Not gonna use the official suggestion tool because the post will get buried.

So. I made up my own tech tree for SR2. I haven’t got an idea for science point gathering yet but I do have an idea for how should you spend it.

For customizable parts, the tech tree poses restrictions on customizability features until you unlock respective nodes.

I hope it loads properly

Tags
Suggestion

6 Comments

  • Log in to leave a comment
  • Profile image

    I have different idea, gonna develop it soon...ish

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    5,525 Kell

    @swope Thank you!

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    310 swope

    @mjdfx150529 - I'm really glad to see someone thinking in this direction, and putting out a concept to provoke a conversation. I see the general theme of this concept is small-medium-large in discrete steps. I think that will be familiar and comfortable for KSP veterans, but I think SR2 has a very procedural / continuum theme that could really make for a novel campaign-mode experience.
    I have some half-baked ideas that I'd like to throw in. None of these are particularly special to me, so feel free to push back on any of them.
    1. Trade-offs between continuing a legacy system versus a clean-sheet design or new tech.
    2. Point designs can get great performance, but they are brittle.
    3. Parts have a chance of failing randomly. More operating time at a condition reduces the risk. Changing a parameter on part increases risk. Operating at a new condition increases risk.
    4. Aborting a launch and recovering whole pieces is worth more than an unmitigated disaster. A failure on a test stand on Droo reduces risk more than a failure in deep space because the forensic data is better.
    5. Part experience can combine. Test full-scale on the surface. Test sub-scale in orbit. Then fly full-scale in orbit and benefit from both risk reductions.
    6. Size is mostly limited by infrastructure (facilities, tooling, transport), not so much by technology.
    7. The technology milestones should improve efficiency, reduce risk, reduce cost, or add completely new capabilities. That could mean starting with a performance penalty that is half the ideal performance and gradually reducing that penalty to something like 10% of the ideal. The return on investment should taper off asymptotically.
    8. Astronauts are sort of orthogonal to technology. Each individual character builds up experience quickly, but they cannot be duplicated.
    9. Astronaut character performance should improve with experience in similar situations (not just purchased with XP points).
    In general, I'd like the player's experience to loosely follow the history of spaceflight. Instead of a tech tree, I think it should work like a surface gradient. The player chooses one path up the tech mountain from what is an almost infinite variety. There are relative ridges, valleys, and cliffs, and it's hard to see the ideal path.

    +1 2 months ago
  • Profile image
    5,525 Kell

    @AndrewGarrison Thanks! I might make a visual (with a style similar to my delta v map) soon after iterating the tech tree more.

    2 months ago
  • Profile image

    Thanks @mjdfx150529. You have some good ideas in there. I'm not sure when we will start on tech trees or campaign mode, but it is good to bounce some ideas around.

    +1 2 months ago
  • Profile image
    5,525 Kell

    @AndrewGarrison @PhillipTarpley @NathanMikeska

    2 months ago

7 Upvotes

Log in in to upvote this post.