Rebalance of the MK2 Lander Can.

[Keith_Bones]

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.

Honestly, I find him hard to interpret myself. No worries manard.

Honestly the entire thing has been blown wholly out of proportion, we're really just talking about a tiny number tweak in one place or another, I don't know why it has become this.

- - - Updated - - -

And that weight is the purpose of the mission, along with the flavor text accompanying it.

Nope. I've literally never started a mission and said "the only point of this mission is to land 1000 tons on duna". Now, maybe you have, and I'm certain that some other people have, but don't make broad generalizations for the entire community.

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.

So after 5 pages of nonsensical run-arounds you actually agree that the thing could be changed for the better. If you had just admitted to this earlier maybe we would have 5 pages of discussion about how specifically to change the thing, and the merits of each, rather than unfounded, denunciatory garbage.

The game should have both lightweight and heavy payload parts to encourage building rockets of different sizes.

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.

Finally, the argument you should've opened with. Unfortunately we've already talked about how the thing is far past the weight required to be a unique part, and about alternate options if you really want heavy things.

- repost for forum strangness-

[ghostbuzzer7]

Seats 2 kerbals, more monopropellant and electric charge, better for replicas, AND if my theory does happen, the next generations of ksp may have life support so it would have snacks. It adds diversity to the 3 sizes the game offers. The lander can is practical and although having more mass it comes with more benefits than you'd expect. I used it for the C59 Diorite Interplanetary Rocket.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[tater]

Nope. I've literally never started a mission and said "the only point of this mission is to land 1000 tons on duna". Now, maybe you have, and I'm certain that some other people have, but don't make broad generalizations for the entire community.

That is the point. The kerbals don't do much, they are the "flavor text." As far as any physics is concerned, getting X tons to location Y is the only point of the game. That the tonnage includes cute faces is a hook.

[Laie]

maybe we would have 5 pages of discussion about how specifically to change the thing, and the merits of each,

Well, better late than never, amirite?

Merely reducing it's weight would be a (long overdue) hotfix. Not bad, but I hope for more: One thing that is driving my designs is the desire to return several samples from each site. As of now, this pretty much mandates that I assemble landers from Mk1 cans. Any change to the Mk2 that doesn't address the problem of science collection will do me no good.

[Keith_Bones]

Well, better late than never, amirite?

Merely reducing it's weight would be a (long overdue) hotfix. Not bad, but I hope for more: One thing that is driving my designs is the desire to return several samples from each site. As of now, this pretty much mandates that I assemble landers from Mk1 cans. Any change to the Mk2 that doesn't address the problem of science collection will do me no good.

Yeah, that's a good point, given that multi-kerbal missions are often decided upon for science reasons. But the change would still have to be dramatic, given that I can create a fully functional minmus lander with 2 MK1s (and thus, two science containers) for a full ton under the weight of just the Mk2.

[tater]

If Squad doesn't want to change the mass because of save games, I'd suggest they throw in some 1.875 parts.

Add a 2 seat capsule, and a 2-seat lander can that is appropriately light. What about the mk2? Perhaps they could redo the model slightly and add a less capable science lab so it becomes a surface laboratory.

[passinglurker]

...and add a less capable science lab so it becomes a surface laboratory.

ooooh now there's an idea I'd get behind. its probably something that can be done with just an IVA change as well

[Michaelbak]

If Squad doesn't want to change the mass because of save games, I'd suggest they throw in some 1.875 parts.

Add a 2 seat capsule, and a 2-seat lander can that is appropriately light. What about the mk2? Perhaps they could redo the model slightly and add a less capable science lab so it becomes a surface laboratory.

Making a new "Lander" version and making the current one a science based version sounds very intriguing. However, I fail to see how completely redesigning a current part inside and out would be safer for people's save files then simply changing a numerical value. Common sense tells me that simply changing the part's mass would be less problematic.

[tater]

It would change an IVA at most, and add a capability.

[passinglurker]

To avoid breaking saves with a model All you have to do is keep the nodes and hatch in the same place. changing the mass can break crafts in situations where center of mass is important. Changing the iva and adding either more seats or a lab module to the config file breaks nothing

[Jouni]

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.

That's a minor difference in a mostly irrelevant stat. Maybe the mission using a Mk2 lander can is 2x heavier and 2x more expensive than the one using two Mk1 lander cans, but there's no qualitative difference between the two. The Mk2 lander can is so deep in the tech tree that you have probably upgraded to the tier 3 launchpad before unlocking it. That means that you can make your rockets as heavy as you want. The only remaining difference is that you get 90% instead of 95% of the contract rewards as profit, which doesn't really matter.

Edit: To clarify, the 2x heavier mission produces 5.3% less profit, so it's only 5.3% less efficient.

As I said, striving for maximal efficiency is an arbitrary player-imposed goal.

So after 5 pages of nonsensical run-arounds you actually agree that the thing could be changed for the better. If you had just admitted to this earlier maybe we would have 5 pages of discussion about how specifically to change the thing, and the merits of each, rather than unfounded, denunciatory garbage.

