Speculating about the balancing in 1.0

[Daze]

So guys, what do you think that the ""new"" values for engine, fuel tanks, etc. will be?

[Axelord FTW]

We don't know.

What we think is irrelevant.

There are two possibilities

1. Squad be Squad.

2. Squad be Squad.

[TheMoonRover]

I think...

That they will be better balanced

[Wallygator]

They are probably implanting (or do I mean implementing? no... probably implanting) the stock rebalance mod or most of it. I just don't see squad with the bandwidth necessary to do it all themselves quickly. Its likely in their best interest to reap the benefits of the mod ecosystem which has developed.

[*Aqua*]

Why should Squad not be able to balance that quickly? They have a team of testers and one of their tasks is to figure out balance. I'm pretty sure there's already a list of what must be balanced in what way.

[cantab]

Well, I'm expecting:

An across-the-board Isp nerf, to compensate for the reduced delta-V requirement to orbit in the new aerodynamic model.

Notable overpowered engines to get nerfed further.

Plenty of balance issues and underpowered parts to still be around.

Overall, the focus to have been on career, with the currency side of things seriously reworked.

[Renegrade]

I expect that it will largely take the shape of "Notable overpowered engines to get nerfed further. / Plenty of balance issues and underpowered parts to still be around." as cantab said there.

To date their balance efforts haven't been spectacular (they've been of the "phoning it in" variety), so I'm still in "expect the worst, hope for the best" mode.

[Wallygator]

Why should Squad not be able to balance that quickly? They have a team of testers and one of their tasks is to figure out balance. I'm pretty sure there's already a list of what must be balanced in what way.

I'm only saying what I expect to occur based on the slow historical fix rate, the large number of open unaddressed bugs, combined with the rather high level of attention which must be now be placed on a much wider set of inter-related game subsystems currently implemented.

I have no idea of the exact number of dev vs. testers. I can't see their balancing methodology or framework. I can only set my expectations based on past behaviour.

If you have any factual data which will influence my view then fire away - I stand ready to change my perspective based on new relevant facts.

Small point of clarification based on my experience: Testers are supposed to test. That's it. Its a specialised set of skills and a focused core mindset. They live to validate/break systems. Give them a system that is supposedly balanced and a set of scripts to verify it and they can tell you if it passes or fails. They are supposed to try and make systems break. Establishing a balanced system framework is the result of an integrated architectural, design and implementation decision. Establishing that the system framework "works" as designed (or not) is a function of testing and validation. Its been years since I've managed a major software project, but I expect these core principles remain intact regardless of the development or testing methodologies selected.

EDIT: I am not saying Squad is a train wreck waiting to happen - far from it. They are as skilled as any other game dev team. Let's not include size as an issue. KSP is the finest game out there in my opinion and massive cred to the entire team at Squad. But reality is based on perceived behaviour - so there is still room for improvement.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Wallygator

[Xavven]

Here are my predictions:

1. 48-7S (The tiny orange Rockomax engine) will become heavier
   
2. LV-1 (the "ant" engine) will have less thrust but better vacuum ISP
   
3. Rockomax BACC Solid Fuel Booster (the middle size of the three, not counting the sepatron) will get a buff to bring it in line with the other two.
   
4. Aerospike engine might be lightened a little bit.
   
5. KR-2L might get a nerf.
   
6. All jet engines will use more "liquid fuel" or the "liquid fuel" will become heavier.
   
7. Many physicsless parts will now have mass. I think among them will be cubic octagonal strut, the Z-400 battery, and the OX-STAT solar panel (the flat one), because they are sometimes used to make unrealistically light ion probes. The O-10 monopropellant engine possibly the small hardpoint will also have mass.
   
8. Nosecones will get cheaper (we're going to need to use a lot more of 'em)
   
9. Tech tree will change a lot. Technology that is "easy" or obvious like struts, girders, panels, nosecones, and ladders will be moved earlier. Rocket engines will be moved further down the tree and the tree will deepen (hopefully). Landing gear will be moved earlier and be placed in the same nodes with other parts designed for atmospheric flight. ISRU (deep space refueling) will be at the very end of the tech tree.
   

