CarnageINC

Stock tank balance

81 posts in this topic

Just now, Starman4308 said:

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.

Crew pod mass balance is tricky. Like with fuel tanks there are two approaches either a flat rate based on capabilities or a scaling rate based on volume. if fuel tanks are being balanced based on volume it would stand to reason so should crewed parts to an extent.

Personally I'm partial to simple flat capability based rates in both cases but scaling with volume can have its merits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

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.

Yeah, but the thing is, that SETIrebalance already is this comprehensive rebalancing package. It certainly includes more than fuel tanks and command pod masses. And if there is already the idea of "if fuel tanks are rebalanced, we should rebalance command pods as well" then I really dont see why you would stop there. Like, why does a thermometer in stock cost so much? And why does it not transmit for 100%? And why stop with the part values, what about their tech tree positions? Why do ladders come so late? etc...

I mean, what is the issue with simply installing SETIrebalance? It is on ckan as well, so easy to put in the "recommended" or "suggested" field of other mods, so I really dont understand.

 

4 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Crew pod mass balance is tricky. Like with fuel tanks there are two approaches either a flat rate based on capabilities or a scaling rate based on volume. if fuel tanks are being balanced based on volume it would stand to reason so should crewed parts to an extent.

Personally I'm partial to simple flat capability based rates in both cases but scaling with volume can have its merits

Fuel tanks have negatives (masses, costs) AND positives (capacity) based on volumes (at least if they are balanced). The problem with crew parts is, that you can hardly offset a volume based increase in mass by a positive like crew capacity, if you want to stay in line with visuals/model interiors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yemo said:

Yeah, but the thing is, that SETIrebalance already is this comprehensive rebalancing package. It certainly includes more than fuel tanks and command pod masses. And if there is already the idea of "if fuel tanks are rebalanced, we should rebalance command pods as well" then I really dont see why you would stop there. Like, why does a thermometer in stock cost so much? And why does it not transmit for 100%? And why stop with the part values, what about their tech tree positions? Why do ladders come so late? etc...

I mean, what is the issue with simply installing SETIrebalance? It is on ckan as well, so easy to put in the "recommended" or "suggested" field of other mods, so I really dont understand.

SETI is not some authoritative rebalancing; it is one way to rebalance things, and others may disagree with parts of that. Due to the ARR license, it's impossible to package in SETI (and no, not everybody uses CKAN), or redistribute any modifications* to SETI, etc. An ARR license gives you total control over the package, which inherently denies anybody else control over the package.

*The configurations might be over-writable by adding a second MM patch to run after SETI, though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yemo said:

Yeah, but the thing is, that SETIrebalance already is this comprehensive rebalancing package.

It depends on what you mean by "rebalance." The thread started with a simple question about the amount of fuel in tanks based on volume, and to my knowledge there is not a single-download easy-to-use MM patch that makes the stock parts have consistent balance in a stock-like way (SETI-redesign does not do that. It re-arranges the entire tech tree, among other things).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nathan1 said:

It depends on what you mean by "rebalance." The thread started with a simple question about the amount of fuel in tanks based on volume, and to my knowledge there is not a single-download easy-to-use MM patch that makes the stock parts have consistent balance in a stock-like way (SETI-redesign does not do that. It re-arranges the entire tech tree, among other things).

SETIrebalance does not change anything regarding the tech tree. It is precisely an easy to use MM-patch making stock parts have consistent balance in a stock-like way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Yemo There is no reason SETI-rebalance has to be the only one.  Not everybody agrees on the standards by which the game should be balanced.  There are plenty of 'competing' mods out there, so this would be no different.  If linuxgurugamer things he can provide something that others will want, then he should go for it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Yemo said:

SETIrebalance does not change anything regarding the tech tree. It is precisely an easy to use MM-patch making stock parts have consistent balance in a stock-like way.

This whole thread started because we are trying to bring back an old mod with values which are way out of place.

I've decided to also update KW Rocketry at the same time, using the same formulas.

Stock was an aside.  Since it is so out of whack,  I thought about looking at it.

