[0.90] Released -- BlueSky R&D: A more intuitive stock-parts tech tree, using TechManager mod

[CaptainKipard]

what if you made it cheaper? It does seem to be an unintended side effect of sane trees and ballance fixes is that they fill a lot of holes that we make mods to fill doesn't it?

I guess. I'll have to play a bit with this tree and get my bearings.

on that note:

My first impression is that the initial nodes should not be free. You should give them a cost and suggest to players a starting science amount so that they can research what they need initially, and then start the game properly.

edit

I noticed that all the parts in the initial nodes start out as owned, instead of requiring me to buy them. How come?

Edited January 11, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[sherkaner]

First thing. Is it not possible to start with all the free nodes already unlocked?

I tried, but no. The only way to get a node to start unlocked is to set its type to "start", but unfortunately setting multiple nodes as "start" causes the game to treat all of them as the same node, and so all of them contain all of the start parts. It would be nice if nodes simply had a "start" flag -- another suggestion for TM/KSP.

The only way to get around this would be to just collapse all of the first column nodes into a single start node, which immediately would fan out to the technology lines. I worry that doing it that way would make it less clear exactly what the rows mean though. As it is, you can clearly see that each start part is the beginning of a related technology row.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you mean the cost to research a part after unlocking its tech node? That's given by the part's entryCost field in the .cfg file (and the cost field is the actual purchase price in the VAB/SPH). There should be no problem adjusting that with Module Manager.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

You mean that's a separate .cfg file than the one I'm creating for TM, right? Yeah, it's not surprising that there may be another way of doing it. But I didn't want to hold up doing this by diving into how to mess with part costs, let alone trying to balance things. If somebody else wants to take a shot at that, I would welcome it.

- - - Updated - - -

on that note:

My first impression is that the initial nodes should not be free. You should give them a cost and suggest to players a starting science amount so that they can research what they need initially, and then start the game properly.

I went back and forth on that. The reason I didn't do that was twofold:

• I wanted to make this as straightforward for a newbie as possible so I didn't like the idea of having to follow more out-of-game instructions to make it work (even though I had to do that for the R&D tier limits)
  
• From a gameplay perspective, I kind of like the idea that the player would have free access to that whole range of starting parts so they can at least play a bit with each type of technology without feeling like they had "wasted" points on something. There node costs after the starting parts ramp up pretty quickly so I didn't think there would be huge game balance issue by giving people a range of foundational technologies. Plus you still have the cost to buy the part in most cases, even if the node is free.
  

But I'd be open to reconsidering that choice if there's a strong opinion on it generally.

I noticed that all the parts in the initial nodes start out as owned, instead of requiring me to buy them. How come?

When you created the new career, did you set the option for "No Entry Purchase Required on Research"? I notice that's the default on "normal" difficulty. If that option isn't selected, the parts do require the purchase for me.

- - - Updated - - -

Edit: posted before i'd seen released version: tree is now finished and not as crushingly dense as I worried it might get.

That's the reaction I was hoping for. It really overstates the complexity of it when you see the whole thing without having played through it. I think it actually starts out quite approachable and simple, and it only gets complex to the extent that you the player want it to, part by part.

[tuckjohn]

BlueSky R&D has been released!

I have said It before, and I am going to say it again. What you have done is Incredible!

Edited January 11, 2015 by tuckjohn
Format Fix

[sherkaner]

I have said It before, and I am going to say it again. What you have done is Incredible!

Thanks, man.

[tuckjohn]

And finally, here is the complete tree (unless you want to be surprised):

http://i.imgur.com/rP2kaAo.png

Now that I look at the first page, I really like the way that you used lines to mark where the borders of the tiers are located. Nice job!

[sherkaner]

I know it's probably too early to ask about balancing feedback, but at least I assume that nobody has any problems installing and using the tree initially?

[CaptainKipard]

No technical problems here so far.

- - - Updated - - -

I went back and forth on that. The reason I didn't do that was twofold:

• I wanted to make this as straightforward for a newbie as possible so I didn't like the idea of having to follow more out-of-game instructions to make it work (even though I had to do that for the R&D tier limits)
  
• From a gameplay perspective, I kind of like the idea that the player would have free access to that whole range of starting parts so they can at least play a bit with each type of technology without feeling like they had "wasted" points on something. There node costs after the starting parts ramp up pretty quickly so I didn't think there would be huge game balance issue by giving people a range of foundational technologies. Plus you still have the cost to buy the part in most cases, even if the node is free.
  