[Thomas988]

I am betting on all of us having to completely re-learn how to build rockets and fly them. .

The changes sound amazing, yes, but are also quite scary sounding because of how much is going to change at once? Re-entry heat? New aerodynamics? ISP overhaul? There goes everything I've ever been taught!

1.0 is still a long ways away, though, and I know details are due to change. Really, we'll have to wait and see.

[PDCWolf]

ISPs down for the new atmo, then homogenize them again. The rest of parts will probably see price balance, which will obviously still be broken unless they put another modder in for it.

[cantab]

Regarding jet engines, I think they'll take a TWR nerf. In the current "soup" they need high TWR to push planes through it. With the newstock aerodynamics expected to reduce drag, jet thrust can be correspondingly reduced and level flight performance remains similar.

As for the fuel efficiency, well it would be interesting to see their Isp fixed (a bug/oversight makes it way too high), but at the same time the liquid fuel:oxidizer ratio for the rockets changed to be more realistic, thus winning jets back some of their relative advantage.

(On a sidenote, I think an engine that burns onboard oxidizer and atmospheric fuel would be cool. Not sure where it would fly, maybe need a new Titan-like planet for it.)

As far as making parts non-physicless goes, I expect nope. The proliferation of physicsless parts is a kludge to improve game performance. They aren't going away until KSP has a better performing game engine. If anything I expect even more. Physicless nosecones perhaps?

I expect the tech tree to get a full overhaul of course, but I still think a lot of the structural stuff will stay late in the tree. After all, the cubic octagonal strut may seem simple but it's so powerful - albeit less than it used to be with the new gizmos.

[PDCWolf]

The proliferation of physicsless parts is a kludge to improve game performance. They aren't going away until KSP has a better performing game engine. If anything I expect even more.

No. They cause larger hiccups on vessel load and crashing than their physics aware counterparts. They also lag more under timewarp.

NOTE: it would be a good idea and has been suggested a million times already. Physicsless property could be a toggle for things like permanent bases and such as to not lag when they get bigger and bigger (and the stupid landing leg/entire thing wobble becomes more apparent).

[r_rolo1]

Why should Squad not be able to balance that quickly? They have a team of testers and one of their tasks is to figure out balance. I'm pretty sure there's already a list of what must be balanced in what way.

Besides what Wallygator told above, a thing that rarely is done in the tests before release is long range balancing through the whole game and even less to push the envelope regarding long term strategies where appliable. It is not that any game developer will say to their testers "Here is the RC we've done and that will most likely hit the streets. Give it a go for 3/4 weeks, play it as the hell you like and then come back to say how do you feel about overall balance". As Wallygator pointed above, testing is done to ensure rule subsets are not broken and that the game does not crash when you do crazy stuff and it is done against specific and defined by the devs scenarios.

That makes that stuff that is broken but needs a long time/big conscious effort to pull off can and most likely will pass through the test phase, especially if it is something that the devs couldn't easily predict. This is why most of open ended and strategy games ( that is, games that are not tightly railroaded to a very small and determined set of "endings" ) have only a semblance of balance if you keep near of what the devs could predict , that , depending of the devs ability to do so, might be more or less than the expected for that particular game. OTOH the fan community, being fans and all ( that is, people that want to dedicate a lot of time to play the game ) will find those issues in a quite fast way ( they might not offer good solutions for it, though ).

Bringing it to the current 0.90->1.0 transition, we know the devs will add a lot of new subsystems to the game , that will surely shake whatever balance the game has ATM. I'm pretty sure that the devs will ask the testers to check if those subsystems are balanced enough by themselves, but that doesn't mean that those systems will work together well in all situations. Say, you can easily have a engine that, if you don't leave Kerbin mini-system, will generate a avalanche of easy test contracts, or, for another example, that fuel mining is too cheap/too expensive compared with bringing fuel from Kerbin to tilt the balance to one of the sides, or that one particular part is so cheap to unlock science wise compared with the alternatives that no one uses the other alternatives ... This kind of stuff is very hard to detect by testers, simply because their function is normally not that one and even if it was, they most likely do not have the time to play a full streak until the issue comes along.

