Stock tank balance

[passinglurker]

29 minutes ago, Yemo said:

it kills craft sharing.

The upgrade system is key to getting squad to rebalance the stock game without breaking existing craft, and saves. It needs to be embraced so that it can be refined.

[SchwinnTropius]

@linuxgurugamer

The Stock Upgrades uses the tech tree to unlock upgrades and applies them to all instances of the part after the upgrade is unlocked. Part modules like ModuleEnginesFX can be upgraded, but so can part stats like mass. The Proton M mod uses the Stock Upgrades in its parts, it might be worth checking out.

EDIT: So I did some tinkering with what the Proton M mod does for upgrades and remade from scratch an old personal Module Manager patch to upgrade the Mk1 Pod's heat tolerances, as well as a brand-new mass upgrade.

MM patch:

Spoiler

PARTUPGRADE
{
    name = mk1thermal
    partIcon = mk1pod
    techRequired = commandModules
    entryCost = 5000
    cost = 0 // for display only; all parts implementing this will need a PartStatsUpgradeModule with cost = this.
    showUpgradesInModuleInfo = true
    title = Mk1 Thermal Upgrade
    //basicInfo = Whatever\nblah
    manufacturer = ZenHex Parts Manufacturing and Repository
    description = Improves hull materials to withstand greater thermal stresses during reentry.
}

@PART[mk1pod]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = PartStatsUpgradeModule
        showUpgradesInModuleInfo = true

        UPGRADES
        {
            UPGRADE
            {
                name__ = mk1thermal
                techRequired__ = commandModules
                description__ = Max Temp now 1400/2400.
                showUpgradesInModuleInfo = true

                PartStats
                {
                    maxTemp = 1400
                    skinMaxTemp = 2400
                }
            }
        }
        
    }
}

PARTUPGRADE
{
    name = mk1mass
    partIcon = mk1pod
    techRequired = advMetalworks
    entryCost = 5000
    cost = 0 // for display only; all parts implementing this will need a PartStatsUpgradeModule with cost = this.
    showUpgradesInModuleInfo = true
    title = Mk1 Mass Upgrade
    //basicInfo = Whatever\nblah
    manufacturer = ZenHex Parts Manufacturing and Repository
    description = Improves hull materials to stronger and lighter materials.
}

@PART[mk1pod]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = PartStatsUpgradeModule
        showUpgradesInModuleInfo = true

        UPGRADES
        {
            UPGRADE
            {
                name__ = mk1mass
                techRequired__ = advMetalworks
                description__ = Mass now 0.7t; Crash Tolerance now 20m/s.
                showUpgradesInModuleInfo = true

                PartStats
                {
                    mass = -0.1
                    crashTolerance = 20
                }
            }
        }
        
    }
}

 

Although this was added to the Mk1 Pod, it should not be an issue to apply this to fuel tanks. As a side note: if upgrading mass to be lighter, the upgrade node value has to be negative like in the patch above.

Edited May 12, 2017 by SchwinnTropius

[Alshain]

6 hours ago, Yemo said:

Stock tanks parts are not balanced,

Fixed that for you.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Alshain

[Alshain]

6 hours ago, passinglurker said:

The upgrade system is key to getting squad to rebalance the stock game without breaking existing craft, and saves. It needs to be embraced so that it can be refined.

Then they need to find a way to save the part stats into the craft file.  They are saved in the persistence file, but they have to save them in the craft file and allow you to switch between upgraded and not upgraded and which upgrade level so they don't break craft sharing... or they could not do upgrades and just add them as separate parts.  The upgrade system was a thing that seemed like a good idea, but really was not.  That's probably why they didn't implement it in stock parts.

But really, who cares about breaking existing craft.  It's fun to build and redesign craft.  They should just rebalance the parts outright, don't screw around with the upgrade junk.