If my comments have seemed nonsensical, so have yours. I felt this discussion frustrating, because you mostly threw vague one-liners without trying to elaborate your position. Very often I didn't have a clear idea what you did mean by the comment I was responding to. I had to make guesses, which apparently were wrong quite often.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Jouni

[passinglurker]

That's a minor difference in a mostly irrelevant stat. Maybe the mission using a Mk2 lander can is 2x heavier and 2x more expensive than the one using two Mk1 lander cans, but there's no qualitative difference between the two. The Mk2 lander can is so deep in the tech tree that you have probably upgraded to the tier 3 launchpad before unlocking it. That means that you can make your rockets as heavy as you want. The only remaining difference is that you get 90% instead of 95% of the contract rewards as profit, which doesn't really matter.

Edit: To clarify, the 2x heavier mission produces 5.3% less profit, so it's only 5.3% less efficient.

As I said, striving for maximal efficiency is an arbitrary player-imposed goal.

In space every gram counts this is an important aspect to the feel of any space game that isn't utter fantasy as a result we can't have parts that are heavier for no legitimate reason and flavor text is not a legitimate reason

[Jouni]

In space every gram counts this is an important aspect to the feel of any space game that isn't utter fantasy as a result we can't have parts that are heavier for no legitimate reason and flavor text is not a legitimate reason

Every gram counts, because real rockets are expensive and developing bigger launch systems requires a lot of time and effort. In KSP, neither of these is true. Building bigger rockets is straightforward as long as payload size remains reasonable, and even 3x more expensive rockets have a minimal effect on the profitability of most missions.

[Sky_walker]

Quit an easy mode and start playing hard. Then we'll talk how "even 3x more expensive rockets have a minimal effect on the profitability of most missions".

[passinglurker]

Every gram counts, because real rockets are expensive and developing bigger launch systems requires a lot of time and effort. In KSP, neither of these is true. Building bigger rockets is straightforward as long as payload size remains reasonable, and even 3x more expensive rockets have a minimal effect on the profitability of most missions.

They still have a look and feel that they are trying to capture. This immersion is disrupted by quirks like the excess mass of the mk2 lander can. If it had a lab module or extra seats the mass would be excusable.

[Jouni]

Quit an easy mode and start playing hard. Then we'll talk how "even 3x more expensive rockets have a minimal effect on the profitability of most missions".

I've only played on moderate, because I don't like the limitations on reverting and quickloads.

In my typical missions, the rewards are about 10x higher than the costs, even though my payloads are usually much larger than necessary. This obviously requires that you pay some attention to economic efficiency, and plan your missions according to which contracts are available and which of them can be easily combined.

[Pax Kerbana]

Quit an easy mode and start playing hard. Then we'll talk how "even 3x more expensive rockets have a minimal effect on the profitability of most missions".

Haha can't believe you just did that.

Hard mode is only hard because of no-revert and the cost of Kerbals. Once you are able to land and EVA on the Mun you'll start getting contracts such that you never need to worry about funds.

[Keith_Bones]

Haha can't believe you just did that.

Hard mode is only hard because of no-revert and the cost of Kerbals. Once you are able to land and EVA on the Mun you'll start getting contracts such that you never need to worry about funds.

The inability to revert means that every point of funds spent on every design is potentially spent multiple times, because the little fudge ups that everybody makes like "oh woops, just forget to turn symmetry on" Are also non-revertable. So it very much can become an efficiency thing.

- - - Updated - - -

If my comments have seemed nonsensical, so have yours. I felt this discussion frustrating, because you mostly threw vague one-liners without trying to elaborate your position. Very often I didn't have a clear idea what you did mean by the comment I was responding to. I had to make guesses, which apparently were wrong quite often.

I thought I've remained pretty well spoken actually, if not, y'all should let me know.

[Kegereneku]

I've read a little your discussion. I won't take part.

Just saying I also find unbalanced that a 2 seat capsules is heavier than 2 one seat capsules as it fail its basic functionality : carry kerbal, while being light.

Anyway... we did knew SQUAD rushed to 1.0, let's hope they remember to do a balance pass next time.

[Michaelbak]

That's a minor difference in a mostly irrelevant stat. Maybe the mission using a Mk2 lander can is 2x heavier and 2x more expensive than the one using two Mk1 lander cans, but there's no qualitative difference between the two. The Mk2 lander can is so deep in the tech tree that you have probably upgraded to the tier 3 launchpad before unlocking it. That means that you can make your rockets as heavy as you want. The only remaining difference is that you get 90% instead of 95% of the contract rewards as profit, which doesn't really matter.

This is besides the point. The reason that the MK2 is so broken is that it's a pod made for landers. When you launch a lander you're not just designing a ship, you're designing two ships. You keep talking about how it doesn't make much of a difference in to the overall craft which is somewhat fallacious but in practical terms could be seen as true. The issue here is not that first craft but the second one, the lander.

