Mobile Processing Lab is OP

[Venusgate]

I thought it was said somewhere that your could fill out the tech tree without a mpl and without leaving the Kerbin system? THAT'S probably what's really "OP." 

Which is why I am liking the Science funding mod and I basically ignore contracts

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, Renegrade said:

I think a nice solution to the MPL would be to make it a "return point" for science like KSC is.

I love this idea. I'd also like it if any Kerbals in a ship with an MPL get credit for their XP gain as if they had returned home. Then it'd be not so much a mobile science lab as a mobile "home base".

Now THAT would be a reason to bring one to Jool.

[fourfa]

4 hours ago, Renegrade said:

Twin boar is no match for some well-greased Reliants!  They're about 195 newtons per funds, whereas the Twin Boar is only about 177 even after subtracting a Jumbo64 from it.   The Twin-Boar is definitely better than the Mainsail (115) or Skipper (133), but it's often overpowered for many uses, whereas a cluster of three Reliants mounted on cubic octags is lower thrust and MUCH lower cost.

Not if you're limited to 30 parts!  Three engines, three octags, one orange tank = seven parts vs one.  For some strange reason I find working around constraints like that to be fun.  Otherwise, yeah, great points.

[jarmonik]

Why can't the Squad put an option in game options to choose how the MPL operates ? Shouldn't be that hard. Right now it's pretty much a game breaker and that's why I don't use it but then what are the scientist for then ? Without MPL there are no use for scientists.

If you bring back the science instruments to Kerbin you get 100%
If you transmit the science then you get 25-100% depending the case.
If you process the science in MPL you get 75%-100%  (NOT 10000%)

Simple, Logical.   

Edited May 10, 2016 by jarmonik

[Streetwind]

5 hours ago, Renegrade said:

Twin boar is no match for some well-greased Reliants!  They're about 195 newtons per funds, whereas the Twin Boar is only about 177 even after subtracting a Jumbo64 from it.   The Twin-Boar is definitely better than the Mainsail (115) or Skipper (133), but it's often overpowered for many uses, whereas a cluster of three Reliants mounted on cubic octags is lower thrust and MUCH lower cost.

Do keep in mind though that the Twin Boar is the highest TWR liquid fuel engine in the entire game - it has almost twice the raw TWR of a Reliant, some 32 versus 17, IIRC. That's a lot of extra dry mass you're adding through the Reliants by comparison. And the Twin Boar also has twin gimbals, for full three axis control authority. That's why people call it "OP"... because it pushes extremely hard, weighs next to nothing, saves parts, and has that multi-gimbal, while combining all of that with a price point that is far below the curve of all other tier 2 stuff. Heck, the skirts at the bottom even act a little bit like guide fins!

Of course there are situations for which it is not the right choice, no question there. But if you're doing anything at all with 2.5m tanks in your launch stage, you'd be a fool to not at least consider it.

[RocketBlam]

6 hours ago, Renegrade said:

Anyhow, the whole damn tree needs to be looked at, reorganized, tiered, and fixed up.  It's currently mostly insane.

Engines coming in different tiers than the fuel tanks that go with them...

[Sereneti]

i had use the mobile-prozessing-lab. Yes
I dont want to reach jool, only to get a ramjet ...

 

[Curveball Anders]

I (ab)useMPLs quite a lot regardless if I play sandbox, science or career.

Especially orbital ones.

My main reason is that I consider an MPL as essential for any serious station.

[Creature]

I just have a hard time figuring out what's the design philosophy behind the part. Did they really think the player needs a way to re-use the same experiments from a biome for practically unlimited science? Or that such a part would somehow improve the gameplay? Even if you're not cheesing out with multiple labs, even the basic usage just doesn't seem to promote any kind of meaningful or fun gameplay. It's not even a much of a design choise, just slap MPL in your station and you're good to go.

[severedsolo]

10 minutes ago, Creature said:

I just have a hard time figuring out what's the design philosophy behind the part. Did they really think the player needs a way to re-use the same experiments from a biome for practically unlimited science?

