Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'balancing'.
Found 3 results
-
I'm not quite sure what category to put this in, but I'll go and put it in this one anyways as it is a compilation of science-related balancing issues about celestial bodies in ksp 2 after 2 playthroughs I had, one on normal, one on 50% science. I'll make it quick: eeloo gives too much science for its difficulty and so does dres moho gives too little science jool itself gives too much science for multiple biomes, should only have 1 biome but have the same overall science - incentivizing the player not to use multiple jool probes jool's moons should give more science for their easter eggs overall, currently they are pretty low, despite them being hard to get to dres quarterpipe gives way too little science, same happens with other easter eggs (other bug reports should handle/report this on their own as this is maybe a bug?) duna needs more easter eggs due to its story-mode and gameplay importance with players going there more often than other planets, but currently doesn't have many ike should have more biomes but the science should be more spread out among them due to how the terrain on ike gives a challenge for rovers and such eve ocean gives way too little science, so do all the other eve sample returns, but this may be a bug bop should give more science than gilly, not less because it is much further away from kerbin than gilly, requires you to do more and also has a higher gravity bop should have a discoverable in the supercrater - just a personal gripe Reply to this report with any of your own discoverable/celestial science balancing gripes!
-
Just a small balancing suggestion, with the removal of the direct vs relay distinction between antennas (all antennas function as relays), it gives the KSP1 relay parts very little reason to practically exist compared to their deployable counterparts besides being immune to aerodynamic forces (Which, while giving a genuine decision making process for the smaller antennas, falls off with size due to the larger antennas often being very draggy). An example; comparing the HG-55 to its non-deployable counterpart, the RA-15, it's clear that the HG-55 outclasses it in virtually every conceivable way: It's much lighter (0.075t VS 0.3t) It has a much higher transmission rate (12.5 KiB/s VS 2.5 KiB/s) It uses much less electricity per KiB sent (0.7e/KiB VS 5e/KiB) \ The deployable antennas are lighter, deployable, more efficient and (barring the 88-88 vs RA-100) have faster data transmission speeds than their heavier non-deployable counterparts, to remedy this in my opinion the non-deployable antennas should be given significantly faster data transmissions speeds than their deployable counterparts (on the order of 3x their deployable counterparts) and better electricity/KiB efficiency, this would them much more of a gameplay distinction than their deployable counterparts and gives a genuine reason why players might choose to go with the much heavier non-deployable antennas compared with their deployable counterparts (Especially for missions that include time-critical EOL situations, such as an atmospheric entry probe that needs to transmit its science before being obliterated) -
This is a very subjective topic, as well as one I don’t have that much expertise in. But hear me out. I think that many of the jet engines are too op, and the atmosphere simulation is pretty sucky in Kerbal. From my experience once you get the jist of how aerodynamics works, it’s fairly easy to make a spaceplane in Kerbal. I don’t really have a problem that for the most part with the slower planes, what I have a problem with is the planes designed to go over mach 1 and SSTOs. The fact that you can just slap a couple of Whiplashes onto some stinky piece of junk and have it fly over mach 2 at SEA LEVEL is bonkers. Heck, I’d say that getting to mach 1 is too easy. Once I made a pretty bad, really heavy replica of an Airbus A320 and had it go 400m/s pretty easily. So how would we fix this (I’m not an expert in aerodynamics so sorry for any broad metaphors)? First, at least early in game, going mach 1 should be like smashing through a brick wall. Not that it should be extremely hard, but it shouldn’t be a walk in the park; like getting your first rendezvous. Second, heat should be much more of a factor. Going mach 2-3 and having your plane being enveloped in plasma is kind goofy. I think that there should be new cooling systems in the game, and the ones that are already implemented should be much more important. This would also apply to the jet engines. Having engine failures due to heat would not only make high velocity spaceplanes more challenging, but also make room for some pretty spectacular crashes/disintegrations. And thats it. I’m a little paranoid about this not being implemented due to the game only being a little bit more than half a year from release (assuming there aren’t any more delays), but I’m optimistic. Would like to hear anymore things that some other people have come up with.- 27 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- atmosphere
- jet engine
- (and 2 more)