I don't know how you play but I try to keep my landers as light as possible to squeeze out the absolute most DeltaV possible (I only use three landing legs or none at all if I can get away with it.). The reason why is that once I get my craft on it's way to some place like Minmus, at the minimum, I require it to acquire and or adjust an orbit, land at a designated LZ, take off again, and return safely to Kerbin. To accomplish all of these tasks which I would consider very non extravagant with a reasonable amount of inefficiency (We can't just cop out and say 'Get Gud' when people of all different skill levels play this game, not everyone pilots their crafts perfectly like a computer) requires a surprising amount of deltaV, especially on a body with a strong gravitational pull like the Mun. It's for that reason that the end craft that's doing all this work is where the weight really matters, not in the giant rockets you launch from kerbin but the one you have to land and take off with from the Mun. To say that this task would be just as easy with a big heavy craft would be absurd. Thats why my example of a two person 2.65 ton lander with 1,391 DeltaV was so important. For a craft where weight is almost everything being able to build an entire lander for literally under the weight of just the base part is absolutely absurd and shows how broken it is for the task it's intended to accomplish.

And yes you can get away with more weight by having a less efficient craft with an apollo style orbital module, and for landing on a lot of places like Dres this makes perfect sense. But you still need it to be light so that it can have enough deltaV to land and pair up with it again later, besides the fact that the heavier you make the lander module the bigger and heavier you have to make the orbital module which leads to a very different rocket overall. All weight is like a snowball on a race to the bottom. For local moons however, I think a lot players would waste more DeltaV trying to meet up and dock with their orbital craft than to just go straight home. Although it is my opinion, considering that most players have been to the Mun but have probably never even heard of Dres, I think it's safer to bias towards this usage when balancing rather then assume that everyone using a MK2 pod wants to go to Ike with a separate orbital module.

Also, I would have to question your adamancy to your position of keeping its current stats. Are you truly pleased by its weight which I have argued is excessive or do you fear for changing the status quo? If its weight were reduced in a future update to something like 1.30 tons for instance, would you create a new thread arguing for days about why we should revert it back to 2.66?

Edited May 15, 2015 by Michaelbak

[Jouni]

I don't know how you play but I try to keep my landers as light as possible to squeeze out the absolute most DeltaV possible (I only use three landing legs or none at all if I can get away with it.).

I build landers that feel reasonable and/or interesting. If I need more delta-v, I add more fuel (and possibly more engines).

If you have 2x more payload, you just need a 2x bigger lander to get the same amount of delta-v as your optimized lander with a small payload. The 2x bigger lander requires everything else to be 2x bigger as well, and you end up with a 2x more expensive rocket that's about 5% less cost-effective than your optimized one.

Also, I would have to question your adamancy to your position of keeping its current stats. Are you truly pleased by its weight which I have argued is excessive or do you fear for changing the status quo? If its weight were reduced in a future update to something like 1.30 tons for instance, would you create a new thread arguing for days about why we should revert it back to 2.66?

The game needs heavy payload parts, and the 2.5 m crew modules fill that role quite well. Once the upgrade to Unity 5 (hopefully) fixes the OS X memory issues, we can add new parts for that role and rebalance the rest.

[tater]

Right now my personal limiting factor is wanting them to fit in reasonable fairings, or an interstage for an apollo-style mission, though in fact I do Kerbin orbit rendezvous ---> target (Mun/Duna/whatever) orbit rendezvous, usually, so it is mostly fairings, and I prefer a reasonable look to them.

[Superfluous J]

I build landers that feel reasonable and/or interesting. If I need more delta-v, I add more fuel (and possibly more engines).

So we play differently. That's okay. If you want to get 2 Kerbals to the surface of Moho and want your rocket to be more "interesting", make them bring an unused but full orange tank along. Don't rob me of the use of one of the few 2-person control modules.

[passinglurker]

I build landers that feel reasonable and/or interesting. If I need more delta-v, I add more fuel (and possibly more engines).

If you have 2x more payload, you just need a 2x bigger lander to get the same amount of delta-v as your optimized lander with a small payload. The 2x bigger lander requires everything else to be 2x bigger as well, and you end up with a 2x more expensive rocket that's about 5% less cost-effective than your optimized one.

The game needs heavy payload parts, and the 2.5 m crew modules fill that role quite well. Once the upgrade to Unity 5 (hopefully) fixes the OS X memory issues, we can add new parts for that role and rebalance the rest.

Again stop forcing your masochistic play style on others there is nothing reasonable about grossly excessive dead weight.

Also if the game needs heavy parts then let it provide sufficient capability relative to the cost of it's mass. In other words if it must be 2.5 tons let is be more crash tolerant or carry more resources or have more crew capacity or apply more torque or function as low data capacity/low science converting science lab, but it can not simply do nothing to merit this excess mass

[Red Iron Crown]

Expressing an opinion in no way "forces a play style" on anyone else. Disagree with the opinion if you like, but everyone is entitled to their opinion about how the game should be.