Rebalance of the MK2 Lander Can.

[Jouni]

Given the way the game works now, mechanical efficiency considerations are the primary mission requirement concerns. Again, self imposed mission requirements of having a MK2 can are subjective and have zero bearing on the statistical imbalance of the part.

There are more ways to play the game than the way you're playing it.

For me, sandbox is the primary game mode. Career mode is a fun diversion, but it lacks the replay value the sandbox has. Because I play sandbox, all mission requirements are by definition self-imposed.

Let's consider a simple mission to Tylo. Because it's a long interplanetary mission, it feels reasonable to a multi-kerbal crew and a plenty of living space for them. Maybe two kerbals for the actual landing (which suggests using a Mk2 lander can) and two kerbals to remain in the mothership. For a crew of four, the command module might consist of either a Mk1-2 command pod and two hitchhikers, or a Mk3 cockpit and a Mk3 passenger module (it needs to be heavy enough and several times larger than strictly necessary). Let's choose the latter. From those mission requirements, we determine that the mission payload is 4 kerbals, a Mk2 lander can, a Mk3 cockpit, and a Mk3 passenger module. Out of the mission payload, 2 kerbals and the lander can form the lander payload.

After the payload has been determined, we can start planning the actual mission. At this point, other considerations, such as simplicity, efficiency, and interesting design choices, come into play. Maybe we don't want to use nukes, because we've already used them for far too many interplanetary missions. And maybe the lander should fit into a cargo bay to force us to try something different. (This is what the mission looked like back in 0.90.)

[Keith_Bones]

There are more ways to play the game than the way you're playing it.

For me, sandbox is the primary game mode. Career mode is a fun diversion, but it lacks the replay value the sandbox has. Because I play sandbox, all mission requirements are by definition self-imposed.

Let's consider a simple mission to Tylo. Because it's a long interplanetary mission, it feels reasonable to a multi-kerbal crew and a plenty of living space for them. Maybe two kerbals for the actual landing (which suggests using a Mk2 lander can) and two kerbals to remain in the mothership. For a crew of four, the command module might consist of either a Mk1-2 command pod and two hitchhikers, or a Mk3 cockpit and a Mk3 passenger module (it needs to be heavy enough and several times larger than strictly necessary). Let's choose the latter. From those mission requirements, we determine that the mission payload is 4 kerbals, a Mk2 lander can, a Mk3 cockpit, and a Mk3 passenger module. Out of the mission payload, 2 kerbals and the lander can form the lander payload.

After the payload has been determined, we can start planning the actual mission. At this point, other considerations, such as simplicity, efficiency, and interesting design choices, come into play. Maybe we don't want to use nukes, because we've already used them for far too many interplanetary missions. And maybe the lander should fit into a cargo bay to force us to try something different. (This is what the mission looked like back in 0.90.)

I really don't know how many times I have to say this.

The missions and restrictions you set for yourself are subjective and un-quantifiable. They hold no bearing on the experience of the rest of the player base. By the fluid nature and creative way that you play the game, having a part weigh slightly less would have almost no definable affect on your game. But there are a lot of players that play career mode where weight matters dramatically. More weight means more fuel to push it to it's mission, which means more money, and the launch pad can have weight limitations, everything is considered and must be balanced as such. There simply is no logically sound argument to be made against a weight reduction, and your arguments so far have amounted to no more than "I personally like it this way"

So I'll try to break this down as simply as possible.

Do you have a numerically, logically, or otherwise tangibly representable reason not to reduce the parts weight? And, does your argument contend reasonably with the numerous arguments for why this affects career mode players?

- - - Updated - - -

I do want to say, the length of this discussion makes the issue seem more important than it is, realisticly this issue is overall relatively minor, and as a sandbox player myself, I also don't really feel the affects personally. But it is a real thing as far as I can understand, and I'll advocate for it as long as there is a discussion.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Keith_Bones

[Michaelbak]

As many have harped on earlier in the thread, people choose different pod types for different missions. The Cupola might seem terrible for a conventional craft due to it's attachment points and weight. In it's intended usage as a high visibility viewing module on something like a space station however, it's perfect. This can be seen as an imbalance in terms of weight vs technical function but almost all in game pods are actually balanced in respect to their own specific purposes when observed.

The problem with the MK2 pod weighing so much verses other designs is that it's a lander pod designed to carry two Kerbals to the surface of a vacuum based celestial body such as Minmus or Dres, this is apparent from it's design both in technical specifications (low crash tolerance) and design attributes relating it to the MK1 lander pod.

