Can both Career Mode and Sandbox Mode be balanced simultaneously?

[Red Iron Crown]

The price of a part could also change as the tech tree is climbed. Imagine a tech that reduces fuel cost across the board, or decreases the price of an engine. Economic technologies are a well used mechanic in strategy games, no reason they couldn't be applied here.

[Dodgey]

I dont agree with Eric's point, but he' referring to how, if all the engines are perfectly balanced for sandbox, and price and tech tree position are the only things added to that balance for carear, than he believes that price must cancel Tech Tree position in order for balance to be maintained.

Ok, I think I see what he means now.

[SSSPutnik]

In my opinion, Sandbox should be an area where there is a best, or close to best, part for every job you want to do.

Want a first stage ascent engine, then use a mainsail or combination of engines to do the job.

Want a small satellite that can move between moons in a system, use an ion engine.

Want to land on a high gravity planet, use a high ISP engine etc etc.

What Sandbox doesn't want is: this part will do all of the above. It removes any fun in designing craft.

We also don't want to be told "Just don't use x y or z if you don't like it". (Or edit the parts).

A big part of the community is Challenges. Some of the designs show unbelievable creativity and cleverness, squeezing the maximum out of various parts.

Balance is one of the reasons certain mods are banned from some challenges.

It would be a shame if this creativity and cunning was lost from the game.

[Red Iron Crown]

A big part of the community is Challenges. Some of the designs show unbelievable creativity and cleverness, squeezing the maximum out of various parts.

That's a good point. Though the game itself isn't technically multiplayer yet, the community certainly is. If I .cfg edit my parts, they shouldn't be used in challenges. Nor can I depend on stock craft from the Spacecraft Exchange working as intended in my game. I (generally) only use stock parts, .cfg editing would defeat the purpose of maintaining a stock game.

[SSSPutnik]

PS: I don't get the whole, "As tech tree progresses I should get better and better stuff".

In essence you are saying, "As I progress I want the game to get easier". This is the complete opposite to almost every game in existence, normally you get nastier monsters, harder missions, etc.

I saw someone post a month ago, something like, "I just unlocked the LV-N, why can't I launch a gazillion tons with it."

The answer was its balanced by its high ISP and it has specific jobs its best for.

Better doesn't mean more grunty...

PPS: it appears that a lot of people don't understand how some other players use Sandbox mode.

If the parts are not balanced, players will have a much lesser experience when they finish career and move onto Sandbox and that's not good for Squad or the players.

Edited April 7, 2014 by SSSPutnik

[boomerdog2000]

PS: I don't get the whole, "As tech tree progresses I should get better and better stuff".

In essence you are saying, "As I progress I want the game to get easier". This is the complete opposite to almost every game in existence, normally you get nastier monsters, harder missions, etc.

Your current missions get easier but the new missions that you're able to do (Jool, Duna, Eeloo, etc.) are still difficult.

Going by your analogy they've been unlocking stuff in the low level area and can now go to the higher level area. The old low level area is much easier now but the new area with the higher monsters is challenging again.

[SpaceGremlin]

Also, sandbox is not balanced. You can get higher payload fractions than even the SLS parts by airhogging turbojets. Sounds like that needs a nerf urgently. Grab your pitchforks, we're nerfing turbojets and ram intakes!

[SSSPutnik]

Air hogging is already frowned upon in some circles.

Anyway, its clear there is an issue or there wouldnt be so much noise.

One side discounting the other is just a waste of time.

[SpaceGremlin]

Anyway, its clear there is an issue or there wouldnt be so much noise.

You must be new to the internet.

[Red Iron Crown]

Also, sandbox is not balanced. You can get higher payload fractions than even the SLS parts by airhogging turbojets. Sounds like that needs a nerf urgently. Grab your pitchforks, we're nerfing turbojets and ram intakes!

I think that's been discussed, actually. I consider excessive airhogging an exploit, but to each their own. The 48-7S is often cited as another example of an unbalanced part, if you look at some of the challenges it has almost completely displaced all other small engines and some larger ones, too.

I don't think anyone claimed that sandbox was perfectly balanced before. That doesn't mean it's invalid to discuss the balance of the new parts.

Edit: I type slowly.