But I'd be open to reconsidering that choice if there's a strong opinion on it generally.

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.

My biggest objection is that you've given players too many parts with which to start. The suggestion in the other thread was always to have the player start with a small amount of science by default, never zero. This is something we can try out by telling player in big bold red letters, "I suggest you start with N science, to pick your initial path"

I don't buy the "no instructions" argument. Players who mod their games are more than capable of sliding the slider to the right a bit. This is a technical issue (default science value) that shouldn't stand in the way of trying out the suggested tree, as closely as possible.

You can increase the cost of all the starting nodes slightly, and balance the costs and initial science value suggestion to give people a balanced start, no matter which direction they go first:

• Manned Planes
  
• Manned Rovers
  
• Manned Rockets
  
• Unmanned Planes
  
• Unmanned Rovers
  
• Unmanned Rockets
  

Edited January 12, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[sherkaner]

My biggest objection is that you've given players too many parts with which to start.

I don't disagree, but I'm curious what sense do you mean "too many"? As in "makes the game too easy" or "is too confusing"? I have a little bit of worry myself about the latter at least. Even though I don't see a problem with allowing a player immediate access to, say, i-beams, you wouldn't really want to have a new player getting the impression that those are a necessary first purchase. But I'd tend to say that could be solved (in stock, not in my mod) with a dialog for new players asking if they'd like the game to start them with some parts (basically the current stock start node with basic rocketry parts).

I don't buy the "no instructions" argument. Players who mod their games are more than capable of sliding the slider to the right a bit.

Okay, you've convinced me on that point -- I kept wanting to cater to absolute newbies who want to play the tree, but... newbies are not going to be finding this thread and installing a mod. So I'll work on an update that assumes a given amount of starting science. Should be easy.

[CaptainKipard]

I don't disagree, but I'm curious what sense do you mean "too many"? As in "makes the game too easy" or "is too confusing"?

The first one I guess. It's more like even though you give them a small selection, the selection is very diverse. It has a kind of sandboxy feel to it. IMO we should have the bare minimum to start the game. For each of the bullet points above just figure out the minimum parts you need to start collecting science, and start adding up the science costs. for those nodes.

There will be some overlap between each "starting selection", e.g. both rocket starts will need the same parts, except the manned will need a pod, whereas the unmanned will need a probe, and maybe a battery, etc.

The rover starts will need some structural parts, like the beams, instead of fuel tanks, etc. They'll also need batteries. Unmanned rovers will need a probe. Manned will need either a seat, or a pod ... Which reminds me. There used to be a bug where a rover with a seat would not place a kerbal on launch. I don't know if that's still the case but there was a mod that fixes it. You'll need it as a dependency for this. Remember this whole mod is going to be very hacky, because you have to deal with what's available.

- - - Updated - - -

The mod was Seat Fixer, but it's not been updated in a long time.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[sherkaner]

The first one I guess. It's more like even though you give them a small selection, the selection is very diverse. It has a kind of sandboxy feel to it. IMO we should have the bare minimum to start the game. For each of the bullet points above just figure out the minimum parts you need to start collecting science, and start adding up the science costs. for those nodes.

Right, that's my plan (now).

There used to be a bug where a rover with a seat would not place a kerbal on launch. I don't know if that's still the case but there was a mod that fixes it. You'll need it as a dependency for this. Remember this whole mod is going to be very hacky, because you have to deal with what's available.

Yeah, that is annoyingly still the case. I actually added a note to the command seat node explaining this. I have to assume that that limitation was put on the command seat to keep people from using it as a light-weight cheater capsule since the aerodynamics in the current game won't put a stop to using it at high atmospheric speed. But I also assume that limitation will go away in 0.91 with the aero revamp and part rebalance.

[sherkaner]

Okay, version 0.2 has been posted to add science cost to all first-level parts.

It is now recommended that players manually start themselves with 30 science points (the minimum above zero the slider allows) in order to make their initial part purchases.

[CaptainKipard]

Alright, excellent. I'm going to start with some unmanned aerial drones. First impressions soon.