I think it's more "well it needs to do SOMETHING". Way back when science was first a thing, it just used to let you reset experiments (like scientists do now). The thing is, nobody* ever used the thing, because there wasn't much point. It was big and heavy, and it was frankly easier to just launch a new lander/probe if you were biome hopping. Then crew specialisations came along and scientists seemed a better fit for that job, so the MPL needed a home.

*Somebody probably did. I did once, and found it to be a bit pointless.

Edited May 10, 2016 by severedsolo

[Creature]

1 minute ago, severedsolo said:

I think it's more "well it needs to do SOMETHING". Way back when science was first a thing, it just used to let you reset experiments (like scientists do now). The thing is, nobody* ever used the thing, because there wasn't much point. It was big and heavy, and it was frankly easier to just launch a new lander/probe if you were biome hopping. Then crew specialisations came along and scientists seemed a better fit for that job, so the MPL needed a home.

*Somebody probably did.

I did, but it was mostly just for the heck of it. But yeah, what you said is exactly the point. It just does something. There doesn't seem to be any game design behind it. Even though it's useful or even necessary in hard mode, the gameplay and design behind it is still kinda weird and definitely not engaging.

[Warzouz]

2 hours ago, jarmonik said:

Why can't the Squad put an option in game options to choose how the MPL operates ? Shouldn't be that hard. Right now it's pretty much a game breaker and that's why I don't use it but then what are the scientist for then ? Without MPL there are no use for scientists.

If you bring back the science instruments to Kerbin you get 100%
If you transmit the science then you get 25-100% depending the case.
If you process the science in MPL you get 75%-100%  (NOT 10000%)

Simple, Logical.   

As it's a solo game, you can put your option in your own gameplay. Do I use the MPL or not ?

You assertion about scientist is false. They are VERY useful for stripping science out of a planetary body. They can reset jucy science experiments (Goo and Lab)

[Codraroll]

The MPL is not only OP, it's OPTIONAL. It can also be config'd and slidered and what-have-you-not, to tweak it into working almost the way you want it. If you don't want it at all, nobody's forcing anybody to use it. I consider it a neat little option for my playthroughs, but if I ever feel it removes the challenge, I remove it. It's not a very difficult thing.

Perhaps if the first rocket engine you unlocked also was the most fuel-efficient, had the highest thrust and never broke upon impact, and it was the only option available if you wanted to progress, it would be a playthrough-ruining thing. But the MPL comes mid- to late-game, and can be skipped entirely without any repercussions.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Codraroll

[cantab]

3 hours ago, Creature said:

I just have a hard time figuring out what's the design philosophy behind the part. Did they really think the player needs a way to re-use the same experiments from a biome for practically unlimited science? Or that such a part would somehow improve the gameplay? Even if you're not cheesing out with multiple labs, even the basic usage just doesn't seem to promote any kind of meaningful or fun gameplay. It's not even a much of a design choise, just slap MPL in your station and you're good to go.

I think the new MPL mechanic *is* worthwhile. It rewards setting up a permanent-ish infrastructure, and learning to either rendezvous and dock (for an orbital MPL) or land with precision (for a surface one). It gives some purpose to station or base construction in the stock game, making them a worthwhile alternative to simple "flags and footprints" type missions.

Currently it may be too *much* of a reward, and there are a few oddities especially with multiple labs, but I think Squad got it right with the general idea.

[wumpus]

I think around here we realize that the game was really meant to be a sandbox game.  Tacking a "career mode" adds a tour guide to the sandbox and lets you see all the pieces (although it also forces you to ignore some parts too quickly.  Before career mode I was doing lots of fun things with hammers, now they get used on one mission tops (note to Squad: Bring back explosive staging!  Let the kerbals do kerbal things!).

Getting the sandbox part to work is an exercise in trying to program rocket science in a cheaty-go-enough simulation that will work in a game, and is absolutely necessary for career mode.  Fine tuning career mode is a complex exercise in gamecraft, which can easily be thrown out of wack by any fixes on the simulator side.  I'm convinced Squad can get the sandbox "right".  I'm less convinced that career mode will ever be all that balanced.

I think a better test of career mode should not be "are all rewards equal to the challenge", but:

Did you get into space (Problem: after 1.0 living to tell the tale is nearly as hard as getting into orbit and it isn't obvious to new players why this is so)?

Did you get into orbit?

Did you land and return from Minmus/Mun?