SETI is a nice, big mod, which is untouchable by anyone else.  It may be good (probably is, I haven't used it in a very long time), but, I can't change it, or even pull in parts of it and modify those parts if I disagree with what is in there.

If you were to change the license to something I could use, then I would consider using/recommending SETI, as of now, because of my personal feelings about the license, I can't.

Add on to this, that once SETI is installed, craft sharing goes out the window, same as with using Part Upgrades.  

I might as well use the formula for calculating the mass based on volume, rather than just using a 9:1 Mass Ratio.  Which makes SETI irrelevant to this discussion, since I believe you made everything constant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread kind of went off topic, but I've been using this for the 2.5m command pods for quite some time, it seems reasonable to me:

@PART[Mark1-2Pod]
{
    %mass = 3.15
}

@PART[mk2LanderCabin]
{
    %mass = 1.85
}

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Alshain said:

@Yemo There is no reason SETI-rebalance has to be the only one.  Not everybody agrees on the standards by which the game should be balanced.  There are plenty of 'competing' mods out there, so this would be no different.  If linuxgurugamer things he can provide something that others will want, then he should go for it.

Yeah, but there is no reason to introduce incompatibilities when seeking a balanced game, just because I can't be bothered to talk to another modder who does the same thing I want to do for a few years now. Without having any content related differences!

 

40 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

This whole thread started because we are trying to bring back an old mod with values which are way out of place.

I've decided to also update KW Rocketry at the same time, using the same formulas.

Stock was an aside.  Since it is so out of whack,  I thought about looking at it.

SETI is a nice, big mod, which is untouchable by anyone else.  It may be good (probably is, I haven't used it in a very long time), but, I can't change it, or even pull in parts of it and modify those parts if I disagree with what is in there.

If you were to change the license to something I could use, then I would consider using/recommending SETI, as of now, because of my personal feelings about the license, I can't.

Add on to this, that once SETI is installed, craft sharing goes out the window, same as with using Part Upgrades.  

I might as well use the formula for calculating the mass based on volume, rather than just using a 9:1 Mass Ratio.  Which makes SETI irrelevant to this discussion, since I believe you made everything constant.

...

Which would introduce massive imbalances when players use eg procedural parts or tank content switching mods. Somewhat contrary to your goal of increasing balance.

I m not at my gaming pc, so I can not do it myself at the moment. But why not simply install SETIrebalance (and eg procedural parts and look at the liquid fuel tank and its options) and look at the result, before deciding what you want to do? Why introduce incompatibilities/imbalances between mods when there might not be any actual content related differences of opinion? Is it not worth 10 minutes to check out what a rebalance mod has done for years, to avoid incompatibilities/imbalances between mods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incompatibility how?  If I make sure that the stats only get better, then existing vessels and other mods won't have problems.

One of the things I'm thinking about is to have the worst parts have a 9:1 ratio, and larger parts would be better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when did you pull and change parts of other differently licensed mods instead of just going into their thread and talking to the mod authors about things you disagree with first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One way to balance command pods would be a fixed mass per Kerbal, plus a flat mass based on the pod size to the power of ~2.3 (compromise between surface area and volume). Change this exponent by + 0.2 if it is designed for re-entry, and another +0.1 if it has control electronics. 

The crew cabins would then be the lightest, as they would just be Kerbal Seating + Structure. 

Next are lander cans, which add the control mass bonus.

Finally would be pods, which add re-entry strength. 

I would put cockpits in the same class as pods - they need to be structurally strong to withstand aerodynamic forces. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Incompatibility how?  If I make sure that the stats only get better, then existing vessels and other mods won't have problems.

One of the things I'm thinking about is to have the worst parts have a 9:1 ratio, and larger parts would be better

Because then larger tanks would be strictly more mass efficient than procedural parts. edit: Of the same volume.

5 minutes ago, MaxL_1023 said:

One way to balance command pods would be a fixed mass per Kerbal, plus a flat mass based on the pod size to the power of ~2.3 (compromise between surface area and volume). Change this exponent by + 0.2 if it is designed for re-entry, and another +0.1 if it has control electronics. 

