Jump to content

I think part balancing needs a serious overhaul

Kerbonaut257
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

While I agree with this in theory, I am hard pressed to find a reason ANYBODY would call the mk2 lander can - which weighs more than 2 mk1 lander cans - balanced. It's not realistic, and it's not good gameplay. There is *0* reason to use the Mk2 lander can except aesthetics, and ... well ... I don't see many people choosing the Mk2 lander can for its looks.

: me raises hand :

I use the Mk 2 lander can quite a lot, for the probe control point, stronger reaction wheels, and better form factor. Building a skycrane capable of recovering a rover based on the Mk 1 can gets pretty fiddly, you have to build a strut structure that ends up weighing close to the same, and you won't be able to RC the rover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NWM

NWM

Posted
Posted

Whole the balancing is ridiculous. The durable aircraft fuselages has better wet/dry mass ratio than the fragile rocket tanks? The small tanks (RCSs, Round-8 and Oscar B) insanely heavy, seriously annoying when building a light re-docking probe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...