Can you dock/build a space station?

Did you get to Duna and back?

Did you get to the rest of the planets?

Even Eve (and back)?

Career mode seems to cover the heart of the game with a rather pointless grind.  You can spend months around Kerbin and her moons "doing career things" when the rest of the Kerbol system lies empty (guilty).  My suggestions for improving the game would be to "push you out of the nest" faster and expect to get more science away from the Kerbin system (which is another way of saying the MPL is OP, but the problem is really deeper than that).

[SorryDave]

I don't believe that completing the tech tree should require more than grinding through the moons. 

some people like grinding through moon bioms. Others won't. The reason to visit other planets is to complete contracts. 

I play career games almost exclusively now and have played both high and low tech games. I just never test parts. Additionally, I like to role play in career mode and the lab is important element.

 

[Creature]

5 hours ago, cantab said:

I think the new MPL mechanic *is* worthwhile. It rewards setting up a permanent-ish infrastructure, and learning to either rendezvous and dock (for an orbital MPL) or land with precision (for a surface one). It gives some purpose to station or base construction in the stock game, making them a worthwhile alternative to simple "flags and footprints" type missions.

Currently it may be too *much* of a reward, and there are a few oddities especially with multiple labs, but I think Squad got it right with the general idea.

Well that's not exactly what I meant. What you're saying is true, but it applies to any sort of station part that is useful in some way. That's the only good thing about the MPL, it has some utility and it's a reason to have stations. But what I was trying to say is that the mechanic itself is not interesting. You land somewhere, get the experiments as usual and then you take the same experiments again and shove them into the MPL and come back a year later for free science. Maybe I'm expecting too much but it just doesn't seem well thought out.

[Renegrade]

14 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I love this idea. I'd also like it if any Kerbals in a ship with an MPL get credit for their XP gain as if they had returned home. Then it'd be not so much a mobile science lab as a mobile "home base".

Now THAT would be a reason to bring one to Jool.

For full disclosure, @Jacke gets credit for this idea as well - we were kicking this around in PMs not too long ago. 

I like your XP gain credit idea - that would definitely help too.  Would make the MPL very powerful and desirable without causing it to overcome the entire science tree heh.

14 hours ago, fourfa said:

Not if you're limited to 30 parts!  Three engines, three octags, one orange tank = seven parts vs one.  For some strange reason I find working around constraints like that to be fun.  Otherwise, yeah, great points.

True - if you've got a T1 VAB, the part count of octaging Reliants will be extremely punishing.  By the way, if you like the challenge of dealing with strict restrictions, you might want to check out BTSM (if you haven't already).  It's got a smoother progression for restrictions (it's tied to the tech tree AND facilities and occurs in smaller increments), and imposes a lot of challenge.   The downside is that it's mod-unfriendly and is still (currently) based on 1.0.4 instead of 1.0.5 or 1.1.x.

12 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Do keep in mind though that the Twin Boar is the highest TWR liquid fuel engine in the entire game - it has almost twice the raw TWR of a Reliant, some 32 versus 17, IIRC. That's a lot of extra dry mass you're adding through the Reliants by comparison. And the Twin Boar also has twin gimbals, for full three axis control authority. That's why people call it "OP"... because it pushes extremely hard, weighs next to nothing, saves parts, and has that multi-gimbal, while combining all of that with a price point that is far below the curve of all other tier 2 stuff. Heck, the skirts at the bottom even act a little bit like guide fins!

Of course there are situations for which it is not the right choice, no question there. But if you're doing anything at all with 2.5m tanks in your launch stage, you'd be a fool to not at least consider it.

If you leave aside price, it's definitely the better engine, but huge clusters of Reliants can lift the same rocket for less funds (it costs about as much as 10.22 Reliants if you take away the price of a Jumbo64 from it), plus you might not need all 2000kN of thrust, so you could cluster fewer Reliants for even more savings (especially if you use some SRBs in a parallel Shuttle-like configuration - some of my lifters have 3-5 Reliants under a Jumbo64 with the SRBs handling the bulk of the load until the fuel has drained enough from the core for the liquid engines to take it the rest of the way).  And the Twin Boar basically commits you to a Jumbo64-sized tank whether you want it or not... The part cost is less of a concern once you have a T2+ VAB, as these engines are generally bottom-stage affairs and ditched early.  The TWRs in question are 17.533 and 31.365g for Reliants and Twin Boars respectively.

