Can both Career Mode and Sandbox Mode be balanced simultaneously?

[Red Iron Crown]

Career mode is fun for many players. It gives an external motivation to go to new places, new activities to do at those places, and provides an excellent experience for newer players by avoiding overwhelming them with parts. The science/tech tree mechanics are still relatively unpolished, but they do provide a different sort of challenge for new and experienced players alike.

Sandbox mode is also fun for many players. It provides the freedom to take on any mission out of the gate, using any parts in the game. It is more satisfying for those that find the science system "grindy". The challenges are those the players set for themselves, which to some is a virtue of its own.

Career mode benefits from some sort of progression as the player climbs the tech tree, and so benefits from increasingly better parts unlocking over time. Sandbox has everything available from the start, and so benefits from all parts being mostly balanced against each other. It would seem like these two ideals are mutually exclusive, or at the very least contradictory enough that it is difficult to satisfy both camps.

So my main question is: Can both Career Mode and Sandbox Mode be balanced simultaneously with the same parts and game mechanics? If not, why not? If so, how?

**********

Disclaimers:

This thread is inspired by all the discussion going on about the new engines in 0.23.5, but I'd like for it not to devolve into yet another discussion of those engines in particular. If you wish to debate the merits/faults of those engines, please take it to one of the several threads about them.

Some background: I'm mostly a sandbox guy. I've been playing since just after the Mun was added, so for most of my KSP career sandbox was the only game in town. I've dabbled a bit in career mode but generally find sandbox more satisfying for my play style. I would be disappointed if the balance in sandbox mode had to be sacrificed to make career mode work better, and would be happiest if both modes could be balanced simultaneously.

[problemecium]

Yes.

Sorry for the one word post, but that's all I have to say xD Sure it's a great deal harder than balancing one or the other, but at least through 0.23 I think SQUAD did a fine job balancing both at once. I think it helped that they made Sandbox first and then just had to worry about how hard each engine should be to unlock. The results aren't perfect, but I can't claim I'd do any better.

0.23.5 I haven't formed a solid opinion on yet. Stuff like the LFB seem a little OP, but that may just be evidence that they were intended for much bigger rockets than I'm used to.

[maccollo]

I think they can be.

I will just repeat the arguments that I've made through various threads:

The engines can be able to achieve similar mass fractions to LEO as the older engines by tweaking the ISP and TWR.

They can do so while being able to lift the same gross mass to orbit per number of engines given reasonable staging (2-3 stages to orbit, just like every other civilized engine).

Now you basically have a balance where you would get a near linear proportion of payload mass for your total launch vehicle engine mass.

This could be balanced for career mode by having the bigger engines be somewhat cheaper per ton, so if you want to launch something huge it's more cost effective to use a few very big engines than a crap ton of smaller engines.

[cantab]

I think it can.

Balance for sandbox requires that as far as reasonable no part is significantly outclassed by any other. I'd say that large parts should perform somewhat better, if only because it's bad for game performance to have to use clusters. However, neither should it end up better to use a massively overpowered engine for the job.

To give an example, let's say I want to propel one orange tank with a TWR of around 2. Four LV-T45s will do that nicely and give 5,140 m/s of (vacuum) delta-V. A Skipper and two Mark 55 radials will give 4,840 to 4,970 m/s, depending on how much I use the less efficient radial engines, which isn't too bad. A Mainsail is massively overpowered for this job and the dV drops to 4,630, which is how I'd expect things to be; the Mainsail's a silly choice for the task.

And then I put the new KR-2L engine on, and get 5,200 m/s of delta-v along with three times the thrust I need. That is a sign the engine significantly outclasses others.

Career mode requires a progression in capabilities, and I don't believe that's contradictory to keeping the parts balanced. The range of things can be extended without the new parts outclassing the old, for example you can unlock at one extreme the Mainsail with high TWR but low Isp, and at the other extreme the nuclear and ion engines with massive Isp but dreadful TWR. Both expand the possibilities of what you can do but neither render other stuff obsolete.

And then there's qualitatively different additions to the tech. Aircraft parts, docking ports, landing legs, rover wheels, RTGs, and so on. These are going to be unlocked during career mode and open up new options (or at least make them more practical) when they are.

Finally, "if all else fails", career mode could introduce performance upgrades. The parts can be "balanced" with sandbox in mind, and then when you start career some of them are nerfed.

[SkyRender]

I have a fantastic idea for how you can balance your sandbox experience all on your own! Just don't use the parts that you feel are too powerful. It's an easy solution, and all it asks of you is that you exercise a bit of willpower and engineering creativity. Sounds fair enough to me.

[Red Iron Crown]

I have a fantastic idea for how you can balance your sandbox experience all on your own! Just don't use the parts that you feel are too powerful. It's an easy solution, and all it asks of you is that you exercise a bit of willpower and engineering creativity. Sounds fair enough to me.

So your answer is no, then? Balancing sandbox requires omitting parts if career is to be balanced? Forgive me, I'm not clear what you think about the question asked in the OP.

