A more intuitive tech tree

[tater]

It's not off topic, IMO. Science is the only currency to buy tech, so the science system is very connected. The contract system is also quite entangled, so that is in the mix as well. Elements of the current contract system look rather a lot like what one would intuitively connect with engineering development (some of the parts testing contracts). An intuitive tech development system/tree should match what our guts tell us technology development is like in the real world (since our intuitions are not based on the game, otherwise the extant system is the way we should intuit engineering in KSP).

I just can't see changing 1 of the 3 parts alone and getting anything more than a slightly different version of the same broken system.

Based on pure intuition, I'd drop the number of nodes to just a few. If you have an engine, you'll have tanks for it at the same time. Much of the tech in game would appear almost simultaneously.

My intuition is that NERVA and RTGs are late 1950s, early 1960s technologies that existed well before the Apollo CM. They are at the top of the tree now. Vanguard 1 (1958) was solar powered (so 1958 is level 5 in KSP?). If we move all early 1960s stuff to maybe the 2d tier, the tree is gonna have shallow roots To make it intuitive, that's what I would expect, that I'd have most of the tree done before thinking about the Mun.

It makes more sense to order the stuff as you likely suggest, grouping related tech, but much would be simultaneous, and it does't change the game much if the player can land 1 mission and unlock the lot in one go anyway.

[Mr. Speed]

I don't know if somebody suggested this before, but I think it would be cool if we had some specific parts or tracking station functions that could be unlocked through contracts.

Like build and place a space telescope in orbit to get the ability to track asteroids.

Or unlock the claw only after an asteroid rendevouz contract, because you first need to find out if asteroids are solid enough to grab.

And before we unlock a part through the tech tree we could get like a limited supply of a specific part, like the "test this part" missions, and we get to reuse that part if we bring it back to ksc.

If that would be done though the tech tree needs to get a bit more stretched out(more nodes with less parts each) but to be honest that should be done anyway.

[CaptainKipard]

My intuition is

Intuition is inferior to empiricism. I'm in favour of placing the parts realistically, but make sure you've actually checked that what you're saying is accurate. Posting a link to an article on the subject would be even better.

It makes more sense to order the stuff as you likely suggest, grouping related tech, but much would be simultaneous, and it does't change the game much if the player can land 1 mission and unlock the lot in one go anyway.

Well that was my idea originally too, but being temporally simultaneous and being in the same node are not the same thing. What if I don't want an RTG? Some people have no need for them until they explore distant bodies. If the RTG really is early tech then it should be placed appropriately relative to everything else but not in the same node as other things. The technology itself is completely different. The idea here is to break things up by actual technology, as is stated in the OP.

I don't know if somebody suggested this before, but I think it would be cool if we had some specific parts or tracking station functions that could be unlocked through contracts.

Like build and place a space telescope in orbit to get the ability to track asteroids.

Or unlock the claw only after an asteroid rendevouz contract, because you first need to find out if asteroids are solid enough to grab.

This sounds great but is off topic. Please start a new thread.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[tater]

I'm not arguing for intuition, but the thread title is

[CaptainKipard]

N...no. Well... it's not the word I would have chosen in an ideal situation, but calling the thread "A more inductive tech tree" might put off some people. Most people think "intuitive" means "inductive", even though it doesn't, so I have to use it.

Technically this tree would allow people to employ inductive reasoning in order to predict what parts will appear later.

[tater]

I think my ideas are fairly rational, I was posting about "intuitive" more as a reply to a claim I was OT than anything else. If they are entirely OT, I'll take them elsewhere, I have no desire to mess up your thread . So far, it seems to me that most threads in this section of the forum disappear without much discussion, so a stickied thread on the tech tree seemed like a decent place to post about the tech tree as I think that discussion often produces novel solutions to problems as people feed off o new ideas, and think a little outside the box.

[sherkaner]

The science system is not dependent on the tree, nor is the shape of the tree dependent on the science system so either one could be done without changing the other, but changes to both would go well together. Part rebalancing would obviously change the tech tree, but a better layout of the tree itself would help with placing rebalanced parts in more intuitive nodes.

I think this is a very important point, which I think most of us have been assuming but bears being stated explicitly.

To me if you're going to have a "technology tree", the point should be providing an in-game structure that represents the ways the in-game technologies relate to each other from a development point of view (since it's too complex to simulate that procedurally). It's an R&D choose-your-own-adventure story. With that kind of tree in place, you're starting on with a solid foundation on which to balance the game with the costs to develop those technologies -- whether the costs are the current "science", or some sort of more complex mix of points from testing and exploration.

