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

[stupid_chris]

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

I don't understand your placid refusal of any balancing of the parts.

[Amaroq]

@supid_chris - Would you have any interest in publishing a module_manager .cfg with your updates over in the mods section? I'd certainly have an interest in playing with them, but as you have done the work it rightly ought have your signature, credit, and license.

[stupid_chris]

@supid_chris - Would you have any interest in publishing a module_manager .cfg with your updates over in the mods section? I'd certainly have an interest in playing with them, but as you have done the work it rightly ought have your signature, credit, and license.

I thought about it, but I'd really not have any problem with the devs just pasting it into the game, it's not that dramatic.

[SciMan]

Even tho I started a new career and haven't gotten up the tech trees to the ARM parts, I've used KW in the past, so I think I know what to expect.

That being said, I still think that they could at least show the Mark 55 some love.

Regarding using it to add thrust to a booster core, why would you do that when you can just use an inverted tail connector with a LV-T45 or LV-T30 on it?

I still think it was meant as a radial engine for use on heavy landers (2.5m or bigger).

It lets you surface-attach stuff to it, and ladders are surface-attach stuff.

On top of that, very few engines in the stock game will let you attach stuff to their surface, so i think there's a good chance that was done intentionally.

[Random Tank]

I thought about it, but I'd really not have any problem with the devs just pasting it into the game, it's not that dramatic.

Just assemble a spreadsheet with ALL the changes you/we think should be done, and shoot it over to the devs; you're a Moderator, you must have some leeway right? The worst they can say is no, so what's the harm!

[a2soup]

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

No, because unlocking new engines that are strictly better than past engines means that career mode gets easier as you progress. As your skill increases, the difficulty decreases. This makes the game boring. You should unlock engines that fill new niches as you progress, opening up new possibilities, but at the same time pushing your design skills to use them properly. This is just good game design, not my particular play style. Example below.

Good: Good job, you launched a big rocket (with a Mainsail)! Here, have an engine that makes large deep-space ships possible, if you have the skill to lift it to orbit (the plus-size nuke from KSPX).

Bad: Good job, you launched a big rocket (with a Mainsail)! Here, have an engine that makes that much easier for the rest of the game (LFB KR-1x2).

Note: You can still unlock engines with higher thrust, as long as they fit the general balance curve that stupid_chris posted at the beginning of this thread. This way, the newly unlocked engines make bigger rockets possible without making them easier (think LV-T30 --> Skipper --> Mainsail). This is unlocking new niches instead of making the game easier. Unlocking new parts that are waaaay off the balance curve mostly just makes the game easier.

Edited April 2, 2014 by a2soup

[Jouni]

That being said, I still think that they could at least show the Mark 55 some love.

Regarding using it to add thrust to a booster core, why would you do that when you can just use an inverted tail connector with a LV-T45 or LV-T30 on it?

The problem with using tail connectors is part clipping. If you have a big engine under a 2.5 m fuel tank, there is not enough room to attach engines to tail connectors. It would be nice to have a similar part that turns inline engines into radial engines, while leaving enough room for the main engine.

I still think it was meant as a radial engine for use on heavy landers (2.5m or bigger).

It lets you surface-attach stuff to it, and ladders are surface-attach stuff.

On top of that, very few engines in the stock game will let you attach stuff to their surface, so i think there's a good chance that was done intentionally.

The Mark 55 engine looks like a lander engine, but its main problem in that use is that it's a big radial engine. If you have a lander that needs two large engines, it's probably a big lander with a lot of fuel. However, it's generally a bad idea to put a big fuel tank below the lander can or the command pod - radial fuel tanks make the lander more stable. But if you already have radial fuel tanks, you don't need radial engines anymore.

Radial engines would be more useful in landers, if we had better aerodynamics in KSP. With proper aerodynamics, you wouldn't want to make the lander too wide, as it would increase the drag significantly during launch. Radial engines would increase the width less than radial fuel tanks, while the lander would still have more ground clearance than with an inline engine.