The crew cabins would then be the lightest, as they would just be Kerbal Seating + Structure. 

Next are lander cans, which add the control mass bonus.

Finally would be pods, which add re-entry strength. 

I would put cockpits in the same class as pods - they need to be structurally strong to withstand aerodynamic forces. 

 

 

SETIrebalance uses crew size, modules (eg reaction wheel strength), resource storage (eg monoprop capacity) and capsule strength against external forces (eg impact) as a base for mass values.

10 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Incompatibility how?  If I make sure that the stats only get better, then existing vessels and other mods won't have problems.

One of the things I'm thinking about is to have the worst parts have a 9:1 ratio, and larger parts would be better

Oh, and making stats only better is impossible if you are serious about balancing the monoprop tanks. And thus your patches will affect craft sharing in the same way as SETIrebalance does.

Edited by Yemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Yemo said:

And when did you pull and change parts of other differently licensed mods instead of just going into their thread and talking to the mod authors about things you disagree with first?

What are you talking about?  What mods?  What parts?

37 minutes ago, Yemo said:

Because then larger tanks would be strictly more mass efficient than procedural parts. edit: Of the same volume.

And maybe that's a good thing.

 

37 minutes ago, Yemo said:

Oh, and making stats only better is impossible if you are serious about balancing the monoprop tanks. And thus your patches will affect craft sharing in the same way as SETIrebalance does

You seem to have some sort of chip on your shoulder, as if your mod is the only way to do this.  It's not the only way.

Craft sharing is not a concern of mine.  As soon as ANYONE modifies a stock part, craft sharing is not a concern.  Craft can still be shared, as long as the proper mods are installed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

What are you talking about?  What mods?  What parts?

You said the license of SETIrebalance whould not allow you to pull or change parts of it. So I was wondering when/if you did to so with other mods which had different licenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 minutes ago, Yemo said:

You said the license of SETIrebalance whould not allow you to pull or change parts of it. So I was wondering when/if you did to so with other mods which had different licenses.

No, you accused me of doing it without consulting other authors.

You brought up SETI, so I was and am responding to you.  I never said anything about other mods

But, I'm curious, since you brought this up, did you contact all the other mods SETI is modifying and ask them for permission to do the changes?  Looking at the list in the file, you touch many mods, did you get permission from each mod author?

Frankly, permission isn't needed to make changes with MM.  But, since you asked me, I'm asking you.

Edited by linuxgurugamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Yemo said:

Yeah, but there is no reason to introduce incompatibilities when seeking a balanced game, just because I can't be bothered to talk to another modder who does the same thing I want to do for a few years now. Without having any content related differences!

Why would his module manager patch introduce incompatibilities that yours does not?

Edited by Alshain
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is ridiculous.

You complain that a license forbids you to pull and change parts from that mod (without asking the modder first).

Then I ask you if you did pull and change parts from other mods without asking the modder, just because their license allows you to do so.

Then you get angry about me accusing you?

You know, I started here with that attitude as well, and I was rightfully slapped on the wrist for it. I did not expect you in particular to act as badly as I did in my earlier days on this forum.

 

You know, I came in here offering help and information/experience from someone who did rebalance ksp for over 2 years. Fighting incompatibilities and imbalances based on over 2 years of feedback.

And I got ignored and false statements thrown at me for trying to prevent incompatibilities and imbalances between mods, which are totally avoidable.

 

If you want to make the same mistakes I did over the last 2 years, be my guest.

Which is coincidentally the reason why SETIrebalance is ARR, so that people can't just pull and change parts without consulting me, so that the countless contributions, bug reports and compatibility feedback from other forum members of over 2 years are not undone in an instant by someone simply unwilling to even talk to a person who remembers them. It is not about coming to different conclusions, it is just about not repeating the same mistakes for no reason.

 

For anyone interested in stockish balance based on over 2 years of feedback and willing to learn from the past mistakes of others instead of repeating them, you know where to find it. Good luck and happy "avoidable imbalance/incompatibility fixing" for the ones who dont. I m out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yemo said:

This is ridiculous.

