SLS engines, Probe Rockomax, buffed ions, and a larger solar system

[Rakaydos]

So, I've seen a lot of talk about the Rockomax probe engine and the SLS parts being overpowered engines, at the same time people are clamoring for outer solar system bodies- asteroid belts, Gas planet 2 and 3 (saturn and uranus equivs), and heliopause biomes.

What would people think of buffing the other engines to SLS and Rockomax probe effectiveness? It would make all the existing targets easier to reach, even for newbies, but a new layer of harder objectives could make it worthwhile for the experienced players. (Asteroid Magic boulder in sub-moho solar orbit, outsystem gas planets, ect)

Which engines are the most useless, and what aspects would you buff to bring them up to SLS and Rocomax usefullness?

[stupid_chris]

No, I think actually they should be buffed down. They really are overpowered by a lot, going to match them would make all other engines ridiculous much more noticeably. See below:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Excel document

Basically this has current values, as well as values I think would match better. They are still better than the current baseline, but not as OP as they currently are.

The "unbalanced" engines are basically non-chemical, probe, multi-tasking, or terrible (looking at you mk55) engines. I don't mean that they are unbalanced, they follow their own curve, but they don't behave like large chemical engines, and so I've excluded them (except for the mk55, it's terrible).

Edited April 8, 2014 by stupid_chris
updated graph

[CaptRobau]

I think the adjustment (buffing or debuffing) should be paired with a rethinking of each engine's role. A lot of engine stats still reflect a time when the respective engines took on roles now taken over by other engines, etc. The T30 for example is severely hampered in its usefulness by its lack of gimbal, simply because the lack of gimbal was a big challenge at a time when you only had three engines. Now the challenges lie elsewhere and the stats need to be geared towards them. Ideally each size would have an engine that acted as a First Stage Engine, Second Stage Engine, Upper Stage/Vacuum Engine, etc.

[SciMan]

-stuff-

Which engines are the most useless, and what aspects would you buff to bring them up to SLS and Rocomax usefullness?

There was a poll a while back about the "least favorite engine" in KSP.

According to the results, the Rockomax Mark 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine is the majority vote for "least favorite engine".

It has 80 votes out of 202, 38 votes ahead of the next entry, the LV-1 Ant.

Swap "least favorite" with "most useless", and there's the answer to the first part of the question.

As it stands, the Mark 55's only good point is that it can gimbal 3 degrees, the best of all the stock engines.

That's not enough reason for me to use it.

With a mass of 0.9, thrust of 120, sea level ISP of 290, and vacuum ISP of 320, the engine's stats all seem to contradict each other.

• Thrust/weight is close to the LV-T45, but the ISP sucks in comparison, which makes it basically useless for 1m launchers.
  
• Sea level and vacuum ISP are closest to the Mainsail, but it's thrust/weight ratio is crap in comparison, which makes it basically useless for 2m launchers.
  
• Thrust of 120 and mass of 0.9 is close to a pair of LV-909's, but the ISP is absolute crap in comparison, which makes it basically useless for landers.
  
• Comparing it to the LV-909, NERVA, or even the Poodle, it's ISP sucks. Making it basically useless for transfer stages.
  

Just like most of the rest of the forum, I haven't been able to find a reason to use this engine over the others.

The engine looks like it was supposed to be a lander engine. The crappy ISP makes it unsuited for most tasks, including engines on a lander.

I think that buffing the Mark 55's ISP to ~310 at sea-level and ~380 in vacuum would give people a reason to use it again.

• It would still have a slightly better T/W ratio than the LV-909 (maybe also the Poodle), but be slightly less efficient to compensate.
  
• Slightly better sea level ISP than the LV-909 or Poodle makes it better at powered landings on planets or moons with atmospheres.
  
• One Mark 55 engine would replace 2 LV-909's and their mounting brackets, and it's more compact.
  
• Radial mounting means they can be placed further away from the ground (less likely to snap off during a rough landing)
  

I know that these changes will make the Mark 55 useful, but I also attempted to keep it unique.

Additionally, I kept the changes on the small side to avoid going straight from "useless" to "overpowered" in one fell swoop.

In my mind, "Useless" and "Overpowered" are just two sides of the same coin.

The trick is to make that coin stand on its edge.

[Jouni]

The Mark 55 engine was pretty useful in lifter cores, when a single Mainsail didn't have enough thrust. Now that we have bigger stock engines available, I'm not sure whether there is a need to boost the Mainsail anymore. It probably depends on how the tech tree has been changed.

In principle, I like the idea that radial engines are used to boost the main first stage engine. In this role, they should be less efficient than the main engine, as the main engine is supposed to be a good compromise between power and efficiency. If we want to add more thrust, it should mean that we are willing to sacrifice some efficiency for it. Maybe the Mark 55 engine should be changed to 150 kN thrust (2/3 of the TWR of the Mainsail) and 280/330 s ISP (the same as the Mainsail).

[AbhChallenger]

There should be no nerfing of any parts until late in the actual game design (The full space program game)

[CaptRobau]

Why not? We have a tech tree and we have a career. We have the whole range of engines now. Finally there's the ability to start balancing everything out.