2 hours ago, SchwinnTropius said:

The Stock Upgrades uses the tech tree to unlock upgrades and applies them to all instances of the part after the upgrade is unlocked.

Not all instances, craft that have been launched have their stats saved in persistence (because that would be magic, suddenly upgrading a craft at Jool)

Edited May 12, 2017 by Alshain

[SchwinnTropius]

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

Not all instances, craft that have been launched have their stats saved in persistence (because that would be magic, suddenly upgrading a craft at Jool)

Right, should have been more clear about already launched craft.

About the upgrades themselves, as of right now the automatically apply to the part once they're unlocked (discounting parts in flight), they should instead be selectable in the editors like this mod seems to do.

[Alshain]

19 minutes ago, SchwinnTropius said:

Right, should have been more clear about already launched craft.

About the upgrades themselves, as of right now the automatically apply to the part once they're unlocked (discounting parts in flight), they should instead be selectable in the editors like this mod seems to do.

That would be a step in the right direction to fixing the upgrades system to make it usable.  However, there also needs to be a Tier limiter in there.  Right now in stock (no upgrades) we can filter parts by tier, so if I'm in sandbox designing something to be used at a specific point in career, I can quickly pull parts from specific tier levels, but going through each part and disabling a bunch of things wouldn't be an acceptable solution.  Instead of I would need a way to limit all upgrades to tier X and below without modifying each and every part.

[linuxgurugamer]

7 minutes ago, Alshain said:

That would be a step in the right direction to fixing the upgrades system to make it usable.  However, there also needs to be a Tier limiter in there.  Right now in stock (no upgrades) we can filter parts by tier, so if I'm in sandbox designing something to be used at a specific point in career, I can quickly pull parts from specific tier levels, but going through each part and disabling a bunch of things wouldn't be an acceptable solution.  Instead of I would need a way to limit all upgrades to tier X and below without modifying each and every part.

That sounds like something I could add to The Janitor's Closet.  Can you be a bit more specific, ie;  tier, etc?

[Alshain]

9 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

That sounds like something I could add to The Janitor's Closet.  Can you be a bit more specific, ie;  tier, etc?

The basic feeling is that until Squad improves the part upgrade feature, stock parts should not use it. It breaks craft sharing, challenges and such since you don't know which version of the part the craft was designed for. 

We are talking about a feature allowing you to 'turn off' upgrades like the mod he linked.  Right now in stock you can't, once the tech is unlocked it's assigned to all new parts of that type automatically and permanently.  However, if such an improvement were to be added in stock, there would also need to be a way to do so en-masse, based on what Tier the upgrade was unlocked, in order for part upgrades to be acceptable for stock use.  That way, if I am attempting to build a set of generic Tier 5 lifters in sandbox, I don't have to right click every part and turn off the upgrades.  Instead I can click a button that says "Limit to Tier 5 and below" and anything I grab will be in that targeted range.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Alshain

[linuxgurugamer]

1 minute ago, Alshain said:

We are talking about a feature allowing you to 'turn off' upgrades like the mod he linked.  Right now in stock you can't, once the tech is unlocked it's assigned to all new parts of that type automatically and permanently.  However, if such an improvement were to be added in stock, there would also need to be a way to do so en-masse, based on what Tier the upgrade was unlocked, in order for part upgrades to be acceptable for stock use.  That way, if I am attempting to build a set of generic Tier 5 lifters in sandbox, I don't have to right click every part and turn off the upgrades

Correct me if I'm wrong, but parts on existing vessels do not get changed when upgrades are purchased?

[Alshain]

Just now, linuxgurugamer said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but parts on existing vessels do not get changed when upgrades are purchased?

Correct and incorrect.  It depends on what you call 'existing'.  Parts in persistence (i.e. launched vessels) do not get changed.  Saved craft and subassemblies do however and that is part of the problem.