For practical applications, a lander is usually designed to be as light and fuel efficient as possible. It sits as the top of a pyramid in ways as it's typically the last stage on a craft and acts as pure dead weight during all other stages. This leads to a multiplying problem, 1 extra ton of dead weight in the last stage can mean x amount of extra weight added to earlier lift and even orbital stages. Second, the lander is usually somewhat self sustaining in terms of being able to perform orbits, land, take off, hop between biomes, etc when employed. At it's simplest, paired with a separate orbital module, it still must do a great deal of operations to eventually pair with it as well as perform it's intended mission objectives. If a lander is mean't to land and never return it's technically a base.

As it stands the MK2 lander weighs over twice as much as two Mk1 lander pods. When separated by functional category, I.E High crash tolerance pods, lander pods, jet pods, and multiplied by crew capacity, we don't see this drastic a weight gain in any other pod in the entire game. This is made even worse due to it's intended function. How big of a deal is 1.34 tons for a lander? Well for perspective, that's a little less than the weight of two 24-77 engines and a FL-T200 fuel tank yielding 1,364m/s deltaV (read using kerbal engineer redux) and a 1.24 Kerbin TWR when added to two stacked Mk1 pods.

In other words you can literally build an entirely functional two person lander for less than the weight of a single MK2 pod by itself. This is why this is such a problem.

-Edit-

I made another one with a parachute and slightly more DeltaV using clipping that still weighs less than a Mk2 pod.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Michaelbak

[passinglurker]

one would have thought that squad would have taken the aero rebalance as an opportunity to fix illogical ballance quirks like this... I mean they sorted out the mass ratios for fuel tanks so that they made logical sense why not crew tanks?

still I'm afraid it's too late to expect squad to change certain aspects of their part ballance now (except for aero reasons maybe) with the 1.0 drop they can't get away with breaking saves and crafts by altering partmass.

a more sensible solution may be to simply have the lander carry more kerbal instead. With an alternate IVA you could fit 4-5 kerbals in a 2.5 space easy

[tater]

A simpler solution would be for them to tweak the stats (and lower the durability of the mk1 even more) such that they were more sensible, then change the description such that the mk2 is meant for long-term use on airless worlds, with increased crew comfort, or as a lander for a word with an atmosphere.'

[passinglurker]

A simpler solution would be for them to tweak the stats (and lower the durability of the mk1 even more) such that they were more sensible, then change the description such that the mk2 is meant for long-term use on airless worlds, with increased crew comfort, or as a lander for a word with an atmosphere.'

kerbal gets weird when you push the crash tolerance below 6 I wouldn't risk making the mk1 more flimsy.

Now I'm not debating whether stats should be tweaked I'm debating which stats. if this were still beta I'd be all for making the mk2 lighter to keep a ~0.6 per kerbal ratio, but now that kerbal is released I don't see it in the cards hense why I suggest the crew capacity be increase because the change can be implemented without changing flight performance or center of mass in those situations where it is important.

Also this is very important by no means would I consider thematic fluff to be an excuse to make a part inferior in practical use. Seriously I don't want to hear the "but-but... life support..." excuse again. 1.0 is out, kerbal is feature complete life support ain't gonna happen in stock, or at least you can't use it as an excuse anymore. This isn't a beta things have to actually work now standing on their own two feet and not on the shoulders of promised features! If you want to RP like that fine don't fill your pods to capacity, and say the unused chairs are for this imaginary "life support" and "crew living space" but don't drag us practical thinking players down with you.

Edited May 14, 2015 by passinglurker

[tater]

kerbal gets weird when you push the crash tolerance below 6 I wouldn't risk making the mk1 more flimsy.

I haven't experimented with this.

Now I'm not debating whether stats should be tweaked I'm debating which stats. if this were still beta I'd be all for making the mk2 lighter to keep a ~0.6 per kerbal ratio, but now that kerbal is released I don't see it in the cards hense why I suggest the crew capacity be increase because the change can be implemented without changing flight performance or center of mass in those situations where it is important.

I don't think I'd want more than 3, but many extant habitats would be nice with a choice of IVAs (horizontal vs vertical, for example) as a toggle, perhaps such a change could change crew capacity. That said, it doesn't address the problem, which is a perceived need for 2-kerbal parts. Of course probe cores make it entirely moot, anyway. Chuck a probe core on the mk1, and put your scientist aboard and get science.

Also this is very important by no means would I consider thematic fluff to be an excuse to make a part inferior in practical use. Seriously I don't want to hear the "but-but... life support..." excuse again. 1.0 is out, kerbal is feature complete life support ain't gonna happen in stock, or at least you can't use it as an excuse anymore. This isn't a beta things have to actually work now standing on their own two feet and not on the shoulders of promised features! If you want to RP like that fine don't fill your pods to capacity, and say the unused chairs are for this imaginary "life support" and "crew living space" but don't drag us practical thinking players down with you.