[stupid_chris]

There shouldn't be any fine tweaking. But as it clearly shows on what I've posted earlier, the new engines are really overpowered. The KR-2L has the highest TWR of all engines, and an insane ISP. Those should be nerfed down a little for the sake of following the known patterns.

[a2soup]

I feel like I should also point out that when you subtract the orange tank from the LFB KR-1x2 liquid fuel booster, the engine is strictly better than the mainsail. It also unlocks in the same tech, Heavier Rocketry. This is, frankly, shockingly poor game design. I hope it will be rectified to the tune of stupid_chris's suggestions.

chris:

The only disagreement I have with your suggestions is the way the KR-2L TWR is handled I think it should retain its current 2500 kN thrust, but get a mass increase to 9.5 t, making its TWR an improvement on the mainsail, but not as ridiculous as it is now. That way, it would still be an exciting, huge late-game unlock, but not as OP as it is now. (Btw, I like the way you did its Isp, although the ASL Isp could be a bit higher, maybe 265 s). What do you think?

[stupid_chris]

I feel like I should also point out that when you subtract the orange tank from the LFB KR-1x2 liquid fuel booster, the engine is strictly better than the mainsail. It also unlocks in the same tech, Heavier Rocketry. This is, frankly, shockingly poor game design. I hope it will be rectified to the tune of stupid_chris's suggestions.

chris:

The only disagreement I have with your suggestions is the way the KR-2L TWR is handled I think it should retain its current 2500 kN thrust, but get a mass increase to 9.5 t, making its TWR an improvement on the mainsail, but not as ridiculous as it is now. That way, it would still be an exciting, huge late-game unlock, but not as OP as it is now. (Btw, I like the way you did its Isp, although the ASL Isp could be a bit higher, maybe 265 s). What do you think?

from what I understood, the KR-2L is meant to be a high atmospheric/second stage engine. That's why I dropped it's ASL isp low, to basically encourage it's use in later stages. Generally at those heights, TWR does not matter as much, but ISP does. If we were to bump it's TWR to be slightly better than the mainsail, it's ISP would need to drop in the 330~340 max, and it kinda looses it's attray as a second stage engine. The way I see it is that it's a very robust engine at high altis. 1400kN is not nothing when you have barely no atmosphere to stop you

[a2soup]

Gotcha, now that I see your intention, your adjustment of the KR-2L makes a lot of sense. It's actually my favorite. Who needs more launch engines anyways? I love the idea of a massive upper-stage engine-- it opens up new possibilities in a serious way In that case, I would suggest you keep the vac Isp at 380 (maybe even buff it to 390), to really make it worth your while to install it on a colony ship or something!

[stupid_chris]

Gotcha, now that I see your intention, your adjustment of the KR-2L makes a lot of sense. It's actually my favorite. Who needs more launch engines anyways? I love the idea of a massive upper-stage engine-- it opens up new possibilities in a serious way In that case, I would suggest you keep the vac Isp at 380 (maybe even buff it to 390), to really make it worth your while to install it on a colony ship or something!

Then to not stand out and keep the same general curve I gave to the NASA engines, it's TWR would need to drop from 19 to about 15 it's a matter of messing with both, I've put it at the place I thought it would play the best role. I feel like 380 would approach more of the orbital engine and I'm not sure if it's what the part was thought for

[a2soup]

Well, I am glad for your thoughtful analysis and I hope Squad takes notice!

As for the KR-2L, while unlocking better engines as the game progresses makes sense, you also don't want the game to get easier as it goes on-- that makes it boring. From a game design standpoint, I think that unlocking engines that present new possibilities and fill new niches is the way to go. Because of this, I would totally support dropping the KR-2L TWR to 15 (or even less) to make the vac Isp 380-390 (or even much higher!). That makes it an engine for massive deep-space behemoths, something that you will be starting to think about by that late in the game anyways, and a niche that is currently inadequately filled by nuke clusters. I know that this isn't Squad's original intent for the engine, but it would add so much. No one needs another slightly differently adjusted launch engine-- the Skipper, Mainsail, and the adjusted LFB KR-1x2 and S3 KS-25x4 should cover that realm throughly.

I don't know, maybe there is a niche for a powerful, high-atmosphere engine. I guess what I really want is that big nuke from KSPX

Edited April 2, 2014 by a2soup

[stupid_chris]

Well I guess the point goes across at least: there should be some rebalancing of these engines. At the end it depends what role the devs want to give to the KR-2L, I see it as much as a high atmospheric engine as I see it as a mostly orbital engine

[a2soup]

For sure, the engines as they stand are very unbalanced, in a way that makes the game kind of boring. Call me cynical, but I get the feeling it's all a bit of a publicity thing for NASA-- there's no way their engines weren't going to be far and away the best. I hope the devs can find a way to give NASA some well-deserved publicity without making the game worse in the process.

