Starting Manned: Better or not?

[Whirligig Girl]

So when the tech tree first came out people were (and to an extent, still are) unhappy that the tech tree starts with manned spacecraft. I think that both styles are fun (from playing pre-0.22 in sandbox, I always used probes first), and starting with the manned capsule certainly seems the most reasonable to me! But still, I think there should be some reforms to the 'tree. (Though not nearly as much as Better than Starting Manned!)

1): Fuel Tanks

Make the FL-T800 (long 1.25m tank) available first, then work down in size. This is a more interesting progression, as it removes the ease of fine-tuning your fuel early on. Unlocking the larger tanks first would mean that you are more restricted in early-game missions and staging.

2): Decouplers

I think it would be a cooler idea if radial decouplers came before stack decouplers. It's a more kerbal-y idea, and matches reality a bit closer.

3): More nodes for 3.75m parts

Right now you get the S3 Kerbodyne parts in one node. When there's more Kerbodyne parts, they should all be spread out more. For instance the F-1 (KR-2L) was built waaay before the SSME (KS-25).

There's a few solutions to the Manned vs Robotic start.

One: Allow both to be possible, you have to go to the R&D Facility to unlock your starting parts and you can choose either the crew pod or the probe core, and the rest of the tree will (where applicable) be changed based on this decision.

Two: have both, but the first cockpit would be unpressurized and thus would overheat and explode (overheating would be representing a pressure buildup) while above 30km. You'd also get a Stayputnik, with a longer battery capacity than currently available (About a day's worth, but no reaction wheels). This would nicely mimic the starting technologies of the space race.

Three: Choose between Manned start and Robotic Start in gameplay settings. This would even determine your entire tech tree! One is a more american progression, one is a more soviet progression. (Manned vs Probes respectively)

Probe Cores start would have radial decouplers and more time until larger rocket parts are available, Manned start would have stack decouplers and sooner unlocking of larger rocket parts.

[kStrout]

I really like the second idea, humans build unpressurized manned containers way before probes (citation: cardboard box) but probes came before space capsules.

[Bill Phil]

I'm fine with starting manned.

If you think about it:

There was a study in the late 1930s about landing on the Moon. An actual study! Of course it used solid rockets for main propulsion, but nonetheless...

So the idea of a manned capsule came first, just no one had the guts to do it.

Oh, and the British manned V-2 concept...

Basically, it is realistic. Although choosing in the difficulty panel would be good.

[Justin Kerbice]

Many players, too much used to human space programs, forgot the main kerbals concern: having fun !

That's explain why, starting to go to space themselves and thinking it would be very funny to move on zero-G etc get bored to death by waiting days, weeks or years locked in a tiny pod, so they decide to send probes and stay on Kerbin for playing .

[Wanderfound]

Diversify the tree, split the groups of parts into individual nodes. Make it multi-threaded; an unmanned stream, a manned rocket stream, an aircraft stream, an engines stream, a science stream, a ground vehicles stream. Workable parts in the start nodes of all streams. People can specialise or diversify as much as they want; the same tech tree can do everything from a Gemini start to Goddard and the Wright Brothers.

As always, let everyone play the way they want to and you're on a winner.

[tygoo7]

Diversify the tree, split the groups of parts into individual nodes. Make it multi-threaded; an unmanned stream, a manned rocket stream, an aircraft stream, an engines stream, a science stream, a ground vehicles stream. Workable parts in the start nodes of all streams. People can specialise or diversify as much as they want; the same tech tree can do everything from a Gemini start to Goddard and the Wright Brothers.

As always, let everyone play the way they want to and you're on a winner.

I like that idea, sort of like this tree does. I do think that Squad needs to rework the tech tree a bit. I think they should also add a thing in the difficulty panel which has "Start unmanned" which would have a different tree with it checked than it unchecked or something like that.

[CaptainKipard]

It'd be best if the tree was open like this, so the player decides whether to go manned or unmanned.

If you want the devs to pay attention then move your discussion to that thread. It's already quite long and highly rated.

[Kegereneku]

Just a remark : Gregroxmun I find you started this thread more like a suggestion than a discussion.

To my opinion, no, "starting manned" is definitely not better.

As the mod title said, there's "Better than starting manned" and not just because it's historically accurate.

It would improve gameplay and the player's progression.

You want time to learn the mechanic of the game,

You want a feeling of meaningful progression,

You want this progression to feel technologically rational,

And you don't want to be killing Kerbal by the dozen.

The situation we have now result from KSP's debut as a sandbox with no form of technological progression available and probes part being ostracized as "overpowered" at the time.

But, as pointed out the rigidity of the tech-tree is to blame : It take "long" to get technology that feel very archaic, and you only have access to them in bundle.

Understandable in turn is because there wasn't a gameplay to balance anyway. There was only science, no money, no upgradable building, two biome for any other planet.

It couldn't be helped. Many part of the game are placeholder.

However I still insist you cannot have a space program without displaying the added difficulty of manned mission