[sherkaner]

Alright, excellent. I'm going to start with some unmanned aerial drones. First impressions soon.

See that's the kind of thing I'd love to see more of.

I'm glad that I'm getting the vibe from Squad that they're really interested in giving players flexibility, and so lateral approaches to even the start of the game I think are awesome.

[CaptainKipard]

Alrighty. I started with aerial drones.

• They were unsurprisingly very difficult to control, but that problem should soon disappear with the new aero model, and possibly with more tweakables for the control surfaces.
  
• Entry cost. I had to restart my game without the entry cost because I ran out of money for the actual launch.
  
• Now here's an interesting bug. The first altitude contract you get does not seem to work without a Kerbal.
  

Besides that I have no issues at this moment. I was able to make some money and gain some science in order to play further, so I'll be doing that.

I'm actually enjoying early career for the first time ever. This is great.

[sherkaner]

Alrighty. I started with aerial drones.

• They were unsurprisingly very difficult to control, but that problem should soon disappear with the new aero model, and possibly with more tweakables for the control surfaces.
  

• Entry cost. I had to restart my game without the entry cost because I ran out of money for the actual launch.
  
• Now here's an interesting bug. The first altitude contract you get does not seem to work without a Kerbal.
  

• Yeah, I was reading some notes that seemed to suggest that trim would become a thing for aircraft.
  
• Ugh, yeah. Since many of the start parts now have a money cost to unlock, I might add an additional starting cash suggestion to go with the starting science suggestion.
  
• That is weird and disappointing.
  

Besides that I have no issues at this moment. I was able to make some money and gain some science in order to play further, so I'll be doing that.

I'm actually enjoying early career for the first time ever. This is great.

Nice!

[CaptainKipard]

I launched a manned rocket now, and for some reason the 5000km altitude contract still wouldn't work.

- - - Updated - - -

I started a new game with a rocket this time, and somehow this time the contract worked.

- - - Updated - - -

I took the next altitude contract and escape the atmosphere contract, and again the altitude contract wouldn't work, but the atmosphere one worked.

What's weirder is that the second altitude contract completely disappeared from all the lists. It wasn't available, failed or completed, just gone.

Are you getting anything like that?

Edited January 15, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[sherkaner]

I launched a manned rocket now, and for some reason the 5000km altitude contract still wouldn't work.

- - - Updated - - -

I started a new game with a rocket this time, and somehow this time the contract worked.

- - - Updated - - -

I took the next altitude contract and escape the atmosphere contract, and again the altitude contract wouldn't work, but the atmosphere one worked.

What's weirder is that the second altitude contract completely disappeared from all the lists. It wasn't available, failed or completed, just gone.

Are you getting anything like that?

Yup, same issue here exactly. There seem to be some assumptions made in the contracts or contract system.

It's also a little frustrating (even if not surprising) that the initial contracts really hand-hold you through getting to orbit before you can do anything else really. Clearly if you had a more flexible tree like this one, you'd want some contract diversity to match the part diversity at the start. And generally I'd still like to see there being more to do before you necessarily get to orbit so it feels like a bit more of an achievement -- even if a player could really power up on rocket bits and get there relatively quickly if that was their preference.

I'm really looking forward to 0.91 including some general balancing across these systems.

Edited January 15, 2015 by sherkaner

[CaptainKipard]

I'll just continue with the current game, and see what happens. As far as science and funds go it's not a big problem. I started a Normal game, with some tweaks. I'm able to research and buy parts so it's totally fine for testing the tree progress itself. I'll also put a link to this thread in my sig.

edit

In several cases you placed average sized parts before tiny ones, but you didn't do that for landing legs. I feel like all tiny parts should be consistently placed, because they go together well. So either all tiny first, or all regular first with two arrows for tiny and larger. I think tiny and large after normal would be better for gameplay personally.

edit

You've also not followed this pattern for tier 1 stack engines. I think LV-909 should branch off from the main branch because it's a weaker engine, but still useful for certain specific purposes.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[sherkaner]

In several cases you placed average sized parts before tiny ones, but you didn't do that for landing legs. I feel like all tiny parts should be consistently placed, because they go together well. So either all tiny first, or all regular first with two arrows for tiny and larger. I think tiny and large after normal would be better for gameplay personally.