[Rakaydos]

Any thought on the comparison between the Skipper and a cluster of 3 or 4 LV45 engines? Even counting the adapter, the 3 cluster is nearly as powerful with a better ISP, and the 4 cluster is significantly more powerful (again better ISP), but less powerful than a mainsail and the rocomax quad adaptor doesnt unlock to late in the tree.

LV30 clusters are a separate issue- 3x clusters are 5n less than a skipper, but lack the gimbal. 4x clusters are a high ISP booster for all our asparagusing needs.

[maccollo]

If the TWR would be reduced I would do so by increasing the mass of the engines, and perhaps increasing the thrust. The thing I really don't like about size 3 is that the rockets are beginning to look extremely fat and ugly, and lowering the thrust would exacerbate that.

I mean, the KW rocketry size 3 engines have more thrust than the current engines, but since they weigh much more their TWR is actually in line with the mainsail, and because of all that excess thrust they can lift a taller column of mass, so the rockets don't look as fugly

[Jouni]

My rockets are looking taller after the update. The new parts are powerful enough that I don't have to use asparagus staging anymore. When I use boosters as boosters instead of external fuel tanks, the core stage can be taller, as it's engines don't have to lift the entire stack full of fuel after booster separation.

[AbhChallenger]

There shouldn't be any fine tweaking. But as it clearly shows on what I've posted earlier, the new engines are really overpowered. The KR-2L has the highest TWR of all engines, and an insane ISP. Those should be nerfed down a little for the sake of following the known patterns.

No they should not. Atleast not until the full game mode comes around (And that balance should be based on what it takes to use said parts as opposed to just breaking designs because people whine)

For sure, the engines as they stand are very unbalanced, in a way that makes the game kind of boring. Call me cynical, but I get the feeling it's all a bit of a publicity thing for NASA-- there's no way their engines weren't going to be far and away the best. I hope the devs can find a way to give NASA some well-deserved publicity without making the game worse in the process.

Worse for who? You?

Edited April 2, 2014 by AbhChallenger

[Random Tank]

Hmmm I agree the SLS need a hit from the 'Almighty Hammer of Nerf' but maybe a but gentler on the KR-2L; make it at least half the S3-KS thrust? Although it fits that graph pretty well... Hmmm

I posted these changes for the LV-1 and Rockomax Probe engines in another thread about engine balance a while ago:

Make the LV-1 have 3kN of thrust; 260s Atm ISP; 400s Vac ISP and weigh 0.05t (this means its great for small satellite, probes and tugs, but in bigger ships the LV-T45s and such will be better as they are much lighter vs thrust). The LV-1R can have 2.5kN but weighs 0.04t.

To make the Rockomax ones less amazing: Take their gimbal away (for what they should be doing, they shouldn't need it really); 20kN and 0.2t for the 48, 15kN and 0.15t for the 24, but efficiency should be the same as before.

Any thoughts on them?

Also, I think the skipper needs a buff: either make it 750kN thrust or increase its ISP to 370 (I'd prefer the thrust); it also makes it half the Mainsails power! Also, put the poodle to 250kN, to fit in with the other 2 (it would also help its TWR, making it 5 LV-909's).

[AbhChallenger]

Why does it need to be nerfed? Because it does not fit your playstyle?

[Random Tank]

No, it's because you don't want engines being pointless, or you might as well remove them (and who wants to get rid of the mainsail???); every engine should have a use, or at least be useful for something...

[SpaceGremlin]

The devs said that they wanted the ARM parts to be all around better than most. Even so, they don't seem very overpowered compared to KW Rocketry 3.75m engines. The problem I see is that they aren't well placed in the tech tree for that right now. The 3.75m parts should be in experimental rocketry so that they don't crowd out the Mainsail or Jumbo-64.

I would hate to see these nerfed before the monetary system comes out. Prices would be another aspect of balancing. The SLS parts might be more efficient, but a bundle of Jumbo-64s and Mainsails could still be much cheaper.

[maccollo]

The devs said that they wanted the ARM parts to be all around better than most. Even so, they don't seem very overpowered compared to KW Rocketry 3.75m engines.

But they aren't OP. Take the Griffon XX for example. Sure, it has 4900 kilo newtons of thrust, but it weighs 18 tons, and has an ISP from 265 to 310, so it's actually somewhat under powered.

The ARM engines are silly overpowered in comparison. It's like if the poodle had it's thrust buffed to like 900.

But... since you thought they were overpowered, that's why I would make the ARM engines exactly like the KW rocketry engines. Because they have more total lifting capacity, and more lifting capacity per square meter, they feel better than what they actually are.

Edited April 2, 2014 by maccollo

[AbhChallenger]

But they aren't OP. Take the Griffon XX for example. Sure, it has 4900 kilo newtons of thrust, but it weighs 18 tons, and has an ISP from 265 to 310, so it's actually somewhat under powered.

The ARM engines are silly overpowered in comparison. It's like if the poodle had it's thrust buffed to like 900.

But... since you thought they were overpowered, that's why I would make the ARM engines exactly like the KW rocketry engines. Because they have more total lifting capacity, and more lifting capacity per square meter, they feel better than what they actually are.

If that is what you want. Then use a mod to change the parts.