A more intuitive tech tree

[Alshain]

If each node is 1 part, why not just use the part thumbnail you would see in the VAB?

EDIT: That was a hypothetical for if Squad implemented it, I know why the mod maker can't do that.

[tuckjohn]

If each node is 1 part, why not just use the part thumbnail you would see in the VAB?

That is actually a really good idea! I would assume that the devs would use a green background instead of the grey one that is present in the VAB, but otherwise that is a great idea! I wonder if there is any devs reading this....

[pandaman]

Hi all. Interesting thread.

One thing that just occurred to me when reading about parts 'improving' with higher tech and the issue of existing ships automatically 'updating' when across the solar system.

When tech level allows an improved version of an existing part create a 'Mk2' version with the new attributes and distinguish it with a slightly different colour scheme (no need to create a new model) this could replace the 'original' in the VAB to avoid obsolete parts clogging up the parts list, but the original 'MK1' version stays 'in the system' so will not affect already built vessels.

Sorry if that's a bit off topic, but it seemed to tie in with some thoughts here.

[tuckjohn]

Hi all. Interesting thread.

One thing that just occurred to me when reading about parts 'improving' with higher tech and the issue of existing ships automatically 'updating' when across the solar system.

When tech level allows an improved version of an existing part create a 'Mk2' version with the new attributes and distinguish it with a slightly different colour scheme (no need to create a new model) this could replace the 'original' in the VAB to avoid obsolete parts clogging up the parts list, but the original 'MK1' version stays 'in the system' so will not affect already built vessels.

Sorry if that's a bit off topic, but it seemed to tie in with some thoughts here.

I do not think that this is off topic, considering that we are talking about science here

Also, I think that that is a great idea for a mod to add, as it would add a complexity to the game that is not really needed

[Superfluous J]

SRBs are currently tweakable in the VAB but not in flight. There are 20 or so "types" of SRBs (Thrust-wise. Even more when you consider amount of fuel is also tweakable) available to us in the VAB and changing them does not change those already in space.*

I don't see why there can't be some automatic behind the scenes "tweaking" of ISP and TWR of engines, so they get better over time as you climb the tech tree but the ones you already launched are simply tweaked lower.

Heck, you could even - in the VAB - allow us to access the tweaking from "worst" to "current tech level" so we can intentionally make the engines worse in those categories. Why? Maybe to save money or weight.

*Yeah, SRBs aren't really supposed to make it to space, but let's just pretend for now, okay?

Edited January 13, 2015 by 5thHorseman

[tuckjohn]

SRBs are currently tweakable in the VAB but not in flight. There are 20 or so "types" of SRBs (Thrust-wise. Even more when you consider amount of fuel is also tweakable) available to us in the VAB and changing them does not change those already in space.*

I don't see why there can't be some automatic behind the scenes "tweaking" of ISP and TWR of engines, so they get better over time as you climb the tech tree but the ones you already launched are simply tweaked lower.

Heck, you could even - in the VAB - allow us to access the tweaking from "worst" to "current tech level" so we can intentionally make the engines worse in those categories. Why? Maybe to save money or weight.

I feel like while this is a great Idea, It just does not fit into the spectrum of KSP, in terms of this would be a too "complex" of a game mechanic.

[tater]

In terms of tech tree and KSP, it's not at all complex. You increase tech, and the nominally same engine gets better. The player need not tweak it, but better is better. More Isp, more thrust, else weight and same stats, adding an alternator, improving gimble. Same with fuels tanks. Same diameter/height, better wet mass vs dry (composites, etc).

[sherkaner]

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

Okay, that is FANTASTIC -- I can't believe I missed it. I hope this thread may have served as some inspiration for where they're going. I'll keep supporting my mod tree at least until the next patch then.

- - - Updated - - -

If each node is 1 part, why not just use the part thumbnail you would see in the VAB?

EDIT: That was a hypothetical for if Squad implemented it, I know why the mod maker can't do that.

Yeah, I had the same thought as I was working on the mod. I think that would make absolute sense, especially if the horizontal technology lines were color-barred or whatever, as suggested earlier.

[tater]

Importantly, he also said science was added before the rest, and was in need of the most work.

[sherkaner]

Hi all. Interesting thread.

One thing that just occurred to me when reading about parts 'improving' with higher tech and the issue of existing ships automatically 'updating' when across the solar system.

When tech level allows an improved version of an existing part create a 'Mk2' version with the new attributes and distinguish it with a slightly different colour scheme (no need to create a new model) this could replace the 'original' in the VAB to avoid obsolete parts clogging up the parts list, but the original 'MK1' version stays 'in the system' so will not affect already built vessels.

I do kinda like the idea of improving parts as you get experience with them. But I think that would be talking about a pretty fundamental rethink about the way KSP is structured and balanced, and I'm not sure it's really necessary (especially after having created my modded stock tree with existing parts and having it come out better than I expected). I would also be very much against parts updating themselves in-flight. What you launch with is what you're stuck with; anything else breaks immersion far too much for my tastes.

[CaptainKipard]

I hope this thread may have served as some inspiration for where they're going.

We'll probably never know. I argued for more Squad involvement in here last year but ultimately they are much too busy to be posting here. Please don't post in that thread any more. That conversation is concluded.

I'll keep supporting my mod tree at least until the next patch then.

Your mod might take another form when the update drops. I wouldn't consider abandoning it altogether. It could still serve as a kind of "community experiment" for other improvements. Unless the new tree satisfies me completely I still plan on posting here with feedback and suggestions.