What you want to hear is irrelevant. Squad has done what they have done, and if they don't change it, then you might as well rationalize the part. I don't use mk1 cans for atmospheric landings, ever, myself. If I were being "practical" I would game the system even though the description says they cannot possibly reenter (when we all know that reentry heating is a joke given mini-kerbin).

[Jouni]

The missions and restrictions you set for yourself are subjective and un-quantifiable. They hold no bearing on the experience of the rest of the player base. By the fluid nature and creative way that you play the game, having a part weigh slightly less would have almost no definable affect on your game. But there are a lot of players that play career mode where weight matters dramatically. More weight means more fuel to push it to it's mission, which means more money, and the launch pad can have weight limitations, everything is considered and must be balanced as such. There simply is no logically sound argument to be made against a weight reduction, and your arguments so far have amounted to no more than "I personally like it this way"

Command modules are payload parts. The heavier a payload part is relative to its purpose, the better it is. Because the Mk2 lander can is 2x heavier than two Mk1 lander cans, it's 2x better as a payload part (that feels quite quantifiable). This is especially relevant in the career mode due to the weight, size, and part count limitations, as launching heavy payloads is more challenging than in the sandbox.

Efficiency is important in the career mode – for beginners and for people trying to make a point. In the actual gameplay, efficiency is mostly irrelevant, because rockets are so cheap compared to contract rewards.

This was my career mode Jool-5 ship in 0.90. It's kind of big and expensive, but I only needed a few extra landings on Pol to make the mission profitable. Design choices include two utterly useless hitchhiker modules (because it's possible) and SRBs that can't be dropped (due to the part count limitation from tier 2 VAB).

[Keith_Bones]

kerbal gets weird when you push the crash tolerance below 6 I wouldn't risk making the mk1 more flimsy.

Now I'm not debating whether stats should be tweaked I'm debating which stats. if this were still beta I'd be all for making the mk2 lighter to keep a ~0.6 per kerbal ratio, but now that kerbal is released I don't see it in the cards hense why I suggest the crew capacity be increase because the change can be implemented without changing flight performance or center of mass in those situations where it is important.

Also this is very important by no means would I consider thematic fluff to be an excuse to make a part inferior in practical use. Seriously I don't want to hear the "but-but... life support..." excuse again. 1.0 is out, kerbal is feature complete life support ain't gonna happen in stock, or at least you can't use it as an excuse anymore. This isn't a beta things have to actually work now standing on their own two feet and not on the shoulders of promised features! If you want to RP like that fine don't fill your pods to capacity, and say the unused chairs are for this imaginary "life support" and "crew living space" but don't drag us practical thinking players down with you.

I don't think that we're quite far enough into the full release that minor tweaks are not an option, but I totally understand the concern of breaking post-release ships with an update. +rep for the first reasonable argument against weight reduction in the thread.

Also, if we are past the point of potentially breaking ships in minor ways, I still don't quite think that crew capacity is where the numbers need to come from, I feel like you would need 4 kerbals for the weight to be appropriate, but then we are encroaching thoroughly on the property of the Hitch Hiker Storage Container. But the actual numbers for this are obviously still debatable.

What you want to hear is irrelevant. Squad has done what they have done, and if they don't change it, then you might as well rationalize the part. I don't use mk1 cans for atmospheric landings, ever, myself. If I were being "practical" I would game the system even though the description says they cannot possibly reenter (when we all know that reentry heating is a joke given mini-kerbin).

I don't quite understand what you're getting at here, nobody is talking about using either pod in atmo, and reentry heating balance is probably a discussion for another thread.

Command modules are payload parts. The heavier a payload part is relative to its purpose, the better it is. Because the Mk2 lander can is 2x heavier than two Mk1 lander cans, it's 2x better as a payload part (that feels quite quantifiable).

I found this logic pretty impossible to follow, and even though I have a suspicion that you are confusing payload with ballast, I'll just ask you to elaborate on this point. With actual numbers prefferably

Efficiency is important in the career mode – for beginners and for people trying to make a point. In the actual gameplay, efficiency is mostly irrelevant, because rockets are so cheap compared to contract rewards.