Well, some tiny things do come first, like probe cores and reaction wheels. I kind of thought that those would be the most likely starting points for small landers, which would go with the small landing legs. I mostly just saw people never using the small legs once they got the middle-sized ones. I could be convinced though.

You've also not followed this pattern for tier 1 stack engines. I think LV-909 should branch off from the main branch because it's a weaker engine, but still useful for certain specific purposes.

My thinking on tier-1 engines was that the 909 is the first thing to introduce gimballed thrust, after which you move up to the T45 with power and gimballing. But I was tempted to do it the way you suggest. Playing this a bit more, I think I agree with you now just because the 909 mostly ends up being a special-purpose engine; there's just not much you an do with it early in the game. I'll change this one.

[CaptainKipard]

Well, some tiny things do come first, like probe cores and reaction wheels. I kind of thought that those would be the most likely starting points for small landers, which would go with the small landing legs. I mostly just saw people never using the small legs once they got the middle-sized ones. I could be convinced though.

OK I see your point. The only objection I have left is that Mun and Minmus landings (the likely candidates for early unmanned rovers and landers) are a lot more likely to happen only after the player unlocks manoeuvre nodes, and that wont happen anyway until they've played through a few of the contracts, collected some money, and maybe collected some science from above Kerbin.

^^ SO that's an argument for delaying all the little parts, only slightly though. They should be the second thing always, except probe cores, because they're more fundamental.

The argument in favour of medium legs first on the other hand is the ability to create powered Kerbin landers and to let players recover more parts. There's not a whole lot of space on a probe core or the pod for single-shot science, like the goo, and more elaborate landers tend to break without some powered help and legs.

I don't see a problem with the reaction wheel placement btw. They fulfil a task that manned pods already do, and they enhance the probe cores so their place and order seems right. I don't know if that makes sense. It's a special case.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[CaptainKipard]

Any news?

10

[tuckjohn]

Well, some tiny things do come first, like probe cores and reaction wheels. I kind of thought that those would be the most likely starting points for small landers, which would go with the small landing legs. I mostly just saw people never using the small legs once they got the middle-sized ones. I could be convinced though.

My thinking on tier-1 engines was that the 909 is the first thing to introduce gimballed thrust, after which you move up to the T45 with power and gimballing. But I was tempted to do it the way you suggest. Playing this a bit more, I think I agree with you now just because the 909 mostly ends up being a special-purpose engine; there's just not much you an do with it early in the game. I'll change this one.

You guys are conversing on the balance of the tech tree, but I would not be worried about that now, as Squad is going to be re-balancing all of the parts in the next update. This would most likely through off the balance of things like what engines should come after what.

Also, I think that the order that parts, like the landing legs, should be medium and then small and large, but the large requiring an upgrade to the R+D facility.

[sherkaner]

To be honest, the announced major rebalancing of both parts and tree in 1.0 (as well as 1.0 status itself) has put me a bit off of really tuning in this tree much. If things end up going a direction in stock that's disappointing, I'll definitely think about reworking the three for 1.0 parts once that's out. Other than that, if people are enjoying this tree but finding things that are messed up, I'll try to put in the time to fix things. I was hoping for a little more general feedback from people here, but at least I hope some are enjoying it.

[kcs123]

To be honest, the announced major rebalancing of both parts and tree in 1.0 (as well as 1.0 status itself) has put me a bit off of really tuning in this tree much. If things end up going a direction in stock that's disappointing, I'll definitely think about reworking the three for 1.0 parts once that's out. Other than that, if people are enjoying this tree but finding things that are messed up, I'll try to put in the time to fix things. I was hoping for a little more general feedback from people here, but at least I hope some are enjoying it.

I understand your feeling about it. Wasting time on something that noone will use it. I like your work so far, but unfortunately I didn't have time to test it and give proper feedback as you deserve.

Didn't find even decent mod combo that can work without issues on my PC, still narowing it down and due to encountered issues I'm still in sandbox mode preparing crafts for career.

I'm afraid that 1.0 will be released sooner then I will be able to start career mode.

[CaptainKipard]

I'm pretty sure the main reason why more people aren't testing this is because this is not meant to work with other mods. It's more for testing the tree idea as described in the suggestion section.