[Tiberion]

They definitely, 100% need to be tuned down. I can sort of understand them being slightly "better" than lower tiered engines, because of research, but realistically, just because they're bigger doesn't mean they'd be better. The same engineering improvements can be applied to smaller engines as well, such that bigger isn't better.

Irregardless of that, they're too much better, as chris' chart clearly shows. If he were to map out the Novapunch and KW 3.75m engines on there as well, it would be pretty obvious what the problem is. They don't weight enough in comparison to how much thrust they give, and they're too efficient, especially in VAC.

I've did a lot of balancing of engines in the lats couple of years, and its definitely possible to make bigger engines without making all the smaller engines useless. Engines need pros and cons so they can find their niche of use. I've set my balance level to be about what the new new engines are now, in the past, and it makes launching things too easy.

Having them at the top of the tech node is no excuse, because we should be playing a vast majority of our time with everything unlocked. The science tree is supposed to be the "new player" experience, thats why things unlock as they do rather than in a logical manner like many of us desire. So having engines in a broken state at the end of your 'intro experience' is hardly optimal, not with a game as mature as KSP is at this point, and not when the tweaks would be so easy to make.

I think its a matter of their being enough feedback about the issue to make it clear that it should be changed. So if you have a crazy video, images, or craft file of a rocket or ship doing overpowered or broken things (like SSTO to Duna?) then post them here and leave your experiences.

And be nice about it, there's no need to riot or be rude.

(Its sort of ironic that I have received numerous messages over the years that NP engines are cheaty and make the game too easy, and now that similar parts are added, NP is tuned significantly harder than the stock parts. Like the 2nd post in my thread after the patch was "your engines are useless now")

[bs1110101]

The Mark 55 is ugly, underpowered, and all around lame, and has no reason to be used if you can instead put on boosters or something like that.

The I think the SLS parts are sorta overpowered, but i blame that on having one fuel type, the real SLS uses hydrogen/lox, if you had a RP-1/lox tank of that size, it would be way heavier, and just having the engines have higher isp and lower thrust and tanks with less fuel would just mean that people would cluster other tanks on the 3m engines. I think the only way to make a properly balanced SLS would be to have multiple fuel types, though i don't blame the devs from not doing that because it's kinda a pain to make work. I personally think that kerbalized fuel types are the best option, though doing that well would mean an overhaul of many, many things.

[Varses]

Just a small point. As I recall, RP-1 and H/LOx actually have similar tankage weights. Yes, the hydrogen is lighter and has more energy per unit of mass but it also requires a lot of insulation and special tankage because it's cryogenic and (I think) under pressure as well. RP-1, on the other hand, is liquid at STP and much easier to handle. The extra structural requirements of hydrogen largely offset the benefit in fuel efficiency. That's why many large rockets use RP-1 in their first stage and H/LOx in upper stages--that small amount of weight savings is very important in upper stages but near meaningless in lower stages.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Varses

[a2soup]

I think its a matter of their being enough feedback about the issue to make it clear that it should be changed. So if you have a crazy video, images, or craft file of a rocket or ship doing overpowered or broken things (like SSTO to Duna?) then post them here and leave your experiences.

Here's a quick SSTM (single stage to Mun) I made. This was really, really easy (which is the point, I think)-- it took about 1 minute to design in the VAB, and I only had to quickload once. http://imgur.com/a/hY6T4

Edited April 3, 2014 by a2soup

[JedTech]

Makes sense that one of the largest most advanced engines and 2 of the biggest tanks in game should be able to lift an extremely small payload to the moon if not back again.

[Tiberion]

While its true that you'll always be able to take a small probe body like that very far, since it has so little mass, there should still be a limit to how far a tank and engine combo should be able to move itself.

A better test case would be something like a 3man pod and enough hardware to support a round trip, and then launch THAT and see how far it gets.

[Jouni]

In the real world, the first stage of Titan II had almost enough delta-v to reach orbit on its own. Given the smaller scale of KSP, a huge rocket carrying a tiny payload to Mun doesn't sound too unreasonable.