And yes, I think this kind of tree will also suggest ways to rebalance the parts themselves more sensibly, as well as point out areas where additional parts would be interesting/fun/useful.

[CaptainKipard]

I think my ideas are fairly rational, I was posting about "intuitive" more as a reply to a claim I was OT than anything else. If they are entirely OT, I'll take them elsewhere, I have no desire to mess up your thread . So far, it seems to me that most threads in this section of the forum disappear without much discussion, so a stickied thread on the tech tree seemed like a decent place to post about the tech tree as I think that discussion often produces novel solutions to problems as people feed off o new ideas, and think a little outside the box.

All I asked for was for some sourced info about the RTG.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[tater]

Missed your RTG question. They were developed in the 50s and the USN launched one in 1961 on Transit 4a, a satellite used for Polaris missile guidance.

[CaptainKipard]

K. just had a look at this article and the first solar powered satellite was lanunched in 1958, so it's slightly eariler. It's so close though that it may be a good idea to move the RTG to tier 1 anyway.

[tater]

Almost everything in KSP is tier 1 if you use reality as a benchmark. The Apollo CM and LEM are mid 60s. With those maybe man-rated hypergolic engines are later? KSP doesn't require them, however, as all engines throttle and restart, and there is zero chance of failure. Spaceplane stuff varies between 1950s, STS, and beyond. Seriously, what KSP tech needs to be invented via "science?"

Yes, you'd think that there should be a progression, but there mostly isn't, hence my horse/cart commentary. The problem is that KSP parts don't increase in stats, they increase in size. What tech should do is increase in efficiency. Better versions of the same parts using newer materials, etc. for example, solar panels right away, but they make very little charge, later versions get better.

Edited January 11, 2015 by tater

[sherkaner]

Yeah, I actually don't think we should get too hung up on duplicating the order and timing of how technologies were developed in the real world (despite me being the one that posted that whole aerospace timeline as a model...). Basically I tend to think of the real world as a reference for one way that a player could choose to progress through the tree. In our world RTGs were developed early because the US had a huge emphasis on nuclear technologies in the 50s and had a lot of technological infrastructure to exploit our advantage in this area. The US also tended to focus on advanced aircraft in the 50s while the Russians got ahead of us for a while in high-efficiency liquid rocket design.

All of these are paths a player could take in the tree. A US-in-the-50s approach would be to focus heavily on aircraft contracts and a few cheap solid booster ballistic rocket contracts to get money to upgrade the R&D facility early to have access to advanced aircraft, RTGs, and large-scale rockets a bit later. A Russia-in-the-50s approach would be to focus on lots of liquid rocket missions, get to orbit early and pull in the science, and use that to build very robust lifters based on broad coverage of tier1 rocketry technologies.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that KSP parts don't increase in stats, they increase in size. What tech should do is increase in efficiency. Better versions of the same parts using newer materials, etc. for example, solar panels right away, but they make very little charge, later versions get better.

I do agree with this quite a bit. Ideally I would love to see a system where technologies mature and eventually even obsolete. But in putting together my tech tree mod based on the current parts, I don't think it's as bad as you think. Yes there ends up being a bit of a bias toward better=bigger, but I think that works out reasonably well in a Kerbal world. Could it be better? Absolutely. But I don't think it's 100% necessary to revamp parts and science to have a vastly improved tech tree. I'm hoping to have my mod done this weekend for all of you to try out to see if this is really the case.

[tater]

I have no idea if this is possible via modding, but couldn't a few technologies be new parts (what all nodes do now), and many would just buff existing parts with no change in their model? In "buffing" some, we'd actually nerf entry level parts, as well, so don't get focuses on "buffing" as a word. So there would be an initial lv-30 that might be heavier and lower stats than stock, then the current "stock" version at some tier, then maybe a late version with composites, etc that is lighter.

Not vast changes.

The only trick would be if there is a way to do this for NEW builds that won't upgrade ships already in flight.

As for getting hung up on reality, I'm not saying kerbin needs to be identical, but my point of size vs quality still holds true. As long as the "tech tree" is dominated by quantitative differences in parts, and not qualitative differences, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[sherkaner]

By the way, I've released my TechManager .cfg file for stock parts at its thread. Hope to hear feedback on it over there from everybody who's been following this thread.

