A more intuitive tech tree

[rkman]

Maybe i am repeating what others have already said, but this is my 2 cents:

Whatever Squad does to the tech tree, i hope it allows the user to research technology in a direction that is desired by the player instead of requiring to research in the blind.

The fact that research is limited is plenty of restriction already. Imo it is a missed opportunity for interesting gameplay that the player does not get to make an informed decision about where to spend science points. Making a gamble about where to best spend science points is not very interesting.

Edited February 3, 2015 by rkman

[CaptainKipard]

That's pretty much what we've come to, but it's good that you shared so that Squad knows that more people want that general idea.

[Robotengineer]

I just wanted to say I support this, though it would be cool if we had 3 options for first nodes, sats, manned and science things.

[CaptainKipard]

I just wanted to say I support this, though it would be cool if we had 3 options for first nodes, sats, manned and science things.

The tree that sherkaner made as a test does give you that, just implicitly.

[Rath]

I think larger Ion thruster and Xenon Tanks should be added. I have been having horrible part count issues any time I try to use them. The largest Ion thruster NASA ever tested was 1.5 meters so maybe that would be a good starting place. Of course the tanks are the more important thing at the moment as more xenon thrusters can always be added but the tanks are where the part counts get ridiculous pretty fast.

the only problem with this is tat while thrust scale linelarly on a ion thruster the power consuption scale expnentially.

[Bill Phil]

I just wanted to say I support this, though it would be cool if we had 3 options for first nodes, sats, manned and science things.

Sats, manned, and aircraft preferably...

[CaptainKipard]

the only problem with this is tat while thrust scale linelarly on a ion thruster the power consuption scale expnentially.

If that's true that's more of a challenge for players rather than a problem for the developers.

[monstah]

Someone mentioned on the latest devnote the possibility to get contract-related unlocks.

The example was pretty illustrative: you click to research a docking port. Instead of unlocking it, the game starts to generate contracts to test it and dock two ships. When you complete those contracts, you get the part.

The way it's setup now, the minute you signed the contract you would get the part as "experimental", and can pretty much use it as you wish, but in my opinion this could be easily changed to "destroy the part and the contract is failed", which already has its penalties built in, plus you can't use the part any more.

I think it sounds perfect. Maybe not the only way to research, but it's interesting and "gamey".

[CaptainKipard]

Why do you think the destruction of the part should result in failure?

[tater]

So tests might be destructive testing. New command pod? Launch it into an orbit such that it burns up on reentry (when that is a thing). Hitting the ground? Failure. Not burning up? Failure. Such a mission would teach people the parameters where things were unsafe, too.

[sherkaner]

So... I guess not so much with the tech tree changes in 1.0. Some small improvements, but that's about it from what I'm experiencing playing 1.0 career.

[CaptainKipard]

Yeah I don't get it. It looks exactly the same just bigger. This really sucks.

- - - Updated - - -

Still forcing you to start with manned.

[tater]

A more intuitive tech tree would be unrecognizable, both in the way it progresses, and how those progressions are "purchased." I think as long as the career/science/tech paradigm is the same, it can't really markedly improve. We need a total redo of career (mod?), IMHO.

[TMS]

Yep, thought the same thing. The usual hype BS.

On the positive side, it's supposedly easier to mod, so maybe we'll get something sensible in the long run.

Shame about the implications on game design, however.

[klgraham1013]

Well. They did move a few things to little effect. At least it's not worse, I suppose.

[passinglurker]

ugh so many pet peeves about the new tree...

• forcing me to stack small tanks to make a practical rocket early on (I hate the look of that I prefer my stages be 1 tank per engine squad)
  
• 
  
• 2.5m decoupler and adapter well before you unlock any other 2.5 meter parts
  
• 
  
• 2.5m tanks and engines on separate nodes
  
• 
  
• no aircraft fuel tank to go with first node of aircraft parts
  
• 
  
• Tiny legs before you have any engines short enough for them (also well before fairings do they not need them? I thought the days of sticky tacking non-aerodynamic stuff all over the sides of your rocket was supposed to be over?)
  
• 
  
• puting probes, small structural, and electrics together(which is nice) and then putting small engines on the opposite side of the tree (which bad... seriously now they are just messing with me)
  
• 
  
• The whole structural parts branch of the tree in general (it shouldn't have to stretch back that far or even really exist does squad hate creativity or something?)
  

If you haven't noticed I just hate unlocking parts that are useless without another part on the opposite end of the tree. If they weren't gonna take the intuitive tech tree approach and make lots of small flexible single part sized nodes then they really should have compressed it down more not spread it thinner like this.

(Disclaimer: 1.0 claimed all my free time yesterday as I tinkered experimented and relearned how to fly it was a blast. Please don't let my ocd'ing over the tech tree let you think I don't think 1.0 is a great update)

[klgraham1013]

Lets not forgot about the technical marvel that is the ladder. My pilots currently use graceful acrobatics to exit my jet planes.