[a2soup]

Not sure it will change anyone's mind, but I took my SSTM rocket to Duna. It had 856 m/s of ∆v left at the end, so I probably could have brought a Kerbal.

http://imgur.com/a/3FBH0

[AbhChallenger]

Just assemble a spreadsheet with ALL the changes you/we think should be done, and shoot it over to the devs; you're a Moderator, you must have some leeway right? The worst they can say is no, so what's the harm!

The harm is the obvious unethical use of "being a mod" (If that ended up being the reason the parts were nerfed) having a higher priority in game design decisions as opposed to the community or the internal testing team.

Like it has been said. The changes can be done as a mod. Instead what I am seeing is some folks wanting to nerf other people's playstyle (while there is very little game even in right now no less!) And break their designs because the stock parts are "too easy to op" according to them.

This is KSP not EVE Online or World of Warcraft.

No, because unlocking new engines that are strictly better than past engines means that career mode gets easier as you progress. As your skill increases, the difficulty decreases. This makes the game boring. You should unlock engines that fill new niches as you progress, opening up new possibilities, but at the same time pushing your design skills to use them properly. This is just good game design, not my particular play style. Example below.

Good: Good job, you launched a big rocket (with a Mainsail)! Here, have an engine that makes large deep-space ships possible, if you have the skill to lift it to orbit (the plus-size nuke from KSPX).

Bad: Good job, you launched a big rocket (with a Mainsail)! Here, have an engine that makes that much easier for the rest of the game (LFB KR-1x2).

Note: You can still unlock engines with higher thrust, as long as they fit the general balance curve that stupid_chris posted at the beginning of this thread. This way, the newly unlocked engines make bigger rockets possible without making them easier (think LV-T30 --> Skipper --> Mainsail). This is unlocking new niches instead of making the game easier. Unlocking new parts that are waaaay off the balance curve mostly just makes the game easier.

The game is "Easier" right now because there is no cost to use the parts. I have little issue if the balance pass were to make the SLS parts extremely expensive after that part gets implemented in the game because that is the game part. And not the sandbox that most people use today. 100 tons to orbit should be cheaper with Orange tanks and Skippers/mainsails than SLS. That I can agree with.

KSP is not finished. Even after .24 there still will be very little game compared to Version 0.75 or 1. When there is time to give plenty (months) warning that a major balance pass is coming and the reason is to prepare the game for the public and reviews. THEN lets talk balance.

Edited April 3, 2014 by AbhChallenger
Multiple Quote

[SpaceGremlin]

You can't even do science with that craft. Who cares how far you can push a probe around? How much dV does that thing have if attached to an E class asteroid? These new parts are powerful for a reason.

[a2soup]

KSP is not finished. Even after .24 there still will be very little game compared to Version 0.75 or 1. When there is time to give plenty (months) warning that a major balance pass is coming and the reason is to prepare the game for the public and reviews. THEN lets talk balance.

I agree completely. I'm just trying to make sure people/devs know that there is a need for a balance pass before the game is ready for primetime.

If the parts are currently unbalanced, I'll just make .cfg edits to put them in line (and other players can do whatever they want). If the parts are unbalanced when KSP is finished, then we have a problem.

There is also the possibility that they will be prohibitively expensive when money is introduced, which could serve as a form of balance. However balance is restored, I just want to make sure people know it needs to happen at some point.

Edited April 3, 2014 by a2soup

[Tiberion]

Like it has been said. The changes can be done as a mod. Instead what I am seeing is some folks wanting to nerf other people's playstyle

This is a ridiculous assertion. The suggested changes are small and would not even change the way the engine is used, other than maintaining the consistent requirement of smart ship building when designing advanced missions. There have been dozens if not hundreds of balance changes made to parts during KSPs development, and you probably don't even know about 10% of them. It happens all the time, and it does 'break' things or kill anyone's "fun"

No one is taking ANYTHING away from you, and you cannot be that attached to a set of balance numbers that have been out for less than 2 days.

There is absolutely no reason to not be behind keeping the game consistently balanced with its own parts. At the very list you should make the suggested changes YOURSELF and see how little it will actually affect you. Just try em out.

[AbhChallenger]

other than maintaining the consistent requirement of smart ship building when designing advanced missions.