TL-DR version: Game balancing is hard, even if you are not adding new stuff and there are things testers will not get in their tests, because it is not their job to do so and they don't have the time for testing them anyway. If you add new subsystems, it is even worse ... and most of those issues will be only caught by the fans after release, period

[*Aqua*]

@Wallygator & r_rolo1

I know that most of the time the testers try to find bugs and break the game (and then writing down exactly how they did it). But as I said they also have to make sure that the player 'feels' the games working right. IIRC this is stated in some of the dev blogs.

Now the next version will be the release and up till now there was no major balancing. That must be on their to-do list. The devs (will) put so much new stuff into the game like re-entry heating and new aerodynamics - they'll have to balance stuff.

[Gerandar]

I am betting on all of us having to completely re-learn how to build rockets and fly them. .

I dont see this being an issue you can get some really stupid things to fly even with FAR/NEAR so there new aerodynamics cant really be all that difficult.

[Wallygator]

@Wallygator & r_rolo1

I know that most of the time the testers try to find bugs and break the game (and then writing down exactly how they did it). But as I said they also have to make sure that the player 'feels' the games working right. IIRC this is stated in some of the dev blogs.

Now the next version will be the release and up till now there was no major balancing. That must be on their to-do list. The devs (will) put so much new stuff into the game like re-entry heating and new aerodynamics - they'll have to balance stuff.

Yes you are correct in everything you say, except for the embedded assumption that it is the testers who are doing it. Now, you may be right - but I think I would need evidence to indicate that the rebalancing assessments and tweaking are happening on the testing side of the development, deployment and readiness methodology.

Anyway back on topic - I also would like to see some rebalancing surrounding the relationship of rep v funds v contract availability. I think there is a huge issue about how that all gets aligned correctly (I will not mention my soap box regarding the poorly constructed career mode... oops... there I did it. Sorry)

[SkyRender]

I don't know how for sure how part rebalancing is going to look, but I have a fair idea of how unit conversions for strategies will change. Funds-to-science will be nerfed by at least an order of magnitude, reputation/science-to-funds will be buffed by at least an order of magnitude. Some adjustments will be made to how Aggressive Negotiations works so it neither drains your Reputation like a sponge for rockets larger than a basic orbiter, nor gives you access to free money when you recover vessels on the launchpad. And I really hope they fix the bug that causes Reputation to be discounted twice in the reputation-to-science/funds strategies.

Contract payouts are definitely going to get an overhaul too, as well as building prices. The way the two are (un)balanced now, Hard is just an endless grind and even Normal involves an awful lot of tedium to get access to the tools you need to do interesting missions.

[Daze]

Uhm, for the IVA thing i think that with the work of Frizzank and Porkjet we will see external light in all crew module parts!

[EtherDragon]

I think the bulk of the balancing is going to take place in two areas:

1. Parts costs and parameters in the VAB / Hangar. ISP Values for all engines with a particular focus on air-breathing engines.

2. Career mode progression costs for building upgrades.

I would like to see another look at strategy initiation costs, particularly earlier in career mode. Some of them are so expensive as to be useless for a really long time.

If I had all the power in the world and unlimited money to make changes in the project here is what I would want:

Early Career Mode:

You start off with JUST the VAB, Launch Pad, Mission Control, and the "Original Three" Astronauts. Don't even start with the Astronaut Complex or R&D, let alone other buildings.

Certain buildings only become available after a specific condition is met, then you earn or buy your level 1 building

After your first launch, and completion of any of the starting contracts the level 1 R&D Building unlocks for free.

Tracking Station, Astronaut Complex, and Strategies Building (forgot the name) becomes available after reaching orbit, but you have to buy level 1.

Only after reaching the tech tree where space plane parts are available are you allowed to buy the level 1 SPH and Runway.

Introductory strategies in the Strategy Building should be affordable and approachable to start, especially since early career people will experiment with switching strategies.