[linuxgurugamer]

1 minute ago, Alshain said:

Correct and incorrect.  It depends on what you call 'existing'.  Parts in persistence (i.e. launched vessels) do not get changed.  Saved craft and subassemblies do however and that is part of the problem.

I was referring to persistance.

Ok, I think I understand.  I'm busy with another mod right now, but this may not be difficult to add

[Alshain]

4 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I was referring to persistance.

Ok, I think I understand.  I'm busy with another mod right now, but this may not be difficult to add

I don't think it is anything you can add, it doesn't exist.  This is all stock suggestion for improving the part upgrade feature.  @Gotmachine might be able to add it as part of his mod somehow though (if it doesn't already exist).  But mods should not be required to fix a stock feature and therefore I still contend part upgrades should not be used on stock parts until Squad fixes and fleshes out the feature.  This has kinda gotten off topic but it does relate back to a conversation about using part upgrades to balance the parts.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Alshain

[passinglurker]

4 hours ago, Alshain said:

But really, who cares about breaking existing craft.  It's fun to build and redesign craft.  They should just rebalance the parts outright, don't screw around with the upgrade junk.

Oh thank god I'm not the only one that feels this way deep down. Ripping off the bandaid would be ideal, but good luck selling that to a lot of users who are content in mediocrity.

The only other solution I could think of this is to put rebalanced parts under new part names and just hide the old parts in the part catalog so old craft still load but all new craft are made with the rebalanced parts. (and when you "uninstall" you just flip it to show the old balance parts and hide the new balance parts)

[Red Iron Crown]

3 hours ago, Alshain said:

Correct and incorrect.  It depends on what you call 'existing'.  Parts in persistence (i.e. launched vessels) do not get changed.  Saved craft and subassemblies do however and that is part of the problem.

Minor correction: Some part stats are embedded in the craft file or subassembly file and do not change when the part is changed.   Resource containers are the canonical example, when the Mk1 LF tank got a sensible mass ratio craft had to be rebuilt to get the new stats. 

[Waxing_Kibbous]

I'd like to see a MM patch showing this ideal tank balance. It's one thing to say they need rebalancing, it's another to actually rebalance them. Make a cfg and let players try it out.

[Alshain]

2 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Minor correction: Some part stats are embedded in the craft file or subassembly file and do not change when the part is changed.   Resource containers are the canonical example, when the Mk1 LF tank got a sensible mass ratio craft had to be rebuilt to get the new stats. 

Fuel ammounts are stored in the craft.  That way it knows if you customized the fuel level in the tank.  That's not really what I consider part of the stats, though I suppose the max fuel is a stat.  In general, things that can't be changed by the player aren't stored.  For example, the tank's dry mass isn't in there.

1 hour ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

I'd like to see a MM patch showing this ideal tank balance. It's one thing to say they need rebalancing, it's another to actually rebalance them. Make a cfg and let players try it out.

I don't know about the tanks, but I know of a lot of other parts that do need work... like the Mk1-2 Command which is probably the worst offender.  It's better to use a Mk 3 cockpit on a rocket than that to use that silly command pod.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Alshain

[Yemo]

9 hours ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

I'd like to see a MM patch showing this ideal tank balance. It's one thing to say they need rebalancing, it's another to actually rebalance them. Make a cfg and let players try it out.

SETIrebalance mod (which is about 2 years old), link in my signature.

7 hours ago, Alshain said:

Fuel ammounts are stored in the craft.  That way it knows if you customized the fuel level in the tank.  That's not really what I consider part of the stats, though I suppose the max fuel is a stat.  In general, things that can't be changed by the player aren't stored.  For example, the tank's dry mass isn't in there.

I don't know about the tanks, but I know of a lot of other parts that do need work... like the Mk1-2 Command which is probably the worst offender.  It's better to use a Mk 3 cockpit on a rocket than that to use that silly command pod.