[Dodgey]

Ok, before we continue I want you to have a look at what Silly_Chris said here, it clearly shows that the new engines are way more powerful in both ISP and TWR than the old engines, almost to the point of making them obsolete.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74448-SLS-engines-Probe-Rockomax-buffed-ions-and-a-larger-solar-system?p=1057132&viewfull=1#post1057132

Also I agree that the jet engines in this game are stupidly overpowered, I think that they are balanced by the really bad aerodynamic model that we have at the moment, get FAR and you will see just how overpowered they are.

Air hogging is a direct result of how the game handles intakes, it has been discussed in a few threads how to get around this issue while still allowing freedom in design, possible solutions include engines that are made of multiple parts that need to be connected and air lines similar to the yellow fuel lines. If you have a better solution please I would love to hear it as it is a long debate issue.

While the performance of the engines could be lowered slightly for balancing, the issue of air hogging is a harder one to solve.

SpaceGremlin, if you have no argument to present I ask you not to mock us, all we are doing is providing feedback with regards to something that could be fixed. If you have an argument present it by all means, but don't act like a child.

Edit:

Damm you ninjas!!

Edited April 7, 2014 by Dodgey

[Hyomoto]

Man, people are really into this issue! It is at least worth asking the most basic question first, "What do you mean balanced?" The most basic idea of having something equally weighted on either side of a scale is probably what most people think of first, but its not so apparent what the scale represents in a game. And I think that's where people should be more willing to explain their idea of balance. For some, obviously fun and realism are the two sides of the scale, whereas others seem to take a more technical approach of risk versus reward.

However, at the risk of being somewhat facetious, I'd just like to point this out. Squad probably doesn't have concrete plans on 'where to go next'. They have some loose plans for sure, but I wonder if it will really be worth it for them to balance each update. When they release part X are they going to re-balance everything again? I expect by the end they'll probably start tweaking it, but right now they put a lot of effort into making sure each update is playable. I just don't see it as being particularly beneficial for them to spend extra time making sure each part is 'balanced' considering its obvious none of them are particularly so. So while I think it's up to the community to have this discussion, I also think it will be up to the community to address it via mods and will be for quite some time. I was surprised Squad made changes, considering when they made the new SAS they just duplicated the torque wheel to all the other parts. I assume they'll change that one day as well. Probably about the same time they start fleshing out the tech tree and balancing costs and progression, ie: later.

[Dodgey]

If you have a look at the link I posted you can see what most of us mean by balanced, Slly_Chris did a good job at proving mathematically how much the new engines stray from the curve of balance so to say.

[Hyomoto]

I already use his module manager patch, and I can confirm these changes do not ruin the game. However, while I think this discussion is valuable, I'm still in the 'wait and see' boat. Let's just assume Squad releases a larger nuclear engine tomorrow. Now we have two nuclear engines, and as stupid_chris has done, he's left it alone because it has nothing to balance against. Now it does. Should Squad balance both of these engines? And in relation to what?

If KSP is truly an alpha, I just don't see it. I have trouble believing they won't one day make rather large changes, in which I think the 'anti' crowd is going to be bawling. And it will be just like Minecraft where people build mods to return the game to a previous patch (because humanity is clearly anti-progress, check 'the entire history of' for more details). So honestly, the 'pro-change' crowd are guaranteed winners. It's inevitable. But I'd be surprised to see Squad make the bulk of meaningful changes before they finish fleshing out whatever they want the game to be.

[Dodgey]

I do know what you mean about waiting and seeing due to the lack of completeness of the game, however I see no harm in cleaning as you go so to speak. It's interesting that you use the terms pro and anti change. With pro meaning those who like the SLS parts, and anti getting our knickers in a knot about it. If I'm wrong let me know and ignore the next part. I haven't actually seen anyone complain about having the engines in the game in the first place. The only complaint is that they aren't balanced, seeing as they aren't balanced we (anti) are proposing a change to them as they are right now to bring them more in line with the others. With the opposition (pro) complaining that we are trying to force our play style on them. Again if I'm wrong then please correct me, I don't want to misrepresent you.

[Hyomoto]

In that case I was using 'anti-change' to represent the folks who are against the engines changing, and 'pro-change' for the people who would like to see changes made.

[Dodgey]

Ah ok, glad we got that cleared up.

[boomerdog2000]

I guess most people that want to leave the engines the way they are, are worried that the nerf will be too far the other way, making the engines too heavy or inefficient to get anything done. Thinking on it more and looking at Stupid_Chris' graphs I doubt this will be the case, but it may explain the significant backlash the idea is receiving.