BENEFIT:

This gives a much less complicated start up to early career. Right now career mode can seem overwhelmingly complex at first with Contracts and Strategies and Managing Crew and building and launching a rocket that doesn't immediately self destruct on the pad. Early career, should be very simple at first, a few buildings each with a clear purpose, to guide the newbie to their very first launch which earns Science, Reputation, and Funds.

Each new concept is introduced over time, making it easier to focus on and integrate into what you've already learned. After a few launches you reach orbit and learn about

Mid Career Mode:

You've earned and unlocked all of the level 1 buildings and are starting to work on level 2 buildings. In all cases the building upgrade costs should be reasonable and proportional.

You've probably initiated a strategy that helps you with your play style, but now are thinking about changing strategies and commitment levels. Strategies can be generally more expensive to kick off at higher commitment levels, but should for sure be approachable - some of them are still so prohibitively expensive they are useless until much later. If you want certain strategies to be later-game only, they should not be available until a certain building upgrade level.

You're beginning to take manned modules into orbit around other planets.

Resource gathering contracts begin to appear, offering a good balance of reputation, science, and funds.

Late Career Mode:

You've unlocked level 2 of all buildings and are starting on level 3 unlocks. Building upgrades in this tier can be pretty expensive, and require some "grinding" to get to, but not too much grinding please.

Interplanetary resource gathering contracts become the most lucrative ones, but yield little rep or science, so that deeper in the late-game players a really challenging set of tasks for experienced interplanetary explorers to earn their tier 3 upgrades.

End-game:

As it is now! Once you've unlocked all the tier three stuff and the entire tech tree, the solar system is yours to explore, colonize, and mine for resources - pretty much like Sandbox mode.

Edited February 17, 2015 by EtherDragon

[r_rolo1]

@Wallygator & r_rolo1

I know that most of the time the testers try to find bugs and break the game (and then writing down exactly how they did it). But as I said they also have to make sure that the player 'feels' the games working right. IIRC this is stated in some of the dev blogs.

Now the next version will be the release and up till now there was no major balancing. That must be on their to-do list. The devs (will) put so much new stuff into the game like re-entry heating and new aerodynamics - they'll have to balance stuff.

Well, I never said that you were wrong in that the game is being tested. I was just pointing out that the testers job is not to give input on the game balance, atleast if the devs don't ask specifically for that. A tester job is normally "Test 12345 - Do X and see if Y happens ( or not )" and that means that normally testers are not asked to play a full game for a test ( if the version tested is still unstable, it might be even impossible to play a full game at all ). Thus testers normally have no sense of game balance and even if they do, they are normally not asked about that. Game balance is normally the realm of the devs and even if there are tests to game balance, they are constricted to the issues the devs can foresee ( that, depending of the devs ability, might be more or less than the needed to foresee the more serious balance issues ). OTOH fans are normally much better at spotting those issues, simply because they are willing to spend time to play full games ....

But let's put that aside and talk of the on topic stuff. I would expect:

- A overall costs rebalance. Besides the inter parts balance ( some engines are way overvalued against others and let's not talk about the ridiculous price some structural parts have ), the buildings are way overpriced, especially between tier 2 and 3 . If you can build 1000 Apollo missions equivalents with the money you need for a VAB upgrade, you know that stuff is way off target

- Engines will surely need a rebalance, especially given the changes on the Isp formula and the atmospheric model ... not mentioning the cost structure I've talked above.

- Contracts also need a nudge. The situation is surely better than in 0.25, but weird stuff still happens if you refuse to go out of Kerbin mini-system.

- I can't talk much about strategies ( never seen the need to use them ), but the overall structure of funds vs science vs reputation in game is still skewed vs the needs. While in 0.25 you had far too much funds than the ones you needed, now you are funds starved and you need to grind on cash stuff . This might be a intended result, but it feels a little too punishing for good balance

- The tech tree. Seriously, the tech tree was changed in all updates since it was introduced in one way or another, but it is still way off. Add that to the parts that will be added due to the resource system and it is a sure thing that stuff will shuffled around again ...