Career mode is​ a large part of the actual game, and the abundance of funds in career mode (which could have an entire thread dedicated to it's numbers getting tweaked) still has no effect on the part in question not being comparable in any meaningful way to the other parts in it's category

[passinglurker]

I don't think I'd want more than 3, but many extant habitats would be nice with a choice of IVAs (horizontal vs vertical, for example) as a toggle, perhaps such a change could change crew capacity. That said, it doesn't address the problem, which is a perceived need for 2-kerbal parts. Of course probe cores make it entirely moot, anyway. Chuck a probe core on the mk1, and put your scientist aboard and get science.

pilots vs. probes is a different can of worms that needs to be address but unfortunately I fear delving more here would take us terribly off topic. As for capacity one way or another there needs to be a logical pattern to the balance of these parts that is discernible to the average user in order for some parts to not be labeled as useless. I'm afraid round about rationalization is inadequate when the answer to the question of which of the landing cans is superior is so painfully apparent. I'm not saying the balance must be perfect just that it be harder to tell which parts are over powered at a glance. So regardless of whether the weight is dropped, the crew capacity is raised, or a compromise somewhere in between is reached the point is as long as the mk2 landercan is as flimsy as the mk1 it needs to be able to provide just as many kerbals for a given mass if not better or there isn't a point in using the pod from practical standpoint and the game as a result the game becomes un-intuitive because squad squandered their opportunity to set part balance right.

What you want to hear is irrelevant. Squad has done what they have done, and if they don't change it, then you might as well rationalize the part. I don't use mk1 cans for atmospheric landings, ever, myself. If I were being "practical" I would game the system even though the description says they cannot possibly reenter (when we all know that reentry heating is a joke given mini-kerbin).

the "practical" thing to do would be to advocate that the lander cans burn up on rentry in order to better define thier strengths and weaknesses. as long as they survive atmospheric reentry there is really no point in having other pods at all, but again this is a separate issue that needs to be addressed in its own thread

Command modules are payload parts. The heavier a payload part is relative to its purpose, the better it is. Because the Mk2 lander can is 2x heavier than two Mk1 lander cans, it's 2x better as a payload part (that feels quite quantifiable). This is especially relevant in the career mode due to the weight, size, and part count limitations, as launching heavy payloads is more challenging than in the sandbox.

Efficiency is important in the career mode – for beginners and for people trying to make a point. In the actual gameplay, efficiency is mostly irrelevant, because rockets are so cheap compared to contract rewards.

This was my career mode Jool-5 ship in 0.90. It's kind of big and expensive, but I only needed a few extra landings on Pol to make the mission profitable. Design choices include two utterly useless hitchhiker modules (because it's possible) and SRBs that can't be dropped (due to the part count limitation from tier 2 VAB).

how does heavier make it better? all of its relevant stats are inferior to just using two oneman pods

I don't think that we're quite far enough into the full release that minor tweaks are not an option, but I totally understand the concern of breaking post-release ships with an update. +rep for the first reasonable argument against weight reduction in the thread.

Also, if we are past the point of potentially breaking ships in minor ways, I still don't quite think that crew capacity is where the numbers need to come from, I feel like you would need 4 kerbals for the weight to be appropriate, but then we are encroaching thoroughly on the property of the Hitch Hiker Storage Container. But the actual numbers for this are obviously still debatable.

I'm afraid crew cans are their own can of worms really crewed parts as a whole lack any sort of patterns in virtually every aspect (tip of the iceberg: mk2crew cabin(a aircraft part) has a crash tolerance of 6!) the more I look at this the more apparent it is that a fix has to take all the pods into account to set things straight. this unfortunately only adds to the frustration with squad for not rebalancing things to make logical sense when they had the chance

[Jouni]

I found this logic pretty impossible to follow, and even though I have a suspicion that you are confusing payload with ballast, I'll just ask you to elaborate on this point. With actual numbers prefferably

Payload is just ballast with flavor text. It doesn't do anything useful in the game.

The primary function of a payload part is its mass. Because missions with heavy payloads are generally more interesting and more challenging than missions with small payloads, heavy payload parts are more useful than lightweight parts. If the goal is to land about 3 tonnes of payload on Tylo, building the lander around a Mk2 lander can is more convenient than building it around two Mk1 lander cans and some random fluff.

Career mode is​ a large part of the actual game, and the abundance of funds in career mode (which could have an entire thread dedicated to it's numbers getting tweaked) still has no effect on the part in question not being comparable in any meaningful way to the other parts in it's category

I was referring to career mode gameplay, which basically has four main mechanics in addition to those in the sandbox. Contracts present you challenges, which you can choose to accept or decline. Exploration (science) checklist gives you a fixed set of additional mission goals. Completing the challenges and crossing off goals from the checklist gives you rewards. You can use the rewards to buy upgrades, which allow you to face harder challenges and goals.

Superficially it might look like the purpose of the game is to buy all the upgrades as quickly and efficiently as possible. That doesn't sound very interesting, as optimization games are rarely any good. In practice, the challenges, goals, rewards, and upgrades form a framework that suggests you new interesting missions to fly, and tries to keep the game from degenerating into grinding through similar missions over and over again.

