Jump to content

What balance issues have you found that need tweaking?


michaelphoenix22
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't mind seeing rot power on all the pods chopped way down in order to force people to learn to use RCS on their rockets, but I think a lot of people wouldn't like the change

If they made a 2M SAS unit that might help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Spikes are too good. A spike is more flexible than a conventional nozzle - it will work well over a wider range of pressures, but I'm pretty sure that a conventional nozzle will be better for any specific condition (air or vacuum). When you combine that with the short length of spikes I find myself using them all sorts of places. Without changing the game mechanics, spikes could be better than most conventional engines at sea-level, but substantially worse in vacuum.

A bunch of stuff in add-ins like KW is a bit too good, but that may be off topic here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, this got bumped.

I wouldn't mind seeing rot power on all the pods chopped way down in order to force people to learn to use RCS on their rockets, but I think a lot of people wouldn't like the change. :(
Given the way newbies spam RCS, this would mainly annoy skilled players who have worked out how to minimize RCS usage.

Control pods and probe bodies need an overhaul, the Mk 55 needs a role, the Skipper is slightly underpowered, and the Poodle rather moreso. Jet engines have several things synergizing that result in insane payload fractions

Spikes are too good.
This is 0.20.2, not 0.17.1. The poor TWR of the current aerospikes means you end up getting larger payload fractions to LKO with LV-T30s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They need an engine between the Mainsail and Poodle. For your second stage orbital burn, there is currently no suitable 3m rocket engine. The mainsail is too heavy and its ISP is too low to make it fuel economical, and the poodle is too weak to push an average payload into orbit.

All the other engines are half the size and don't fit unless you cluster them. And that just opens a whole new can of worms for anything that isn't the first stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Electrical generation is about 10X too powerful with respect to electrical usage. You can run a 100MT space station on 4 m^2 of solar panels.

rotPower and RCS are too powerful, often to the detriment of effective control. Anything that can arrest rotation should also be able to provide it (SAS).

Need more tempting low-gimble or static vector engines.

EVA suits should be an upgrade over the standard ladder-n-tether type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, this got bumped.

Given the way newbies spam RCS, this would mainly annoy skilled players who have worked out how to minimize RCS usage.

Control pods and probe bodies need an overhaul, the Mk 55 needs a role, the Skipper is slightly underpowered, and the Poodle rather moreso. Jet engines have several things synergizing that result in insane payload fractions

This is 0.20.2, not 0.17.1. The poor TWR of the current aerospikes means you end up getting larger payload fractions to LKO with LV-T30s.

The small size of spikes is a big win, and the ISP is the highest in atmosphere and tie for highest in vacuum (for non-nukes). The T/W is in vacuum is higher than any of the other isp=390 engines (maybe the wiki isn't up to date). I'd think aerospikes should be special purpose - I don't know of them being used in any real rockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something needs to be done about engine clustering. It feels like clustering small engines is better in every situation than using one of the dedicated large engines.

Not if you have to pay for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I'd definitely fix is the welding of two like sized tanks. We shouldn't have to use struts to hold stacked tanks together. Do Kerbals not know how to weld a complete bead around the tanks?

Having to use struts to hold it together is not really adding to the fun of the game and is only causing us to have to use more part counts for our lift vehicles. Tanks should have a very strong and solid connection to other tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I'd definitely fix is the welding of two like sized tanks. We shouldn't have to use struts to hold stacked tanks together. Do Kerbals not know how to weld a complete bead around the tanks?

Having to use struts to hold it together is not really adding to the fun of the game and is only causing us to have to use more part counts for our lift vehicles. Tanks should have a very strong and solid connection to other tanks.

Personally I can agree with that, yes. Tank stacks should by default have a much sturdier connection. In general, I think in-line struts should be reduced, though they are fine as far as fastening say, boosters to the main rocket to keep them from wobbling and such.

That aside it feels pretty balanced. There are some things like intake stacking or engine clusters, but once we pay for parts in a carreer mode, these things can be balanced for to make them a cost/return tradeoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want the joins to be much more sturdier, its ridiculous how engines wobble on the bottom of a tank or how the single point of connection rule forces the use of single decouplers / point of attachments but are so weak as to fall apart unless stitched together with masses of struts.

Trying to make anything other than trashcans with engines is toying with masochistic tendencies, the sheer frustration is enough for me to stop recommending this title to my mates... in fact I tell them to wait a bit and see how development goes.

I have spent hours carefully putting craft together, strutting logically but with intent to keep it to a minimal yet what happens to the craft defies logic...

a single engine out of 9 identical engine stack will randomly detach...why?

a craft created symmetrically will spin like crazy, even when its only 1 rocket with a symmetrical payload...even RCS couldnt stop the spin.

a craft could fly to orbit one run, and fall apart on the launch pad the very next part with no changes done at all... and visa versa happens as well.

I dont care if you need to add a 'baby' mode to keep the 'challenge' for the rest, I suspect most just hyperedit their designs into LKO and just have fun flying the thing around, but lets not make the game about struts and more about making and flying spacecraft... or sort out the part tree system to allow us to make stronger connections.