That is dictating how other people use the stock sandbox over even Squad in my opinion. And worse it is dictating how they use the sandbox when there really is very little game to warrant such a change. And even worse on top of that is nobody has any idea what the cost of these parts will be in said parts of the game.

Thankfully I see little chance of Squad nerfing the parts. They designed the part stats for a reason (Not NASA publicity)

[Tiberion]

I'm not even going to have this argument with you. No one is dictating anything at all, and the proposed changes would not change how the engines are used anyway, it would just make them balanced in a SANE manner when compared to ALL OF THE OTHER STOCK PARTS.

If you want to actually try out the proposed numbers and then get back to me about why they aren't reasonable changes, feel free. But arguing that balance numbers are immutable and set in stone is false and wrongheaded and wasting everyone's time.

[AbhChallenger]

The stock numbers are not set in stone. When things start really moving towards version 1 then it is time to do a complete balance pass. Not now when there is hardly any "game" to start with. And especially not because someone is a mod as was suggested earlier. (Dear geez!)

And overall a big HELL NO because some folks think it is "Too easy" By that attitude Ions should not have been buffed and mechjeb should be banned right?

By nerfing stock parts it is changing the game for people that are not you. In my opinion that is open and shut case of dictating how other people should play KSP in the sandbox. If KSP were not so easy to mod I could understand. Yet when "hard mode" mods are a simple unzip away there is little reason to nerf any part for those who are not yourself. And Squad did not put the SLS stats in at the last min to rush ARM out.

[purpletarget]

The harm is the obvious unethical use of "being a mod" (If that ended up being the reason the parts were nerfed) having a higher priority in game design decisions as opposed to the community or the internal testing team.

Before anyone carries on running away with the fact that stupid_chris is a mod, it should also be pointed out he's also part of the community. There is nothing unethical about him expressing his opinions in this forum, on the bug tracker, or any place within the KSP team framework to be involved in whatever discussion there is about the game. If his argument and evidence is persuasive enough for the devs to pay attention to it... then chances are that he had a good point.

Unfortunately for him, and possibly bonus for you, the mods run a gambit of opinions not unlike the community at large. So it's not like there aren't other mods who think the engines are mostly fine as is.

I think the LFB might need a slight tweak, but nothing as drastic as most of the nerfing suggestions bring bandied about. It's gimbal range is half, it has no alternator, or a bottom node, and it's got a jumbo stuck to the top that you can't remove! It's not all sunshine and roses. And frankly, once contracts and cost come into play, if it is superior in all other aspects, then I will expect the cost in R&D or production to be suitably adjusted. Balance isn't all about one factor, or all the engines against each other. Between tech and economics, there's plenty of other aspects to consider.

So perhaps the question might be, rather than just automatically calling for the nerf nuke....what other options might exist? What could be changed in the LFB that would present a notable role for it, while preserving a role or niche for the mainsail?

[Kickasskyle]

Just to reiterate the repeating theme in this thread, I pretty much agree with what stupid chris and Tiberion are saying.

The stock numbers are not set in stone. When things start really moving towards version 1 then it is time to do a complete balance pass. Not now when there is hardly any "game" to start with. And especially not because someone is a mod as was suggested earlier. (Dear geez!)

And overall a big HELL NO because some folks think it is "Too easy" By that attitude Ions should not have been buffed and mechjeb should be banned right?

By nerfing stock parts it is changing the game for people that are not you. In my opinion that is open and shut case of dictating how other people should play KSP in the sandbox. If KSP were not so easy to mod I could understand. Yet when "hard mode" mods are a simple unzip away there is little reason to nerf any part for those who are not yourself. And Squad did not put the SLS stats in at the last min to rush ARM out.

Speaking from a sandbox standpoint When you only have a handful of stock engines, there's no point making the majority of them mathematically worse to use than a couple of new ones.

Speaking from a sandbox standpoint that is.

[Rakaydos]

My biggest issue is that the SLS parts all have better ISPs than other engines. Engines with no bottom attach node in particular dont need spectacular vacuum ISP, as they are almost by definition launch engines. They can be heavy and use a lot of fuel for their massive amount of thrust, and it doesnt matter- there's a reason stack separators exist.