[Eric S]

So my main question is: Can both Career Mode and Sandbox Mode be balanced simultaneously with the same parts and game mechanics? If not, why not? If so, how?

I'll go against the common thought and say no, or at least not very well. The only difference between Career and Sandbox mode as far as part balancing engines/fuel tanks is that Career has one or two additional "values" namely the amount of research necessary to unlock the part (including prerequisites), and the cost to purchase the part (not currently implemented). If all the other values were balanced properly for Sandbox mode, then these two values would have to balance each other in order to keep them balanced in Career mode, and "engines that are higher in the tech tree are cheaper than other engines" doesn't sound like a very interesting mechanic.

Then again, that is how the 2.5m engines are balanced against the smaller engines currently, so it may be more viable than my simple analysis indicates.

[SkyRender]

So your answer is no, then? Balancing sandbox requires omitting parts if career is to be balanced? Forgive me, I'm not clear what you think about the question asked in the OP.

I think it most accurate to say that my answer is "mu", or "this is not the correct question". In my eyes, it is not a matter of keeping the two modes in sync, it is a matter of the player demonstrating the ability to control their own decisions and choose their own limits. That is by and large the underlying premise of any sandbox experience of note: you set your own goals and choose your own paths, accepting or rejecting options at your own discretion. In that light, arguing that sandbox needs to be "balanced" sounds as absurd as, well, trying to literally balance a box full of sand so that every grain was perfectly even with every other grain. It goes completely against the concept and purpose of the mode, absolute freedom to choose for yourself how you wish to proceed.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think it most accurate to say that my answer is "mu", or "this is not the correct question". In my eyes, it is not a matter of keeping the two modes in sync, it is a matter of the player demonstrating the ability to control their own decisions and choose their own limits. That is by and large the underlying premise of any sandbox experience of note: you set your own goals and choose your own paths, accepting or rejecting options at your own discretion. In that light, arguing that sandbox needs to be "balanced" sounds as absurd as, well, trying to literally balance a box full of sand so that every grain was perfectly even with every other grain. It goes completely against the concept and purpose of the mode, absolute freedom to choose for yourself how you wish to proceed.

Thanks, that's a much more useful response. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, I think that parts in sandbox mode can be balanced, as they have been for the most part thus far. I'm not as sure that a part mix that is balanced for sandbox can also simultaneously be balanced for career.

As for self-control in selecting parts, that's always an option. I don't use the command seat even though it is overpowered, as a personal choice. I find it disappointing that the new large parts are overpowered in sandbox, as I would like to have them be viable options without crowding out the other options. But I can see the point of those who say that career mode needs parts that are better at the top of the tech tree.

[jwenting]

I have a fantastic idea for how you can balance your sandbox experience all on your own! Just don't use the parts that you feel are too powerful. It's an easy solution, and all it asks of you is that you exercise a bit of willpower and engineering creativity. Sounds fair enough to me.

yay for taking responsibility over your own life!

- - - Updated - - -

So your answer is no, then? Balancing sandbox requires omitting parts if career is to be balanced? Forgive me, I'm not clear what you think about the question asked in the OP.

that question was a typical whining about how someone else isn't taking care of telling OP what to do and when in sandbox mode.

[Liowen]

I use a Sandbox save to test things for my Career mode save, I self limit what parts I can use to those I have access to in the sandbox one. This keeps the clutter on my career mode save to a minimum, but I also do more silly things on my sandbox save as well. Sandbox is actually great for those who might not have time to invest in career mode t first, yet they still want explore.

[Linear]

It can be, but should it be?

There's two different things, in both you -usually- have different objectives, why should we try to balance them in the same way?

[winginson]

Personally I want a tech-tree that unlocks engines that are simply better than older ones, because I like the idea doing science means you get more advanced stuff. I don't want higher tech engines to simply be cheaper than older ones. So I think there is one simple solution, one config file for sandbox and one campaign so each file can be nicely balanced for each mode and maybe have an extra option on sandbox to ask if you want to use career or sandbox stats. If you don't like the idea of different config files then don't use what you don't like, but the idea of spending loads of time and effort getting up the tech tree for engines that are a bit cheaper me with dread.

[Red Iron Crown]

It can be, but should it be?

There's two different things, in both you -usually- have different objectives, why should we try to balance them in the same way?

Just my opinion, but I think they should be very similar so that the skills developed in one are easily transferable to the other. Construction and good part choice being the relevant skills in this case.

[LethalDose]

I'm not sure if understand the question here.

In my perception, sandbox mode as nothing more than career mode with the tech tree completed. If career mode is "balanced" in the completed state, then sandbox is also balanced.

And again, at this point in game development, scope-complete is way more important than balance.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm not sure if understand the question here.

In my perception, sandbox mode as nothing more than career mode with the tech tree completed. If career mode is "balanced" in the completed state, then sandbox is also balanced.