Most of my none standard designs fail, but not because of fuel shortages or engine power...or even that they are so silly they couldnt fly at all... they fail because 1 decoupler fails to hold, or a Pylon lets go, or the connection between 2 tanks simply gives up at that physics calculation interval, or the flipping engine simply drops off on the pad... very rare is it something I could look at and go 'ahh its because of that ...'

I watched Pleborian launching some of his stuff, he didnt even change things some runs....just restarted flights until the damn thing worked, a roll of the dice and the craft reached LKO.

I think the tolerances are too strict for a game, this isnt a simulation of Nasa really otherwise we could only be able to build the standard issue rockets (boring but efficient)...no moonbases, no interplanetary vessels...just satellite launches and space station refuels .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I can think of the top of my head

* turbojet and ram intakes are overpowered.

* the mk2 and mk3 plane fuselages are clearly better over the mk1.

* the ruggedized wheel is better than the rovemax model 1 wheel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ ASnogatD

No, I doubt many others cheat. I'm no engineer nor genius and I managed to craft a dependable (read 10 for 10 lifts and counting) 100+ tonne payload lofter in about 2 hours (totally stock, I haven't downloaded a mod yet) in my 1st week of play. Most of that was learning time. I can now recreate that in about 10 minutes and I learned how to build other craft. That seems about right. I used that exact build without tweaking to take a kerbal and rover to Eeloo, Duna, Dres and back to Kerbin.

Last night I started my first SSTO. In 15 minutes I was up to 50km. After 1.5 hours I was 80km and circularizing.

Please don't make the game any easier. Not all people are meant to figure out all games and it would greatly diminish the interest and challenge. It's overcoming the difficulty (let's face it the difficulty is already made much easier than actual) That makes this game. If you can't hack it try something else like bejewelled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for game issues.

Xenon engine - is far too slow. It will only push its own mass to 2 m/s. I like building small and would love to use it but its just too slow.

Jet intakes - Jets intake spam just isn't realistic and doesn't provide game value.

Mechjeb - It shouldn't do anything you haven't completed yourself at least 3-4 times and it shouldn't do it better than your best attempt. That's a personal bias I course.

No multiple hookups on designs. It would be nice to secure things multiple times using standard pieces.

Difficulty placing pieces on VAB designs. Ie putting a 9 tonne fuel can under 2 attached 36 tonne units.

No reentry penalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:/ Er...you can circle Kerbin with ONE MK1 tank/fuselage.

I say it's just right.

Not the point, if you compare the mk1 with the mk2 you will see that mk2 carries more fuel and has less dry mass, so is clearly a better choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean the Skipper? :P

Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,

A tale of a fateful trip

That started from this rocket port

Aboard this tiny ship.

The pilot was a mighty Kerman man,

The navigator brave and sure.

Five passengers launched for Jool that day

For a three orbit tour, a three orbit tour.

The astrogation started getting rough,

The RCS was lost,

If not for the courage of the fearless crew

The trajectory would be lost, the trajectory would be lost.

The ship set ground on the regolith

of this uncharted airless rock

With Bob Kerman,

Jebediah too,

The pilot and his wife,

The radioman,

The professor and Mary Kerman,

Here on Jool's Vall.

So this is the tale of the castways,

They're here for a long, long time,

They'll have to make the best of things,

Make the snacks last a while.

The navigator and the pilot too,

Will do their very best,

To make the others comfortable,

Around their airless wreck.

No phone, no lights no rover cars,

Not a single luxury,

Like Jebediah Kerman found,

No more snacks to be seen.

So join us here each post my freinds,

You're sure to get a smile,

From seven stranded castways,

Here on this Joolian Valle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the point, if you compare the mk1 with the mk2 you will see that mk2 carries more fuel and has less dry mass, so is clearly a better choice.

I never use that hideous and bulky tank, clearly the mk2 is not the "better choice" for everyone or every application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never use that hideous and bulky tank, clearly the mk2 is not the "better choice" for everyone or every application.

Well then, you don't use it for aesthetics, that's your choice. Still doesn't change the fact that with the mk2 you will always get more dV than with mk1 because it carries more fuel and is lighter when is either full or empty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for game issues.

...

Mechjeb - It shouldn't do anything you haven't completed yourself at least 3-4 times and it shouldn't do it better than your best attempt. That's a personal bias I course.

...

To say that Mechjeb is overpowered is wrong. It's a mod. It's not a stock part or plugin, and as far as I know there are no plans to incorporate a stock autopilot other than possibly a kerbal training minigame of sorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Main thing with the ion engine, it's not intended for anything larger than a few tons. It's generally a probe-only thing. If it wouldn't break some things I'd shrink it down further, and lower its mass. Same thrust (or maybe a little less), but less mass for just the engine and tank. Bigger electric propulsion could be some sort of VASIMIR-inspired engine with massive amounts of heat that needs coolant and huge amounts of electricity, but has an enormous ISP of something like 200,000.

Eventually the jets will have some much-needed TLC given to them, and with that a balance pass, so we can once and for all iron out the kinks in those parts (ex. one change I think would be making it so engines can choke on air if they're fed with too much, or directly limiting engine thrust based on air density)

Edited by NovaSilisko
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...