Edited April 28, 2015 by klgraham1013

[r4pt0r]

Lets not forgot about the technical marvel that is the ladder. My pilots currently use graceful acrobatics to exit my jet planes.

Ladders are totally endgame tech man. They are precision engineered.

[sherkaner]

ugh so many pet peeves about the new tree...

• forcing me to stack small tanks to make a practical rocket early on (I hate the look of that I prefer my stages be 1 tank per engine squad)
  
• 2.5m decoupler and adapter well before you unlock any other 2.5 meter parts
  
• 2.5m tanks and engines on separate nodes
  
• no aircraft fuel tank to go with first node of aircraft parts
  
• Tiny legs before you have any engines short enough for them (also well before fairings do they not need them? I thought the days of sticky tacking non-aerodynamic stuff all over the sides of your rocket was supposed to be over?)
  
• puting probes, small structural, and electrics together(which is nice) and then putting small engines on the opposite side of the tree (which bad... seriously now they are just messing with me)
  
• The whole structural parts branch of the tree in general (it shouldn't have to stretch back that far or even really exist does squad hate creativity or something?)
  

If you haven't noticed I just hate unlocking parts that are useless without another part on the opposite end of the tree. If they weren't gonna take the intuitive tech tree approach and make lots of small flexible single part sized nodes then they really should have compressed it down more not spread it thinner like this.

(Disclaimer: 1.0 claimed all my free time yesterday as I tinkered experimented and relearned how to fly it was a blast. Please don't let my ocd'ing over the tech tree let you think I don't think 1.0 is a great update)

Excellent examples, all.

For a new player, this has to be really baffling as they struggle to figure out why they can't make use of some of these parts that the game apparently thought they should be using. For an experienced player, it's very frustrating not being able to build out their technology career the way they want rather than being forced into whole branches of nodes in order to get a few critical parts -- and having whole classes of craft effectively unavailable until later in the game, even though they would be both useful and "realistically" sensible much earlier in the game.

I was all set to fire off a few SRB sounding rockets, then jump directly into some basic jet planes to break some speed records, but no... apparently that's not how they game wants me to play. No Chuck Yeager for me.

Edited April 28, 2015 by sherkaner

[passinglurker]

Excellent examples, all.

For a new player, this has to be really baffling as they struggle to figure out why they can't make use of some of these parts that the game apparently thought they should be using. For an experienced player, it's very frustrating not being able to build out their technology career the way they want rather than being forced into whole branches of nodes in order to get a few critical parts and having whole classes of craft effectively unavailable until later in the game, even though they would be both useful and "realistically" sensible much earlier in the game.

I was all set to fire off a few sounding rockets, then jump directly into some basic jet planes to break some speed records, but no... apparently that's not how they game wants me to play. No Chuck Yeager for me.

Its like paying for cable all you want is your dang cartoons but they won't sell you jack unless you also pay for the soap network, fox news, the "used to be about history" channel, and bundle it with phone and internet.

not to mention its seems they wasted a big opportunity with this rebalance to close the gap between the lolzkerbalz and realism flavors of balance in terms of part densities for the most part baring a few isolated cases like the nerva and the goo canister the only thing they really changed was the engines thrusts and isp's. pods are still very dense, mk1 cans are still the supreme kerbal mover able to resist temperatures on par with space plane parts, primitive wing and control surfaces are still terribly expensive compared the reaction wheels and gimbals etc...

[sherkaner]

Its like paying for cable all you want is your dang cartoons but they won't sell you jack unless you also pay for the soap network, fox news, the "used to be about history" channel, and bundle it with phone and internet.

Hah! Yes. Now I'm imagining a meeting with the Kerbal R&D team to direct them to work on a new rocket motor, and having them insist that they'll only do it if they're allowed to work on a really cool idea they've had for an adapter part that doesn't mate to anything that exists yet!

[Kegereneku]

Sight... not to disrespect 1.0 which is quite a considerable improvement but frankly I don't know what SQUAD really changed in the tech tree.

It's still as grindy (if not worse), it is made of absurdity like the ladder case or large structure before we have large tank, and it still force to simply grind for every parts mindlessly.

At best maybe it did became easier for modder to turn it into a proper tech-tree.

[Instresu]

I definitely have to agree here. A more Civilization V-style-ish tech tree would be nice. I also would like the automatic research mechanic such as in Civilization V where you can select the technology to research and then the game automatically does that for you, simultaneously as you go along and collect science/funds.

[klgraham1013]

At best maybe it did became easier for modder to turn it into a proper tech-tree.

This is really the only good thing about the tech tree "updates."

[sherkaner]

This is really the only good thing about the tech tree "updates."

Yeah, it goes with my general impression that Squad has done an absolutely incredible job of creating a solid platform for a space exploration game, but at this point somebody really needs to come in and actually design a cohesive game using all the tools in that platform. Sandbox mode works great because you get to just play around all the great parts and physics freely, but creating a cohesive career game that feels meaningful, player-directed, and satisfying requires another layer of consideration that doesn't seem to be there yet.