[basic.syntax]

I think the RTG could be further balanced (if moved to tier 1) by making it more expensive so that players must make an early game hard choice between cost and its efficiency, versus solar panels that don't work on the dark side of orbits.

[tuckjohn]

(Sorry in advance for the length of this post, and the referencing of posts pages back. I was away for awile and still want to get my opinions about different posts out)

How about making the player use at least one part from the tech tree node in any contract, in order to research a descendant node? E.g. You must use the docking port once at least, before it lets you research the node with the senior?

It's not very grindy, and it fits with the way the current contract system works.

(and in response Alshain said...)

Well, all it would be is tedium. I don't like part X and I never use it so I put a part X on the launchpad and immediately recover it without even lifting off to get past the tech tree lock out. Personally I would find the fact I had to do all that just to unlock the useful part I want to be annoying, and for what reason?

To me I feel like the game is a bunch of management games scrunched together in regards to the central mechanics, e.g. There are many parts that are present but not tied together. There are the (getting) science portion, contract/money portion, research portion, reputation portion, etc. and all of these portions exist separately, but there is not really any way to tie them together. The strategies/administrative building KINDA tied them together with the strategies and allowing one-way conversions of science, reputation, funds, etc.

I think that above is the solution to this- You must test a part in a certain place before being able to unlock its followers on the tech tree. e.g. you may have to test the ANT engine in interplanetary space before you can unlock the vernal engine(Also, on a side note, "testing" should not be first activating it, which is just silly talk. Testing should be just getting up to full throttle). These "assignments" could/would be given to you though the contract system, which would tie those two "portions" of the game together. I agree that this may be able to get (very) grindy, so I think a button to allow "additional research" to "skip" the testing phase, which could cost science and funds.

To me, I think it would make sense if there were no more than 3 kinds of "Science" data. Space flight data, atmospheric flight data, survey data.

I don't know. I feel like there should be something that makes the science system more than just collecting points. Maybe this, maybe not this but something like this.

I agree with Cpt. Kipard here. KSP is trying to be a very simple game when you first start playing it, but allows much more in-depth playing once you get better. A science system where you have 3 sets of science data would not fit into this scope, sadly, even thought it may be a very fun way to play the game.

I don't know if somebody suggested this before, but I think it would be cool if we had some specific parts or tracking station functions that could be unlocked through contracts.

Like build and place a space telescope in orbit to get the ability to track asteroids.

Or unlock the claw only after an asteroid rendevouz contract, because you first need to find out if asteroids are solid enough to grab.

And before we unlock a part through the tech tree we could get like a limited supply of a specific part, like the "test this part" missions, and we get to reuse that part if we bring it back to ksc.

If that would be done though the tech tree needs to get a bit more stretched out(more nodes with less parts each) but to be honest that should be done anyway.

That is a great idea, and would make the game more then "get science" "get parts" "get science" "get parts" "get science" "get parts". But as Cpt. Kipard said;

This sounds great but is off topic. Please start a new thread.

If you do that it will be more likely that the devs will see it, and thus more likely it will be added into the game into some form.

K. just had a look at this article and the first solar powered satellite was lanunched in 1958, so it's slightly eariler. It's so close though that it may be a good idea to move the RTG to tier 1 anyway.

For the sake of game balancing, I think that the RTG should have to wait until late in the game, as it is not something that a player that can barely make it to the mun should have.(Also, dont take this as an insult, but use spell check "Lanunched" )

The problem is that KSP parts don't increase in stats, they increase in size. What tech should do is increase in efficiency. Better versions of the same parts using newer materials, etc. for example, solar panels right away, but they make very little charge, later versions get better.

(and in response)

I do agree with this quite a bit. Ideally I would love to see a system where technologies mature and eventually even obsolete. But in putting together my tech tree mod based on the current parts, I don't think it's as bad as you think. Yes there ends up being a bit of a bias toward better=bigger, but I think that works out reasonably well in a Kerbal world. Could it be better? Absolutely. But I don't think it's 100% necessary to revamp parts and science to have a vastly improved tech tree. I'm hoping to have my mod done this weekend for all of you to try out to see if this is really the case.

The chance of this happening is very high, actually. Felipe said(something like) "As this game is still in Alpha, I do not want to have to be scroll though hundreds of part files in order to change a singe aspect" awhile ago in response to requests to add more parts in the next update(I would find the devnotes where Felipe said this, but I have other things to do). Now that the game is in beta, I feel like we will be getting more parts as the art team finishes their textures And more parts mean more variety of the parts, and more "upgrades" of early engines

By the way, I've released my TechManager .cfg file for stock parts at its thread. Hope to hear feedback on it over there from everybody who's been following this thread.