Yep, the Mk1-2 pod is bad with its 4 tons dry mass for 3 kerbals. SETIrebalance corrects that as well.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Yemo

[Alshain]

3 hours ago, Yemo said:

Yep, the Mk1-2 pod is bad with its 4 tons dry mass for 3 kerbals. SETIrebalance corrects that as well.

There is a patch in my MM thread (in signature) to fix it too.  To me, crew parts seem simple.  Come up with a mass per seating capacity and adjust all parts to match.  Lander cans get a fixed % bonus reduction (to make them worthwhile, they aren't designed for re-entry after all) and crew cabins get a bigger % bonus reduction (they do need re-entry but have a lack of significant electronics).  I do not understand why it is so difficult for Squad to figure that out.  Seating capacity (and maybe heat tolerance) is really all the difference there is between them, so it should be easy to balance.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Alshain

[linuxgurugamer]

13 hours ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

I'd like to see a MM patch showing this ideal tank balance. It's one thing to say they need rebalancing, it's another to actually rebalance them. Make a cfg and let players try it out.

Anything I do for stock would be with a MM patch.

Since you all brought this up, please post your ideas about balancing the command pods as well, regarding mass.

Edited May 13, 2017 by linuxgurugamer

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

There is a patch in my MM thread (in signature) to fix it too.  To me, crew parts seem simple.  Come up with a mass per seating capacity and adjust all parts to match.  Lander cans get a fixed % bonus reduction (to make them worthwhile, they aren't designed for re-entry after all) and crew cabins get a bigger % bonus reduction (they do need re-entry but have a lack of significant electronics).  I do not understand why it is so difficult for Squad to figure that out.  Seating capacity (and maybe heat tolerance) is really all the difference there is between them, so it should be easy to balance.

@Alshain

this is a good idea.  I may include it when I make the rebalance patch, will ask you to review when it's ready, if that's ok 

[Alshain]

24 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

@Alshain

this is a good idea.  I may include it when I make the rebalance patch, will ask you to review when it's ready, if that's ok 

Well, I'd be happy to look at them but I'm not sure of what the numbers should actually be.  It's more of a concept than anything.  I just know you can't have balance without a standard for balancing.  A lot of the time KSP part stats feel like they just selected numbers at random.

[Yemo]

56 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Anything I do for stock would be with a MM patch.

Since you all brought this up, please post your ideas about balancing the command pods as well, regarding mass.

I don't fully understand the need for something which already exists. Both in the form of singular MM patches by Alshain as well as a MM patch compilation like SETIrebalance. Why invent the wheel a third time?

Edited May 13, 2017 by Yemo

[linuxgurugamer]

19 minutes ago, Yemo said:

I don't fully understand the need for something which already exists. Both in the form of singular MM patches by Alshain as well as a MM patch compilation like SETIrebalance. Why invent the wheel a third time?

It's an offshoot of the tank balancing, if the tanks are balanced, the cmd pods should be as well.  And, SETIRebalance is an ARR license, so I can't include any parts of it.

[Yemo]

Just now, linuxgurugamer said:

It's an offshoot of the tank balancing, if the tanks are balanced, the cmd pods should be as well.  And, SETIRebalance is an ARR license, so I can't include any parts of it.

Well, why not simply install SETIrebalance? It balances tanks, masses and so on...

 

[Starman4308]

1 minute ago, Yemo said:

Well, why not simply install SETIrebalance? It balances tanks, masses and so on...

 

I think @linuxgurugamer, @CarnageINC, and possibly others are trying to make a comprehensive rebalancing package, and they can't bundle an ARR mod with their package, thus, reinventing the wheel is necessary.

As to command-pod masses, I'm seeing roughly 800 kg per astronaut at minimum, out to almost 2000 kg per astronaut for the big, long-range, extended-duration vehicles. If there were a way to enforce a maximum range from home, I'd be halfway tempted to leave the Mk. 1 as-is, and have the bigger capsules pegged to maybe 1-1.25 tonnes per astronaut.