The way the reward/upgrade structure works, efficiency is rarely relevant in the game. Most of the time, you can either complete the mission (land on Tylo) any way you want (with a Mk2 lander can), or you can't complete it even in an efficient way (with a single Mk1 lander can), depending on the upgrades you have bought. There are some minor price differences between efficient and inefficient rockets, but the prices are small compared to building upgrades, which the monetary rewards are really intended for.

[Keith_Bones]

Payload is just ballast with flavor text. It doesn't do anything useful in the game.

The primary function of a payload part is its mass. Because missions with heavy payloads are generally more interesting

So I was right about you not understanding what payload actually is, but I'm not going to bother with semantics, and we get to see how your previous, supposedly quantifiable argument was just more of your own, personal opinion.

Aside from moving the CoM to preferable spots, actual ballast serves no function, Making things heavier for no reason is objectively bad. You like heavy missions, we get it. So please, see http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76231 this mod gives you a configurable test weight, and you can make your missions as unreasonably heavy as your heart desires, and leave the rest of us with actually usable parts

I was referring to career mode gameplay, which basically has four main mechanics in addition to those in the sandbox. Contracts present you challenges, which you can choose to accept or decline. Exploration (science) checklist gives you a fixed set of additional mission goals. Completing the challenges and crossing off goals from the checklist gives you rewards. You can use the rewards to buy upgrades, which allow you to face harder challenges and goals.

Superficially it might look like the purpose of the game is to buy all the upgrades as quickly and efficiently as possible. That doesn't sound very interesting, as optimization games are rarely any good. In practice, the challenges, goals, rewards, and upgrades form a framework that suggests you new interesting missions to fly, and tries to keep the game from degenerating into grinding through similar missions over and over again.

The way the reward/upgrade structure works, efficiency is rarely relevant in the game. Most of the time, you can either complete the mission (land on Tylo) any way you want (with a Mk2 lander can), or you can't complete it even in an efficient way (with a single Mk1 lander can), depending on the upgrades you have bought. There are some minor price differences between efficient and inefficient rockets, but the prices are small compared to building upgrades, which the monetary rewards are really intended for.

More of your opinion on how career mode is fun for you. I really don't know how many times we're going to do this.

[Superfluous J]

From a gameplay perspective, 2 of an item should never be across-the-board better than 1 of another item. If you're going to do that, you should at least go the other way. The Mk2 can should be lighter than 2 mk1 cans, or be in some other way better. I kinda like the idea that the Mk1 can would not survive re-entry.

Too bad we have "crash tolerance" and not "G-Force tolerance." Get the lander can over 4 gees and it crushes.

[Keith_Bones]

From a gameplay perspective, 2 of an item should never be across-the-board better than 1 of another item. If you're going to do that, you should at least go the other way. The Mk2 can should be lighter than 2 mk1 cans, or be in some other way better. I kinda like the idea that the Mk1 can would not survive re-entry.

Too bad we have "crash tolerance" and not "G-Force tolerance." Get the lander can over 4 gees and it crushes.

It's actually worse than just two being better than 1, Michaelbak posted a picture earlier that showed that he achieved a fully mission capable lander with 2 MK1's in the same weight as just a single MK2 on it's own.

Extrapolating on that a bit, I did a couple of tests, and landed an absolute barebones version on minmus from a 30k orbit on 1.7 tons. In other words, you could strip a whole ton off of the thing and still build fully achievable missions in the given weight with 2 of the other pod.

I'll refine my thing and post pics tomorrow...maybe.

[Pax Kerbana]

There is nothing wrong with the weight. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you can't figure out how to make a lander with it in career because the extra mass is too much for your weebly wocket, download RSS and try it for reals.

There are better things to complain about... Like the fact it's unusable as a lander pod because its impossible to read the nav ball in it on IVA. Maybe it's just my setup, but the glare on the nav ball is unreal. This pod is great for station service ships, BTW.

[tater]

pilots vs. probes is a different can of worms that needs to be address but unfortunately I fear delving more here would take us terribly off topic. As for capacity one way or another there needs to be a logical pattern to the balance of these parts that is discernible to the average user in order for some parts to not be labeled as useless. I'm afraid round about rationalization is inadequate when the answer to the question of which of the landing cans is superior is so painfully apparent. I'm not saying the balance must be perfect just that it be harder to tell which parts are over powered at a glance. So regardless of whether the weight is dropped, the crew capacity is raised, or a compromise somewhere in between is reached the point is as long as the mk2 landercan is as flimsy as the mk1 it needs to be able to provide just as many kerbals for a given mass if not better or there isn't a point in using the pod from practical standpoint and the game as a result the game becomes un-intuitive because squad squandered their opportunity to set part balance right.