The biggest victim of Reliant clusters, of course, is the Skipper - three Reliants is only 5kN short and cost like 2k less overall - a 40% savings.  The only advantage the Skipper has is vectoring, and that's pretty poor consolation when you can sneak a Swivel into the Reliant cluster for only a small increase in cost..  The Mainsail also falls victim to this, but then you're getting into scales where the Twin Boar is starting to get more competitive, so I'd actually classify the Mainsail as being victimized by the Twin Boar more than the Reliant clusters...doubly so since clustering more than 6-8 Reliants on a 2.5m-something can be a bit uh, tight.

12 hours ago, RocketBlam said:

Engines coming in different tiers than the fuel tanks that go with them...

Yep.  Especially considering how clunky engine clustering is in stock.  I don't think there's a specific solution for 2.5 engines being clustered under 3.75m tanks (partly because of "attack of the tank butts", but also partly because 1.25m doubles to 2.5m, but 3.75 is only 1.5x 2.5 ...).

Speaking about clustering - I'd like to know why the pre-fabbed cluster parts (bi-coupler, tri-coupler, etc) don't have an extra node for attachment below to continue the stack...

10 hours ago, Warzouz said:

You assertion about scientist is false. They are VERY useful for stripping science out of a planetary body. They can reset jucy science experiments (Goo and Lab)

Scientists are TOO useful... That reset feature should only apply to the lab (which requires scientists so they'd still be useful)...

8 hours ago, cantab said:

Currently it may be too *much* of a reward, and there are a few oddities especially with multiple labs, but I think Squad got it right with the general idea.

It's a good CONCEPT: having the MPL being useful, to encourage base building and infrastructure, but I've highlighted MY problem with the current design.  It's madly "OP". 

[RocketBlam]

I'm not saying that what it does is OP, I'm saying the scale it does it is OP. 25:1 science gain? How about 5:1?

[Xavven]

Wow, I sincerely love this thread!

We can't talk about the MPL without mentioning:

1. Its effect on tech tree progression
2. Its position in the tech tree
3. The shortcomings of the current stock tech tree in general.

1. Tech Progression

The MPL generates too much science too fast. While I concede that there is a lot of planning that goes into putting it into Mun orbit and performing orbital rendezvous to get science experiments into it, let's consider what makes it overpowered.

1. You don't actually have to learn docking, only rendezvous. The first time I farmed Minmus with an MPL I didn't even have docking ports unlocked. I just EVA'ed a kerbal to transfer the experiments to the MPL.
2. You don't have to go interplanetary to get a good bang for your buck. One or two Minmus MPLs gets you the whole tree. I'd like to see career encourage players to expand and explore more.
3. I personally think that any Jool moon mission is at least as hard as a Minmus/Mun MPL farm mission (in the case of a one-way Jool probe), and usually way harder (any Jool moon science return mission, probe or manned). Yet a typical non-MPL Jool moon mission returns just a fraction of the science.

2. Position in the tech tree

Perhaps the problem here is that the MPL is unlocked too early. I think it should be an endgame activity just like ISRU is. The player should have to work hard and really explore to earn to the end of the tech tree, and then they can have the MPL to fill in the blanks, or to have something to do when the tree is unlocked. Getting it so early just makes the rest of the tree too easy to blow through.

3. Shortcomings of the current stock tech tree in general

Someone mentioned that it's silly that new engine sizes and the tanks that actually fit them are in different nodes. I have been saying this for years.

It also baffles me that the MPL could be in an early 160 science node, and yet a quad stack adapter (2.5m - 1.5m) is at the end of the tree in a 550 science node. Players just make their own engine clusters with the cubic octagonal strut anyway, which while we're on that topic, for some reason a small cube truss is in a higher science node than a thermal control system radiator with all its associated plumbing.

It's high time Squad worked on the tech tree for real. We've got our 64-bit and shiny new Unity engine, now don't neglect the game progression! A long time ago, Harvester tried to fix the tech tree by analyzing statistics on what parts testers preferred to unlock first during testing. Honestly, that's a nice first try, but it is going to take a little (actually a lot) more thought and lots of playtesting to get it right.