Forgive me if I wasn't clear. Some people feel that there should be parts that are strictly better than other similarly purposed parts, so that they can be exposed in a progression as the tech tree is ascended. This results in the parts mix being unbalanced in sandbox and the career mode endgame as there are parts that are literally outclassed by their later counterparts.

The question could be boiled down to: Are strictly better parts required to maximize the enjoyment of career mode?

And again, at this point in game development, scope-complete is way more important than balance.

From that perspective, the ARM update was a waste of time, as it improved neither scope-completion nor balance. I'm not sure I'd go that far.

[Doozler]

As a career-only player (so far), I've been converted to the yes camp. I've just unlocked the mainsails, and it still feels like OMG MOAR POWER!! Even though the ISP is lower. Same for the ion engines. As long as the unlocks bring new opportunities and are at the edges of the thrust/ ISP curve, there's still (for me) that sense of progression.

[vger]

Why would sandbox need to be 'balanced?' The whole point of sandbox is to play without strict limitations.

[Limited Infinity]

The challenges are those the players set for themselves, which to some is a virtue of its own.

I think this is a key point to the idea of a balanced sandbox. A sandbox is both always balanced and never balanced depending on the discipline of the player verses the skill of the player. If squad finds a part to be useful for career, should they change it for sandbox, or should they allow the sandboxer to choose how to use it, as that is a virtue of it's own.

And again, at this point in game development, scope-complete is way more important than balance.

^^ This! Very Much This! ^^ I think I remember an interview on ARM development where squad explained that before the science tree, the only thing they had to balance to different parts were other parts and they were excited that as science and economy come out, they can make parts that are plain better. I'm sure by the time we see final release, all parts will be revisited for balance.

A large problem is also that players could escape the Kerbol Sun with pre-ARM parts. I bet more than a few here could escape with 1.8 parts. It could be viewed that any parts that come out from here will be OP'd and I say if that makes a few engines the obvious choice, I think I'm OK with that.

I keep a few older versions of KSP in case I want to go back to a particular challenge, but sometimes I just want to get my ridiculously over-engineered craft in space or my big @$$ space station to Jool after already having launched 5 of them in pieces to other places.

[Red Iron Crown]

Why would sandbox need to be 'balanced?' The whole point of sandbox is to play without strict limitations.

Well, there are certainly some limitations. The rules of physics apply to us all, sandbox or career. Sandbox is meant (in this case anyway) to mean without the tech tree progression. And I suppose money and reputation when those are added.

Remember, once there was only sandbox, and we spent just as much time debating the balance of parts then. So obviously the concept of balance in sandbox mode is not invalid.

[KSK]

Forgive me if I wasn't clear. Some people feel that there should be parts that are strictly better than other similarly purposed parts, so that they can be exposed in a progression as the tech tree is ascended. This results in the parts mix being unbalanced in sandbox and the career mode endgame as there are parts that are literally outclassed by their later counterparts.

The question could be boiled down to: Are strictly better parts required to maximize the enjoyment of career mode?

From that perspective, the ARM update was a waste of time, as it improved neither scope-completion nor balance. I'm not sure I'd go that far.

Short answer - no they're not, or at least not in my opinion. Parts that unlock more possibilities and/or are more convenient on the other hand, I think are required, which is what we have now.

Here, convenient simply equals bigger. For example, the starting sizes of engines and tanks do well for missions with the single kerbal command pod and with some ingenuity and experience, you could probably send that poor kerbal anywhere in the Kerbol system with them. But then you start unlocking other options, say the three kerbal command pod. That's good because you open up more mission types, say Apollo style Mun landings. But the three kerbal pod doesnt work so nicely with the smaller fuel tanks. It can certainly be made to work but it's more convenient to use the Rockomax sized parts. Or, if you're prepared to sacrifice some convenience (e.g. clustering) you can get better performance (or at least more finely graded performance that's tuned for the payload at hand) by mixing up all the parts.

I'm not sure where the new parts fit with this progression - havn't had a chance to play with them yet.

[vger]

Remember, once there was only sandbox, and we spent just as much time debating the balance of parts then. So obviously the concept of balance in sandbox mode is not invalid.

Well, to me anyway, I see the concept of balance as MOSTLY being about the following:

1. Relationship between resources/cost and capability (this system hasn't been implemented yet)

2. The game theory "arms race." Which in KSP means, you go a certain distance, get some science, and that enables you to go a little bit further.

As far as sandbox balancing goes, as long as the new parts aren't ushering in what is essentially a stock version of the interstellar mod, I think it'll be OK.

[Epthelyn]

Why do more technologically advanced engines have to follow a linear thrust & isp scale with respect to previous parts?

Really, why?

[SkyRender]

Why do more technologically advanced engines have to follow a linear thrust & isp scale with respect to previous parts?

Really, why?

Kind of my point, really; they don't. And in real life, they really don't.

[vger]

Kind of my point, really; they don't. And in real life, they really don't.

One of the main reasons that games exist is that they don't follow the rules of real life.

Were this a role-playing game, would you recommend the most powerful spell available to the wizard be granted at level 10, if level 50 is the maximum? Basic game theory, folks.