I don't disagree, actually. I think it should be a little lighter.

the "practical" thing to do would be to advocate that the lander cans burn up on rentry in order to better define thier strengths and weaknesses. as long as they survive atmospheric reentry there is really no point in having other pods at all, but again this is a separate issue that needs to be addressed in its own thread

Yeah, The description says as much, I want they to be deathtraps if you reenter somehow. I realize what I said might be misread as harsh, BTW, I just meant that if squad doesn't change it we (all of us) have no choice but to rationalize it somehow.

I'm afraid crew cans are their own can of worms really crewed parts as a whole lack any sort of patterns in virtually every aspect (tip of the iceberg: mk2crew cabin(a aircraft part) has a crash tolerance of 6!) the more I look at this the more apparent it is that a fix has to take all the pods into account to set things straight. this unfortunately only adds to the frustration with squad for not rebalancing things to make logical sense when they had the chance

Yeah, true.

It's bad that my choice once I have it is to throw a probe core on a hitchhiker and use that.

- - - Updated - - -

So I was right about you not understanding what payload actually is, but I'm not going to bother with semantics, and we get to see how your previous, supposedly quantifiable argument was just more of your own, personal opinion.

He's right. He's not talking about the real world, he;s talking about the GAME. In KSP, the "purpose" is that it is mass you need to bring to some target, which requires designing a larger rocket. Designing the larger rocket is indeed the point.

It's like life support. Functionally, all LS does in the end is require that the player design systems that can move more mass around. Sans LS, your Duna mission might be a single mk1 command pod, with LS it would be far larger. Add in some role-playing, and you need to bring a science lab and a couple hitchhikers, just because. See what I mean? That's how I dread his argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Too bad we have "crash tolerance" and not "G-Force tolerance." Get the lander can over 4 gees and it crushes.

This would be great.

[passinglurker]

Payload is just ballast with flavor text. It doesn't do anything useful in the game.

I don't know what planet you are from or how your species achieved any proficiency in space travel but this is not how payload works.

The primary function of a payload part is its mass. Because missions with heavy payloads are generally more interesting and more challenging than missions with small payloads, heavy payload parts are more useful than lightweight parts. If the goal is to land about 3 tonnes of payload on Tylo, building the lander around a Mk2 lander can is more convenient than building it around two Mk1 lander cans and some random fluff.

please stop forcing your opinion of a masochistic playstyle on everyone else. once an intuitive and logical order to things is achieved you can go back and ruin it with dead mass in your own game on your own time. us wanting things to make sense will not ruin how you play.

There is nothing wrong with the weight.

proof? I ask because without it your statement is rather subjective.

If you don't like it, don't use it. If you can't figure out how to make a lander with it in career because the extra mass is too much for your weebly wocket, download RSS and try it for reals.

did you seriously just try to use "lrn 2 play noob" as a counter argument? hoestly why do you even care? how is an intuititive and logical order to crewed parts bad for you?

There are better things to complain about... Like the fact it's unusable as a lander pod because its impossible to read the nav ball in it on IVA. Maybe it's just my setup, but the glare on the nav ball is unreal. This pod is great for station service ships, BTW.

apparently you'd just rather that squad spend their time on other things though you know my proposal of giving the pod can IVA with more crew capacity would give ample opportunity to fix this quirk.

[Keith_Bones]

He's right. He's not talking about the real world, he;s talking about the GAME. In KSP, the "purpose" is that it is mass you need to bring to some target, which requires designing a larger rocket. Designing the larger rocket is indeed the point.

No. Absolutely not. Actual payload is about carrying capacity, which already actually exists in the game and has a function. In fact there is a large community of people that enjoy making highly efficient SSTO spaceplanes, and one of the factors they rate their planes on is orbital payload capacity. And I imagine you would have a hard time trying to convince one of them that weighing more is better.

Designing a larger rocket is not always the point, some people like SSTOs, spaceplanes, aeroplanes, and all other manner of challenges that aren't directly tied to getting heavy things to places.

And if moving heavy things around is what you're all about, then you already have options at your disposal to do so, like the mod I linked earlier, or you could just clip more parts into your thing.

[tater]

No. Absolutely not. Actual payload is about carrying capacity, which already actually exists in the game and has a function. In fact there is a large community of people that enjoy making highly efficient SSTO spaceplanes, and one of the factors they rate their planes on is orbital payload capacity. And I imagine you would have a hard time trying to convince one of them that weighing more is better.

Designing a larger rocket is not always the point, some people like SSTOs, spaceplanes, aeroplanes, and all other manner of challenges that aren't directly tied to getting heavy things to places.

