottom. Mostly for the very selfish reason that it matches up with the chart of aerospace history that I posted a while back in another thread.

And as Kipard mentioned, discussions on the mod really should go over here at my thread on the topic...

Outside that though, I do think some further discussion of how nodes get unlocked in stock is interesting. I still like the idea that using parts should reduce the required science cost to unlock its successor(s). There would need to be some logic included, similar to science-gathering logic, where the value of part usage should be different depending on how it's used (using it on the moon worth more than on kerbin, etc.) and repeating the same usage conditions would have greatly diminishing returns.

Story-wise, it would have an intuitive feel: offering R&D progression either through real-world testing or through work in the lab. Gameplay-wise it would offer players an opportunity to level up with a form of self-directed grinding so they don't ever get stuck (or bored) just working on contracts to get science.

I think this system would work really well with the tech tree style we've defined here.

[tuckjohn]

Such a paradigm would have the player select a strategy for their program (unlike the current strategies, these would be goals for their space program), which would unlock various tech. They would then test it in cool ways, which would be what would provide the points to open further tech. There might be a couple possible at a time.

Outside that though, I do think some further discussion of how nodes get unlocked in stock is interesting. I still like the idea that using parts should reduce the required science cost to unlock its successor(s). There would need to be some logic included, similar to science-gathering logic, where the value of part usage should be different depending on how it's used (using it on the moon worth more than on kerbin, etc.) and repeating the same usage conditions would have greatly diminishing returns.

Guys those are AWESOME ideas!!

"DEVS! Come here, Quick!"

I don't think the science system really fit the game for some reason, and have been trying to figure out why/how to fix it. That^ is the answer, along with degradable biome science, because there is just way too much science in the kerbal system. (you get science from the mun in one biome, then you next mission (going to another biome) will only get about 80% of the science, then 65%, 50%, etc.)

Edited January 6, 2015 by tuckjohn
Additional Quote

[CaptainKipard]

I think there should be an internal counter for how many times each part is used, which would reduce the buying cost of the part. The rationalisation would be that mass producing a part makes it cheaper.

[tuckjohn]

I think there should be an internal counter for how many times each part is used, which would reduce the buying cost of the part. The rationalisation would be that mass producing a part makes it cheaper.

How would that work? I imagine a lot of people make a spacecraft useing 100's of the same part then recover it, then use that part for a one-way mission

[SmashBrown]

Interstellar in the tree would be great, costing a lot of science to unlock the advanced tech, and it being very late on in the tech tree, would make for great "end game" stuff. Especially seeing as science is so abundant.

I agree with the scansat idea, fairings are a must, KW rocketry and B9 look to have an amazing set that, as long as the owner lets them, could be put into the game.

Edited January 6, 2015 by SmashBrown

[tuckjohn]

I have a problem with science being so abundant because it turns the game into a game were you have to grind out missions and I do not enjoy doing a almost exactly the same mission over and over just to get enough science to unlock a few more nodes. This can be fixed with diminishing science, as I explained in a previous post.

[klgraham1013]

I have a problem with science being so abundant because it turns the game into a game were you have to grind out missions and I do not enjoy doing a almost exactly the same mission over and over just to get enough science to unlock a few more nodes. This can be fixed with diminishing science, as I explained in a previous post.

You would think that having so much science would eliminate grind, as you would have so many options in how to earn said science. I haven't played career in a while, so I don't have much actual input on balance changes that could be made.

Edited January 7, 2015 by klgraham1013

[tater]

I actually don't see the "grind" for the same reasons you say there is one. I started a vanilla 0.90 career to test it, and to be able to offer comments to the devs on the unmoved game. By day 70-something, I had unlocked everything in the tree. I upgraded all the buildings I cared about all the way (VAB/Tracking/Research/Admin/Astronaut Complex), and I think I have 3-4 million in the bank.

I have stations around Kerbin and the Mun (and one solar orbit contract I took). I have probes headed out farther, but didn't warp time for them to arrive.

So unlocked everything barely leaving Kerbin SOI.

The problem is that to make "science" the goal, the reward is tech. The trouble is that most KSP "science" is planetary science that is realistically 100% unrelated to spaceflight science.

Resources are the best driver to make "science" useful, and to separate the tech tree from some of the science.

I would change a few things.

1. Add new camera parts, spectrometers, etc. Basically something like scansat, or perhaps actually scansat (I have not played with it yet, but it looks cool).

2. Add resources. Assuming the goal is simple resources, we are looking for Hydrogen, Oxygen, and if they added built in-situ facilities, soil (shielding/construction material). Science instruments would be actually used like scansat to find places where resources can be extracted. The game would at the very least randomize these locations, so you'd HAVE to survey, then land and take soil samples, etc, etc.

3. Add resource extraction.

4. Science is divided into planetary, spaceflight, and medical.

5. Tech tree would become more complex. Nodes rearranged to make sense, then unlocking would have different requirements per node. Some might require 50 Medical science points, 200 spaceflight points, and 50 planetary science points to unlock "X tech", then that must be tested to become the real part (say this example is a lander can---medical for life support design issues, spaceflight for the bulk of it, and planetary because as a lander they need to consider the planetary environments it might be used in).

