Jump to content

Hitchiker module seem underpowered now


abowl
 Share

Recommended Posts

Basically you can get 2 crew slots for 1 t with the new crew cabin, whereas the hitchiker gives you 4 crew slots for 2.5t. The new crew cabin also has a very high crash tolerance whereas the hitchiker only has 6 m/s. I feel like giving the hitchiker a new unique science experiment or bumping its crew size to 5 will make it more more balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part masses have been horribly unbalanced for a while now; if I recall the Mk 1-2 pod is inferior to the Mk 3 cockpit in basically every possible way: heavier, fewer crew, and lower crash tolerance, none of which makes much sense considering their relative sizes (assuming it didn't get a rebalance in 1.0.5). I'm not surprised to hear the new cabin has similar balance issues.

Me, even in career mode I basically ignore the mass and stats, build whatever crew accomodations seem appropriate from a RP perspective (i. e., short-duration orbital shuttle can just have airliner-style seating, long-duration interplanetary ship or station needs more living space), and then build the rest of my ship to carry them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we need instead is a new game mechanic that makes us use hitchiker modules or some other modules meant for long time habitation for all missions longer than a few days.

Now we can just out kerbal in a pod where there is barely enough room to sit and send him on a 10 year journey to eeloo. I dont like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO the Mk3 capsule should hold 4, like Orion. That would make it competitive with the Mk2 passenger module. But we really do need station and base parts, it's an area sorely lacking in the game. We have three crew parts (cupola, laboratory, and hitchhiker) for in-space use. It's kind of insane that in a game about space exploration we have more kinds of jet engines than we have places for Kerbals to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well The current parts are fine the way they are they really don't need changes.

What I would like to see is more modern parts that show up at the end of the career path and as stated more parts for crew and supplies etc for SPACE ships.

Yes there are some mods out there that help with the gap but I would rather see them put in the game then count on a modder to keep them updated.

Modders - No offense intended you do a incredible job but you aren't getting payed and you can quit at any point so I am really hesitant to use any mod unless I can live without it.

Which brings up the point of KSP looking at the top used mods and looking to put them into the game permanently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part masses have been horribly unbalanced for a while now; if I recall the Mk 1-2 pod is inferior to the Mk 3 cockpit in basically every possible way: heavier, fewer crew, and lower crash tolerance, none of which makes much sense considering their relative sizes (assuming it didn't get a rebalance in 1.0.5).

It did, the Mk3 Cockpit is now a 6t/6 kerbal part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did, the Mk3 Cockpit is now a 6t/6 kerbal part.

I need to dig 1.0.4 from somewhere then. I'm pretty sure that has broken some ships from my 1.0.4 career which I haven't touched yet.

Anyway, regarding the Hitchicker, it has the advantage of usable exit hatches, while the MK1 cabin ones are likely to end up blocked when you build the ship.

But I agree in more station/base parts which look good for long term habitation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that introduction of life support would be a perfect justification for the wierd mass numbers of some pods/crew cabins. A heavier hitchhiker would store more Food (or some other LS resource) than the Mk2 crew cabin with the same crew capacity but lower mass. Or have an LS built-in module, like water/air purification system, or whatever.

Edited by Veeltch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's underpowered, I just think they need a way to discourage the use of cabins as long term accommodations.

I take it you're one of those high-maintenance types for who a Mk I Command Pod is not good enough for an 18 month Duna mission? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that introduction of life support would be a perfect justification for the wierd mass numbers of some pods/crew cabins. A heavier hitchhiker would store more Food (or some other LS resource) than the Mk2 crew cabin with the same crew capacity but lower mass. Or have an LS built-in module, like water/air purification system, or whatever.

what does a module manager file need to look like in order to make a hitchhiker-container be able to store food and other supply-goods.

I like the hitchhiker, and my recent crafts are usually equipped with hitchhikers for long duration travel, and hitchhikers are not meant to reenter kerbins atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we need instead is a new game mechanic that makes us use hitchiker modules or some other modules meant for long time habitation for all missions longer than a few days.

Now we can just out kerbal in a pod where there is barely enough room to sit and send him on a 10 year journey to eeloo. I dont like that.

May I recommend KeepFit. It will solve that exact problem. I use KeepFit in lieu of a life support mod because I don't want to face the difficulties of a 'full scale' life support mod in my career game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did, the Mk3 Cockpit is now a 6t/6 kerbal part.

I just checked my stock 1.0.5 install: Mk3 cockpit is definitely still 3.9t and 4 kerbals, Mk1-2 is 4.12t and 3 kerbals. There is a mod (which I use in my 1.0.4 installs) which activated the two unused seats in the Mk3, making it a six-seater; don't know if that mod changed the mass or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not too bad - not like the three-Kerbal pod that is an awful lead brick, so bad I try and avoid using it at all.

But it's still not the first time we see the "game balance" in KSP encouraging players to spike the part count which makes the game show up its shortcomings, ie lag. IMHO Squad should really look at the part balance, and go with the overall principle that one large part should be better than lots of small ones. I also feel that the tech tree should reduce the extent to which large-size part are buried in higher nodes; I see no reason the player shouldn't have all the 1.25m rocket tanks from the start for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While technically correct, are you building and attaching a second stack to the first just to reduce hight? Or do you just put them linear?

Still use Hitchhikers for station parts. Partially for RP purposes, partially for aesthetic. Don't like the idea of making the other cabins non-vacuum or the Hitchhiker required, as that feels like it's a hit against KSP's 'do it how you want' factor. But buffing it a little bit would be welcome. Higher crash tolerance, some battery or even monoprop capacity (lifeboat capable?). Maybe more Kerbals, as the current jump is from it to the big Mk 3 cabin and it feels like there's nothing between the Hitchhiker and that.

Honestly would love an IVA change for it. Some beds and such. Make it look more like living quarters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could just lower the mass of the hitch-hiker part to a better alternative in your own eyes. Its not rocket surgery- Ow, yes. It is rocket surgery.

Nobody is forcing you to play stock if you think stock is unbalanced.

I always thought in comparison with the command pods/cockpits, the hitchhiker was always a little heavy with no other use mechanical than kerbal storage.

It's not terribly out of balance though. maybe 10% weaker all things considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its mostly a part that i use cause it looks good and or fits a certain ship style. When it comes to ctuff like crew storage, i dont even touch it when im trying to get the absolute best performance out of something, but i use em for most for fun craft that dont absolutely have to have 10000dV worth of range.

But yeah, i do agree with OP that there are a few parts (not exclusive to the crew storage) that are just underpowered in terms of being too heavy for their role/function. Even some engines suffer from this, in that they are overshadowed by other engines. Aside from very nich roles or when i want a particular appearance for my ship (most of the time since i tend to design for looks and then function), i dont seriously use around 50% of the engines in the game because there is always another engine that is better in almost every stat to it provided you dont mind it looks funky on the particular vessel.

I agree, squad should sooner or later take a look at the balance of many old parts, some are too heavy, and others are somewhat overshadowed by others (unless you build for looks like me more then pure functionality).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...