SWEET!! I cant wait to share the HECK out of it Also I hope it makes modding Mondays tomorrow, AKA I hope the devs take notice

Again I apologize for the length of the thread.

[sherkaner]

SWEET!! I cant wait to share the HECK out of it Also I hope it makes modding Mondays tomorrow, AKA I hope the devs take notice

My not-so-secret hope is that they notice it, take it, improve it a bit, and roll it into 0.91. Honestly I don't actually want to maintain this as a mod, I just want to play the game with a tree like this!

Edited January 12, 2015 by sherkaner

[CaptainKipard]

It probably wont happen by 0.91; they already have their goals announced for that update, but maybe in the next one.

[klgraham1013]

By the way, I've released my TechManager .cfg file for stock parts at its thread. Hope to hear feedback on it over there from everybody who's been following this thread.

Thanks for the hard work. I'll give it a go.

[sherkaner]

It probably wont happen by 0.91; they already have their goals announced for that update, but maybe in the next one.

Well, without holding my breath, one of the reasons I really pushed to get this done quickly was the note from Ted on the dev team focusing on "balancing out the game" for the next update. That seems like an ideal time to look at the tech tree that I didn't want to miss. If anybody has a line on Ted, forward him this thread and my tree mod...

[kcs123]

My not-so-secret hope is that they notice it, take it, improve it a bit, and roll it into 0.91. Honestly I don't actually want to maintain this as a mod, I just want to play the game with a tree like this!

Thumbs up for that. You have put a lot of effort to sort parts/tree nodes to give all of KSP better gameplay expirience. I hope that devs will put it in the next release, it should not require too much for developers to improve it. And I hope it will be as stock release, so you can enjoy playing game, rather then moding it.

Unfortunately, I don't have much time to play games at all lately, so I can't give you proper feedback, but thanks for making it. It is on top of list of mods that I need to try as soon as I got time for that.

Cheers.

[CaptainKipard]

Balancing the game is what they'll be doing from 0.90 all the way to 1.0. We still have some time to play through this a bit and give some constructive feedback. I think. You know how it is.

---

Another suggestion that relates to your tree and this thread. You mentioned in your thread that you needed to make the initial nodes free, and contain parts.

One solution would be to change the canvas so that it contains scalable (and modable) coloured boxes as backgrounds for each technology branch together with lables. Users would not be confused, and you could still go back to the original way of having nothing free, and starting with a bit of science to get you going (which luckily is already available at the start of each game).

I'll try to create a mockup later. No I wont. The mockup you made more than adequately demonstrates that.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[sherkaner]

Balancing the game is what they'll be doing from 0.90 all the way to 1.0. We still have some time to play through this a bit and give some constructive feedback. I think. You know how it is.

---

Another suggestion that relates to your tree and this thread. You mentioned in your thread that you needed to make the initial nodes free, and contain parts.

One solution would be to change the canvas so that it contains scalable (and modable) coloured boxes as backgrounds for each technology branch together with lables. Users would not be confused, and you could still go back to the original way of having nothing free, and starting with a bit of science to get you going (which luckily is already available at the start of each game).

I'll try to create a mockup later. No I wont. The mockup you made more than adequately demonstrates that.

Oh yeah, that would definitely be the way to go. The best I could do with the built-in tools was having a consistent icon across a technology, but I think if Squad picked something like this up, colored rows would make things very nice and clear.

The science question is a bit of a different issue though. The only reason I kept the initial nodes free is that by default games don't start with any science and I didn't necessarily want to force people to create a custom game with some manually-chosen amount of start science. I'm not sure I completely understand what you're getting at though. Maybe post something over in that other thread? There might be a way of me doing something for now.

[CaptainKipard]

Maxmaps has confirmed a "deep" "rework" of the tree.

Tree is to be "rebalanced" and "reorganised".

"Might be able to set up the Mk1 parts very early in the tree".

First Beta patch "contains a tech tree that doesn't remind you of the current one at all"

Slightly optimistic.

January 10th Squadcast

He says it at 31:45

Edited January 12, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[tuckjohn]

I hope that devs will put it in the next release, it should not require too much for developers to improve it.

I also hope that the devs see this, but(saddly) I feel that it will require a lot of work on their part:(

-art team to re-do the node "covers"

-re-codeing of the tech tree "logic" to make it look a lot nicer

-Excedera, Excedera