[Hyomoto]

I guess most people that want to leave the engines the way they are, are worried that the nerf will be too far the other way, making the engines too heavy or inefficient to get anything done. Thinking on it more and looking at Stupid_Chris' graphs I doubt this will be the case, but it may explain the significant backlash the idea is receiving.

He already wrote a patch for this, so basically the debate has been solved. If the anti-crowd wanted to make a reasonable argument, they could use his tweaks to show that they don't make a huge impression on the game overall and could be considered to have negligible impact. However, what they have they have shown is that facts and supporting arguments aren't really their strong suit.

[boomerdog2000]

I may have to try that patch out then...after I'm done launching my 75 ton payloads into orbit... No harm in taking advantage of the rockets while I have them.

[Temeter]

I may have to try that patch out then...after I'm done launching my 75 ton payloads into orbit... No harm in taking advantage of the rockets while I have them.

I once launched 2k+ tons (~800 parts) into space with linear balanced kw-rocketry engines. Including worse performance, less stable physics and even weaker hardware than the stuff i'm using now. Using a rather simple rocket design (these are the most efficient). With no asparagus design aside from smaller 2.5-booster style rockets (not arm, was around ~0.21).

Its one of the reasons this whole sandbox-balance-thingy seems a bit illusive to me.

[Hyomoto]

I once launched 2k+ tons (~800 parts) into space with linear balanced kw-rocketry engines. Including worse performance, less stable physics and even weaker hardware than the stuff i'm using now. Using a rather simple rocket design (these are the most efficient). With no asparagus design aside from smaller 2.5-booster style rockets (not arm, was around ~0.21).

Its one of the reasons this whole sandbox-balance-thingy seems a bit illusive to me.

Well, I think you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head. That's sort of the joy of KSP. It's a little easy to get 'into' the argument given that the game is still evolvingâ€â€it's not like we're at the end with competitions and people are saying the balance is off. The goal is to give people the option to try for that, rather than restrict them into a situation where one idea is always the best idea. It's sort of the problem I have with the MMO mentality, you get to point X so you have abilities Y and you make build Z. I suppose its true even in KSP that X is best for Y, but the joy so far has been trying to discover the way to make Y happen. So yeah, I think you've basically pointed out why people want that balance; though I do admit I don't think these engines pose quite the threat they are being given credit for though that comes from someone who plays the game 'by the seat of his pants' and once you get into the numbers with things like Engineer or MechJeb, there is going to be an obvious victor. I think the change some want is just that the victor be a little less obvious.

The parts are always going to be ideal to launch massive payloads unless they become useless, but I doubt anyone is voting for that. Just appropriate linear scaling.

[Temeter]

You have a point, but there is more to the new parts. They are still big 3.75m-parts and the heaviest engines in the game, even the lf-booster-engine weights 6 tons - aside from being impractical. So there is a point where they stop being useful, its just harder to see. Even more, the big engines aren't actually very powerfull considering being early-stage-rockets, bringing even more limitations. While they are more efficient and save weight, you dont actually have that much less parts than when using KW's Griffon or Titan.

The Engines aren't gamebraking, so much be should safe to say. Additionally, and here i disagree to you, they also aren't magic bullets solving every problem, but have limits. So their main impact might be on challenges, but you might just put in a rule not to use them. Thats how people deal with asparagus staging, which is actually much closer to a magic bullets, because it makes almost everything more efficient.

[cantab]

One point that I am unclear on is how people say the new engines totally replace the mailsail, skipper et. al. What if you want an inline size 2 part with a node at the bottom, say for a second stage or something?

If you can accept the form factor, a KR-2L, even with the adapter above, will always give more vacuum delta-V than a Mainsail. Always. Even if you stick an Oscar-B and an Okto-2 on top of it. For many reasonable scenarios it can often give more delta-V than a Skipper, for example with an orange tank propelling an 18 ton payload the KR-2L just shades it, though to be honest that says more about the Skipper. And for clusters of Mainsails, the delta-V benefits are even greater since you can replace them with fewer KR-2Ls. You might not even need to tweak the stage much: I was able to replace 7 Mainsails under 7 orange tanks with 4 KR-2Ls and just added a few fuel lines; The KR-2Ls clip through each other but without the use of the debug menu.

There's no performance reason to use the Mainsail any more. Only aesthetic considerations (my 4 KR-2L example looked ugly as sin) and personal preference.

[raygundan]

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.

I think it just depends on what you, individually, think of as "balanced." There are far too many different ways to look at balance for there to only be one answer to this.