And if moving heavy things around is what you're all about, then you already have options at your disposal to do so, like the mod I linked earlier, or you could just clip more parts into your thing.

You entirely miss the point. The payload for Apollo was the spacecraft.

In KSP, the point is moving some mass (crew container, space probe, whatever) to some other place. Functionally, that's the point of the game. Reality doesn't matter, this is arbitrary, gameplay stuff. A contract could be to deliver (crash) unobtanium to Dres at 15,000+ m/s, as an experiment for example. The payload is that unobtanium. If the goal was instead to land and return, then that craft (the bit returned) is the payload in game terms.

[Jouni]

So I was right about you not understanding what payload actually is, but I'm not going to bother with semantics, and we get to see how your previous, supposedly quantifiable argument was just more of your own, personal opinion.

Let's talk about semantics, as you keep referring to them all the time.

Both 'payload' and 'ballast' can mean different things, depending on the context. The literal meaning of 'payload' is "paying load" or "paying cargo"; the cargo someone is paying for to be delivered. In many contexts, the meaning is a bit more general: the cargo that the vehicle is supposed to deliver. In other contexts, 'payload' is used as a shorthand for payload capacity or payload mass.

The literal meaning of 'ballast' is "mere cargo"; the cargo that is not carried for commercial purposes or the cargo that is not payload (in the literal sense). Like 'payload', 'ballast' is also used often as a shorthand for a term containing the word itself. In many contexts, 'ballast' refers to the "ballast used to balance or stabilize a vehicle". In other contexts, 'ballast' may refer to something that makes the craft deliberately heavier.

More of your opinion on how career mode is fun for you. I really don't know how many times we're going to do this.

Please reread what I wrote.

I wasn't telling how I enjoy playing the game. I was describing how the game actually works, as opposed to the false impressions people may have after looking at the game mechanics superficially.

Some people like launching stuff with disposable rockets, while others prefer using fully recoverable SSTOs. After funds were introduced in 0.24, there was a lot of discussion on how to balance costs and recovery in order to make both playstyles viable. If there is a significant monetary penalty for choosing one approach over another, the game essentially forces everyone to choose the cheaper approach, becoming less fun for many players.

Squad made their decision in 0.90. Instead of favoring one playstyle over another or trying to find a delicate balance between the two, they did something completely different. The primary purpose of funds was no longer paying for rockets and planes, but paying for building upgrades. Instead of vehicle costs, the actual limits on what the player can build and launch were based on part count and mass, which depend on the building upgrades the player has bought. This made disposable rockets and reusable SSTOs pretty much equally viable.

There was another consequence, however. Because rockets and planes are cheap and the mass/part count limits increase by huge leaps with building upgrades, the game doesn't really reward for efficiency. After reaching a basic level of efficiency (you know what you're doing, you don't do beginner mistakes, and you're not deliberately trying to be inefficient), further optimization rarely has significant game mechanical benefits. Either you can complete the mission and the rewards are many times higher than the costs, or the part count/mass limitations make the mission impossible.

[Keith_Bones]

You entirely miss the point. The payload for Apollo was the spacecraft.

In KSP, the point is moving some mass (crew container, space probe, whatever) to some other place. Functionally, that's the point of the game. Reality doesn't matter, this is arbitrary, gameplay stuff. A contract could be to deliver (crash) unobtanium to Dres at 15,000+ m/s, as an experiment for example. The payload is that unobtanium. If the goal was instead to land and return, then that craft (the bit returned) is the payload in game terms.

And this still doesn't explain Jouni's opinion that a heavier payload is better.

Let's talk about semantics, as you keep referring to them all the time.

Both 'payload' and 'ballast' can mean different things, depending on the context. The literal meaning of 'payload' is "paying load" or "paying cargo"; the cargo someone is paying for to be delivered. In many contexts, the meaning is a bit more general: the cargo that the vehicle is supposed to deliver. In other contexts, 'payload' is used as a shorthand for payload capacity or payload mass.

The literal meaning of 'ballast' is "mere cargo"; the cargo that is not carried for commercial purposes or the cargo that is not payload (in the literal sense). Like 'payload', 'ballast' is also used often as a shorthand for a term containing the word itself. In many contexts, 'ballast' refers to the "ballast used to balance or stabilize a vehicle". In other contexts, 'ballast' may refer to something that makes the craft deliberately heavier.

So you just explained how you were wrong earlier, when you said that a heavier payload is better, and that payload and ballast are the same.

Being that the purpose of a payload is the mission attached to it, then weight would have no bearing on the importance of said payload, except that a heavier payload has more logistical difficulties associated with it.