The engine progression is probably about right. The tanks and adapters between sizes, and decouplers, should be in the same nodes as the engines, though. There's no point in getting one of those nodes without the other, so just jack up the price of the node and give it all at once. The ISRU stuff at the end of the tree is about right. Where it's mostly messed up is all that stuff in the middle of the tree. Ladders should not take that much science to unlock. Panels, girders, ibeams, and nosecones should seriously not take that much science to unlock. What should be expensive is stuff that allows you to building bigger ships with higher payloads and more delta-v.

[RocketBlam]

Just an update on this career. What I've been doing is flying missions to Eve and Jool while the MPL does its thing. I've landed on Pol and Bop, and flown past Tylo for missions.

When flying to another planet, I just warp for about 350 days, quick save, and go back to the MPL to transmit science. It takes about 350 days (as I recall) for the science to fill up. So on the way to Jool, I go back three times over the course of the flight to go back and transmit science.

Having done this, I need 3,850 more science to fill out the whole tech tree. Honestly what's slowing me down now is not science, but making the money to unlock the parts.

My next missions will be to Vall and Laythe. I was thinking about sending another MPL to Jool orbit, but by the time I either landed on Vall or Laythe, the tree will be finished. So it would be pointless. The tree will be completely filled out before I even use the thing.

So this actually brings to mind what I consider one of the big problems with the career/science modes. Once you've unlocked the whole tree, there is no more "progression", if you will. The "reward" for doing missions is no longer a reward since you can't get any more techs out of it. So maybe that's the bigger problem here.

23 minutes ago, Xavven said:

Someone mentioned that it's silly that new engine sizes and the tanks that actually fit them are in different nodes. I have been saying this for years.

Not just different nodes, different tiers. I can understand different nodes, but different tiers doesn't make sense to me.

Edited May 11, 2016 by RocketBlam

[SorryDave]

I think that a lot of players feel that the goal of career mode is to unlock the tech tree and buildings. This may be the reason that they feel there needs to be a better balance, that these things should be completed "late game".

For me and others, these are just milestones for the development of my space program. I then play the game a bit like sandbox with trained rescued kerbals and funds. 

I think this is why it is hard for the community to agree on when the career game ends. All the game modes are open ended sandbox games with different features.

The rewards unlocked in the tech tree do not allow higher paying contracts. Bigger high tech rockets are less profitable than a lower tech smaller rocket that can do the same mission. But sometimes it is fun to build a spaceplane that launches satellites 

Edited May 11, 2016 by SorryDave

[fourfa]

I love where this thread has gone!

[RoverDude]

On 5/9/2016 at 4:51 AM, Warzouz said:

I remember reading somewhere from squad that the MPL was changed in 1.0 to be an alternative way to get science instead of grinding it from science experiments. This would help players who don't want do land several times on the Mun and Minmus.

Technically it's not OP. It's just an alternative you can use if you want to.

In my career game, I use the MPL to generate cash or reputation when I unlock nearly all the tech tree. I add it to all my space station for RP.

EDIT : if you don't like the tech tree, just edit the save file and add 20000 science points. You can unlock everything and still get science from experiments.

That's correct.  The intent of the MPL change was to provide an alternate gameplay path to doing biome hopping.  So if you want to toss a small lander with a scientist and grab all of the Minmus biomes, or you find it more interesting to land and set up a Minmus science base, you can take your pick.  Or do a combination of the approaches.  That's kinda the idea

[suicidejunkie]

Just now, RoverDude said:

That's correct.  The intent of the MPL change was to provide an alternate gameplay path to doing biome hopping.  So if you want to toss a small lander with a scientist and grab all of the Minmus biomes, or you find it more interesting to land and set up a Minmus science base, you can take your pick.  Or do a combination of the approaches.  That's kinda the idea

What if the MPL consumed the science value of those unexplored biomes then instead of just generating science?  After analyzing the polar lowlands samples in the MPL, the polar samples wouldn't be worth as much new info...

It would essentially turn a Polar Lowlands surface sample into surface sample data from all the mun biomes, and transmit that for science points.