You complain that a license forbids you to pull and change parts from that mod (without asking the modder first).

Then I ask you if you did pull and change parts from other mods without asking the modder, just because their license allows you to do so.

Then you get angry about me accusing you?

You know, I started here with that attitude as well, and I was rightfully slapped on the wrist for it. I did not expect you in particular to act as badly as I did in my earlier days on this forum.

 

You know, I came in here offering help and information/experience from someone who did rebalance ksp for over 2 years. Fighting incompatibilities and imbalances based on over 2 years of feedback.

And I got ignored and false statements thrown at me for trying to prevent incompatibilities and imbalances between mods, which are totally avoidable.

 

If you want to make the same mistakes I did over the last 2 years, be my guest.

Which is coincidentally the reason why SETIrebalance is ARR, so that people can't just pull and change parts without consulting me, so that the countless contributions, bug reports and compatibility feedback from other forum members of over 2 years are not undone in an instant by someone simply unwilling to even talk to a person who remembers them. It is not about coming to different conclusions, it is just about not repeating the same mistakes for no reason.

 

For anyone interested in stockish balance based on over 2 years of feedback and willing to learn from the past mistakes of others instead of repeating them, you know where to find it. Good luck and happy "avoidable imbalance/incompatibility fixing" for the ones who dont. I m out.

No, not angry.  But you still haven't answered any of the questions posed to you.

and this whole thing started because of a discussion about another mod, not stock  Changing stock was a possible offshoot, not a given.

How am I acting badly?  I'm politely asking questions, I'm not cursing you out, etc.  I'm not saying you are wrong.  Others have also asked questions. I'm not discounting what you have done, but you seem to be unwilling to answer questions put to you as a result of your own postings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it is time for everyone to step back a bit and cool off. There's no need to make personal remarks about each other, so please stop with that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the ARR, what happens to the mod if/when you decide to not support it anymore?  Do you have a clause in it which says something along the lines of what @stupid_chris uses in RealChutes:

Quote

This clause expires if I happen to be inactive (no connection) for a period of 90 days on the official KSP forums. In that case, the license reverts back to CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 INTL

My issue with ARR is more that if a modder goes away, or dies, or whatever, the mod dies.  This clause addresses that issue.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Regarding the ARR, what happens to the mod if/when you decide to not support it anymore?  Do you have a clause in it which says something along the lines of what @stupid_chris uses in RealChutes:

My issue with ARR is more that if a modder goes away, or dies, or whatever, the mod dies.  This clause addresses that issue.

Not continuing this discussion as I said that I was out, but this is important as it was a promise I made to the people who donated via patreon. When I started patreon I stated that the mod will not die because of my desinterest in it and that I consider it to be my responsibility, when accepting donations, to hand it over before that happens.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yemo said:

Not continuing this discussion as I said that I was out, but this is important as it was a promise I made to the people who donated via patreon. When I started patreon I stated that the mod will not die because of my desinterest in it and that I consider it to be my responsibility, when accepting donations, to hand it over before that happens.

That's great.  Might I suggest you (if it's not there already) make a mention of that in the OP of the mod?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

That's great.  Might I suggest you (if it's not there already) make a mention of that in the OP of the mod?

Good idea, thank you, must have slipped in one of the OP updates or the forum update.

Ammended the section beneath the patreon logo/link including the reason to go for ARR in the first place (burnt by previous experience, thus my question earlier about pulling mods).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, Yemo said:

Good idea, thank you, must have slipped in one of the OP updates or the forum update.

Ammended the section beneath the patreon logo/link including the reason to go for ARR in the first place (burnt by previous experience, thus my question earlier about pulling mods).

Nice.

Can we just forget about stock in this thread, and get back to the discussion as it originally was, regarding two part mods which we are working on to rebalance?  Given all the work you've done on SETI, I would really value your input.

I'm sorry the discussion devolved the way it did, let's get it back to where it was.

Edited by linuxgurugamer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now