And crew modules then can't be considered ballast because they serve a direct function, and aren't "mere cargo". If anything this is just an argument that actual ballast parts should be added to the game, not that the pod is balanced.

Please reread what I wrote.

Oh please, lets.

Superficially it might look like the purpose of the game is to buy all the upgrades as quickly and efficiently as possible. That doesn't sound very interesting, as optimization games are rarely any good.

Yup, still looks like opinion.

And the rest of your argument is something about the point of funds in the game isn't efficiency, it's about building upgrades, which is still an argument that supports the weight reduction because building upgrades place hard limits on ship designs, including weight.

Also, the point of balance for the entirety of career mode funds is way to large in scope to be discussed in this thread, and still has no bearing on a part being statistically worse than the other parts in it's category. I feel like I've said this before.

[Pax Kerbana]

proof? I ask because without it your statement is rather subjective.

Yes, it is subjective. I have never had a problem with the weight of this can.

did you seriously just try to use "lrn 2 play noob" as a counter argument? hoestly why do you even care? how is an intuititive and logical order to crewed parts bad for you?

I don't really care. I think it's funny that an extra ton on a pod is such a big deal. Especially when we have things like the ridiculous cost of Kerbals. The mass of the Mk 2 can is honestly the last thing I would put on a KSP punch list.

apparently you'd just rather that squad spend their time on other things though you know my proposal of giving the pod can IVA with more crew capacity would give ample opportunity to fix this quirk.

It would be nice, I do not disagree. I would however much rather they fix the career gameplay first. Cost of Kerbals, contracts, tech. Gameplay (and Unity 5) is the next big thing I would like them to address, not part balance. The parts are balanced. Mostly.

[Jouni]

Being that the purpose of a payload is the mission attached to it, then weight would have no bearing on the importance of said payload, except that a heavier payload has more logistical difficulties associated with it.

And that weight is the purpose of the mission, along with the flavor text accompanying it. The game should have both lightweight and heavy payload parts to encourage building rockets of different sizes.

Maybe you should be able to squeeze 4 kerbals into the Mk2 lander can, because it's 4x bigger than the Mk1 lander can (and heavier than some other 4-kerbal modules). The important thing is that it should remain heavy enough to distinguish it clearly from the Mk1 lander can.

And the rest of your argument is something about the point of funds in the game isn't efficiency, it's about building upgrades, which is still an argument that supports the weight reduction because building upgrades place hard limits on ship designs, including weight.

The idea is simple. If you can complete a mission with a reasonably efficient rocket, there's no real game mechanical benefit from optimizing it any further. More efficient rockets would obviously be cheaper, but the price savings won't make any qualitative difference in the game. Maximal efficiency is just an arbitrary player-imposed goal.

Your space program isn't trying to maximize its profits over time in a finite market. There are no rival agencies competing for the same contracts. Instead, you operate in an environment, where time doesn't matter and revenues are potentially infinite. Because you can always take new contracts and gain profit from them, you can afford anything. The only finite resource is player time. Therefore the only non-arbitrary efficiency metrics in the game are achievements (e.g. funds/science/reputation, completed contracts, upgraded buildings, unlocked tech tree nodes) per unit of player time.

Also, the point of balance for the entirety of career mode funds is way to large in scope to be discussed in this thread, and still has no bearing on a part being statistically worse than the other parts in it's category. I feel like I've said this before.

My point is that the Mk2 lander can may be statistically worse than the Mk1 lander can, but the difference rarely matters in the game. Most of the time, the difference only becomes relevant, if the player has a self-imposed goal of making everything as efficient as reasonably possible.

[tater]

And this still doesn't explain Jouni's opinion that a heavier payload is better.

I assume he means for gameplay/balance issues. I'm not saying I agree (I'm unsure, frankly), I'm just saying that's how I read his posts. Feel free to boot me in the head if I am misinterpreting.

[Michaelbak]

My point is that the Mk2 lander can may be statistically worse than the Mk1 lander can, but the difference rarely matters in the game. Most of the time, the difference only becomes relevant, if the player has a self-imposed goal of making everything as efficient as reasonably possible.

The difference rarely matters? Need remind you that I was easily able to make a fully functioning mission ready lander using two MK1 pods that weighed LESS than a bare MK2 pod again? There's balancing for terms of asymmetrical game play, and then there's balancing that's just plain broken. This part falls in the latter.

Another thing. People keep talking about increasing kerbal capacity as an easier option but I don't really see how programing in more kerbals to be in the craft, remodeling the interior of the craft, and placing new animated kerbals inside the craft will have less of a chance of breaking people's ships then just changing a the mass which is nothing more than a numerical attribute (correct me if I'm wrong).

Edited May 14, 2015 by Michaelbak