Squad will still be adding minor features until 1.0.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW, the OP has been updated with some of the most recent suggestions.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[sherkaner]

From Ted's part of today's devnotes:

If you have any threads or little write-ups about the balance of a component of the game, feel free to send them over to me via Forum PM or reddit PM and I’ll gladly give them a look over to consider in this.

I assume you're on this, Kip.

[Francois424]

Gratz for getting this thread stickied.

Getting a new, revised tech tree will be awesome, no matter how it's done.

[CaptainKipard]

From Ted's part of today's devnotes:

I assume you're on this, Kip.

Uuuhh. I wasn't going to. I just kinda assumed that they're watching, but sure I'll PM him.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[Vindaloo]

This is a really good thread, but I find the OP is steering much of the discussion right towards Sherkaner's tech tree idea, and while it is clearly an improvement over the current tech tree I think that giving a player 15 different branches to go down right at the start would quickly overwhelm new players. Personally I much prefer the Engineering Based Tech Tree by Probus. I think it is more intuitive and more elegant, it provides a for a nice flow; whereas the Sherkaner tree has no flow, you just hop from one node to the other.

Also, I agree that the way science is gathered should be updated. Personally I would first get rid of all the KSC science, it is rather silly to do an experiment at the flagpole and then at the administration building and get points for both. Second, some of the experiments should not be instantaneous (science junior, seismic accelerometer, etc), give them time for completion and have the completion time significantly decreased (and reward increased) if the experiment is hooked up to a science lab (which would make space stations and outposts incredibly useful). Third I would add a system of diminishing returns for repeating experiments, for example say a particular experiment can net 60 science max: the first iteration gives 30, the second gives 20, the third gives 10 (each iteration of the experiment would have to be done after a minimum time interval, and in the case of surface samples at a different location, say 1 km away, to make rovers more useful)).

[FishInferno]

Second, some of the experiments should not be instantaneous (science junior, seismic accelerometer, etc), give them time for completion and have the completion time significantly decreased (and reward increased) if the experiment is hooked up to a science lab (which would make space stations and outposts incredibly useful).

Kerbal Scientists with higher experience could also speed up experiments

[Vindaloo]

Kerbal Scientists with higher experience could also speed up experiments

Absolutely, great idea.

[sherkaner]

This is a really good thread, but I find the OP is steering much of the discussion right towards Sherkaner's tech tree idea, and while it is clearly an improvement over the current tech tree I think that giving a player 15 different branches to go down right at the start would quickly overwhelm new players. Personally I much prefer the Engineering Based Tech Tree by Probus. I think it is more intuitive and more elegant, it provides a for a nice flow; whereas the Sherkaner tree has no flow, you just hop from one node to the other.

Also, I agree that the way science is gathered should be updated. Personally I would first get rid of all the KSC science, it is rather silly to do an experiment at the flagpole and then at the administration building and get points for both. Second, some of the experiments should not be instantaneous (science junior, seismic accelerometer, etc), give them time for completion and have the completion time significantly decreased (and reward increased) if the experiment is hooked up to a science lab (which would make space stations and outposts incredibly useful). Third I would add a system of diminishing returns for repeating experiments, for example say a particular experiment can net 60 science max: the first iteration gives 30, the second gives 20, the third gives 10 (each iteration of the experiment would have to be done after a minimum time interval, and in the case of surface samples at a different location, say 1 km away, to make rovers more useful)).

I hadn't actually come across that tech tree you mentioned -- thanks for adding it to the discussion.

I have to say though, while I think that's an improvement over the current stock tree, I still find that tree to still be very constraining and prescriptive. It still seems to assume that there is a correct order of unlocking things, just an order that's a little more sensible than the arbitrary groupings of parts we have now. The fact that there are two versions -- rocket-first and winged-flight-first -- to me highlights just how prescriptive it is.

I certainly don't think that my tree is perfect. (For one thing, I do think that in the starting stages in particular that I could perhaps narrow the choices just a bit to simplify initial decisions.) But after playing the tree some, I still believe that it's really not as daunting or confusing as it might seem just looking at the final tree. It very much has a "flow" -- each line of technology leads through a sequence of related upgrades and related parts, with links between lines where sensible. And most importantly it gives the player maximized choice in how they progress the technology of their program. I think players will find that very fun and rewarding, and I'm very much hoping that even if the specifics of the tree that Squad impements diverge from what I have, that this aspect of maximizing choice is included.

Edited January 22, 2015 by sherkaner

[SaturnV]

Honestly speaking, I‘m still stick to sandbox in 0.9, because the science tree is NOT intuitive currently.

I will be really glad to see any improvement of that unlock-a-node-n-get-random-part thing.

[CaptainKipard]

I will be really glad to see any improvement of that unlock-a-node-n-get-random-part thing.

Me too. I hoped we'd see something like this in 1.0, but the recent devnotes and the "Beyond Beta" article does not mention it.

[Astrofox]

I think they should keep the original tech tree, but instead have an extra option for a realistic progression, in other words probes and solar panels at the beginning, as well as the small inline parachute and all scientific instruments, as well as the seperatron 1s at the start node.

[CaptainKipard]

Could you say what you like about the current tree exactly?

[Astrofox]

I just wanted them to keep the current one to just have save compatibility.

[CaptainKipard]

Well Maxmaps already said it's going to change so that's not going to happen probably. Other than that is there anything else?

[Astrofox]

No, not really. Just want more realism, that's all.