[Alshain]

I like the general idea but I think the OP is too complicated. It needs to be whittled down to about 3 to 4 tech trees. (It can still be per-part nodes though, I'm fine with that)

1. Rockets - Parts generally associated with rocket building as a primary function

2. Aircraft - Parts generally associated with plane building as a primary function

3. Rovers (maybe)

4. Structural and Support parts - other parts that don't fit above including power, structural, etc.

I say "primary function" because we all know you can use TurboJets on a lifter but most people think of planes first.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Alshain

[CaptainKipard]

How would that work? I imagine a lot of people make a spacecraft useing 100's of the same part then recover it, then use that part for a one-way mission

I guess recovering a part could decrement the counter.

I like the general idea but I think the OP is too complicated. It needs to be whittled down to about 3 to 4 tech trees. (It can still be per-part nodes though, I'm fine with that)

1. Rockets - Parts generally associated with rocket building as a primary function

2. Aircraft - Parts generally associated with plane building as a primary function

3. Rovers (maybe)

4. Structural and Support parts - other parts that don't fit above including power, structural, etc.

I say "primary function" because we all know you can use TurboJets on a lifter but most people think of planes first.

You can't say that's less complicated. You just have fewer trees that are more complicated, effectively not changing the complexity at all. What would be the benefit of doing it that way?

[tuckjohn]

So unlocked everything barely leaving Kerbin SOI.

This is exactly what I consider to be grinding- you go to the mun 5 times, and you fill the tech tree. it is easier and gets you just as much science for less cost then going to say, Duna. Why would you interplanetary?

Again this could be easily solved by degradable science.

[Alshain]

I guess recovering a part could decrement the counter.

You can't say that's less complicated. You just have fewer trees that are more complicated, effectively not changing the complexity at all. What would be the benefit of doing it that way?

It's less complicated. I don't know how else to describe it. What you have listed up there is a huge spiderweb arrows. It just gives me a headache looking at it.

[tater]

This is exactly what I consider to be grinding- you go to the mun 5 times, and you fill the tech tree. it is easier and gets you just as much science for less cost then going to say, Duna. Why would you interplanetary?

Again this could be easily solved by degradable science.

I usually think of grinding as have to repetitively do low-value stuff. I am waiting in that career to go to Duna, but the launch window is after day 200. In the meantime, I built some rockets (learning new, 0.90 stuff in the VAB, etc), sand without even trying unlocked everything. I've barely explored the Mun, actually. I tried out a few of the new FP contracts on the Mun (since they were new), I built a couple stations, put up a few satellites. Vanilla, early game stuff I would assume.

I didn't consider it a grind, much of it was novel to me (I had not been using FP before). It was a joke, really. 1950-something to 2015 compressed into 70 days?

[CaptainKipard]

It's less complicated. I don't know how else to describe it. What you have listed up there is a huge spiderweb arrows. It just gives me a headache looking at it.

Well the good news is that you'll have the whole game to get ready for that headache, and by the time you see the tree unlocked your confusion will be irrelevant... because you'll have unlocked it. You remember that you don't see the whole tree from the beginning, right? You'll have more than enough time to "learn" the tree. You'll be fine.

I still don't understand why you call it complex. Your idea takes complexity from one level and applies it to another level.

[Alshain]

Well the good news is that you'll have the whole game to get ready for that headache, and by the time you see the tree unlocked your confusion will be irrelevant... because you'll have unlocked it. You remember that you don't see the whole tree from the beginning, right? You'll have more than enough time to "learn" the tree. You'll be fine.

The good news is, it's not a feature in the game so I don't have to have that headache at all. The complexity comes from trying to figure out what I need as a per-requisite to unlock the part I want to use. Instead of a simple tree branching from limited roots like it does in the current tree it's starting in too many places and then proceeds to jump all over the place. Like I said, a few more roots would be a better start, but your example goes overboard.

[CaptainKipard]

The complexity comes from trying to figure out what I need as a per-requisite to unlock the part I want to use.

Don't worry about it. Afaik there aren't any multiple prerequisites in that tree, just multiple possible pathways, to get to some parts. They're not all necessary.

If you're worried about not knowing about where to research, then obviously clearly delineated technologies helps with that. Just do a thought experiment. Pick a part you want then look at all the starting nodes in that mockup. It's really clear to me. At the very least it's 1000 times better than what we have now.

[Alshain]

Don't worry about it. Afaik there aren't any multiple prerequisites in that tree, just multiple possible pathways, to get to some parts. They're not all necessary.

If you're worried about not knowing about where to research, then obviously clearly delineated technologies helps with that. Just do a thought experiment. Pick a part you want then look at all the starting nodes in that mockup. It's really clear to me. At the very least it's 1000 times better than what we have now.

Well, I'll make you a deal. If he gets the mod up and going I'll give it a try. Maybe I'm being too harsh before having seen it.

[klgraham1013]

This tree actually eliminates confusion. Even though you can't see the whole tree in game, you can intuitively assume that a similar part will follow another. You can not do that with the current tree.