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

[Joonatan1998]

The problem is that the parts are hard to make balanced for both career and sandbox at the same time.

I career you have to take into accout the price and tech tree position of the parts when balancing them, but in sandbox they don't matter.

I think that there are 5 possible solutions (There may be more)

1. Balance all parts for career mode. Sandbox would have lots of useless engines and some really OP ones.

+Career mode would be well balanced

-Sandbox mode would have lots of useless engines

2. Balance everything for sandbox. Career has cheap parts that are good, but the expensive parts are not any better

+All parts are usefull in sandbox

-Some parts are near useless in career.

3. Have the parts be different in different modes. The LV-T30 would be really weak in career mode, but the same as it is now in sandbox.

+Both modes are balanced

-Sandbox desings don't work in career

*we could also have the career balanced parts available in sandbox mode

4. Don't balance for either mode, just try to make the parts usefull but not too OP in both modes.

-Both modes are worse than they could be

+At least both modes are not completely unbalanced.

5. Just ignore balance completely. Add new orion drives, make LV-Ns have the same thrust as chemical engines, make ion engines realistic (useless in KSP)

+More realism would be possible

+Some players don't care about balance

-Many players do care about balance, ant this would remove all difficulty from the game.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Joonatan1998

[garosz]

These new engines are too powerful, I work on a new tanker and made lots of prototypes, my best tanker now can lift up to 150km 2 full jumbo fuel tank, but after that yesterday I installed the new patch and my first tanker ship lifted up aprox. 22k fuel that is equals to 8 jumbo tanks.

3 huge tanks in the middle with small unmanned probe(rcs+sas+batteries+large and small(x4) docking ports) with a KR-2L engine and 6 double tanks with S3 KS-25x4 in asparagus design.

It was a piece of cake... after the patch you can lift up anything just with "brute force".

[a2soup]

2. Balance everything for sandbox. Career has cheap parts that are good' date=' but the expensive parts are not any better

+All parts are usefull in sandbox

-Some parts are near useless in career.[/quote']

Not sure I agree with you that in what you're calling a "sandbox balance", the expensive engines would be useless/not be better.

Assuming the larger engines were more expensive (which they almost certainly will be), it would still be worth your while to buy them because large lifters are simply impractical without them. Imagine trying to launch 100 t to orbit with LV-T30s-- it's nearly impossible. The Mainsail makes this much easier, and it would certainly be a good deal to pay more for it in career mode. And yet, they both lie on the same curve in terms of Isp-TWR balance ().

The SLS engines (in particular, the S3-KS 25x4) rebalanced according to stupid_chris's suggestions would be like the Mainsail's Mainsail. They would allow larger rockets, and thus merit a higher price, but would still lie on the same balance curve and not way above it in the stupid easy zone.

Note: I do know that my "stupid easy zone" may not be everyone's "stupid easy zone". But we're talking about end-game unlocks here, when players have had plenty of time to learn the ropes. If anything, the engines that lie above the curve should come at the beginning. At the end, it just makes the game boring.

Also, I made a science-capable SSTL (single stage to Laythe) to demonstrate the absurd capabilities of the KR-2L. http://imgur.com/a/hKvb2

Edited April 3, 2014 by a2soup

[Joonatan1998]

By "expensive parts are not any better" I meant that they can't use money/tech tree position as a part of balancing if they try to balance for sandbox.

You couldn't have better versions of already existing parts that are later in the tech tree/more expensive.

The only reason that the large engines are usefull is because they reduce part count and lag.

Lag isn't a very good way to balance a game.

[a2soup]

You couldn't have better versions of already existing parts that are later in the tech tree/more expensive.

This is true, but I don't think that this should happen anyways. Unlocking better versions of existing parts would just make the game easier as you get better at it, which is clearly boring gameplay.

The only reason that the large engines are useful is because they reduce part count and lag.

I don't think that higher-thrust engines which lie on the same Isp-TWR curve as lower-thrust engines are only better because they reduce lag. Think about the Mainsail and the LV-T30. The Mainsail actually slightly below stupid_chris's balance curve, and the LV-T30 slightly above. And yet, most people choose the Mainsail for large lifters (although there are a few LV-T30 cluster nerds). I bet most people would be willing to pay more for a mainsail than an LV-T30 in career mode, not least because you have to use several LV-T30s to make the thrust of a Mainsail. Higher-thrust engines will always be used for sufficiently large lifters, even if they are balanced (in terms of Isp-TWR ratio) with lower ones. Balancing simply ensures that you have to engineer at the same level no matter what engine you are using.

Edited April 3, 2014 by a2soup

[thorfinn]

With three (four?) tiers of parts, I think meaningful balancing will be almost impossible until cost is introduced.

There should be a slight general progression towards better engines in career mode after all, and some of the very first engines should become obsolete by the end (me, I'd add some 0.625m lowish Isp parts as the starter tier...). On the other hand, things like the Mk.55 should be avoided, that's certain

The problem for now is that science isn't the best limiting factor at all, and Harv admits this... even if the tech tree was sensibly arranged (which it isn't).

By the way, I think that to give a better choice, price should be dynamic: the more you use a part, the less it costs to you. This was a very real phenomenon in engineering (the "learning curve", refer to this page for details) and has only recently become less true due to computer controlled machining/assembly taking over everything. But KSP is set in the bizarro 1960s anyway, isn't it?

If parts had a cost curve, the tradeoff between better and cheaper would persist for a lot longer: a dirt cheap RT-1 could be a sensible choice even very far in the future (since you've used thousands of those in your career by then) and a LV-T45 cluster would cost more or less than a Mainsail depending on your history. Old launchers could be soldiering on in the late game due to price, etc.

Edited April 3, 2014 by thorfinn

[Varses]

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?

It's worth noting that MechJeb is a mod, not part of the stock game. And ions were buffed specifically because most of the community felt they were unfun. Unfun to fly with (because burns took forever) and unfun to design for (because everything else was better in most situations).

Yes, Mainsails were powerful and made some things easier but they also came with their own challenges--they were wobbly as hell and could often make your ship break apart on lauch. And they had low isp, both on the ground and in space which meant they were mostly useful only as first stage engines. There were trade-offs. The new engines, on the other hand, have extremely minimal trade-offs.

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.

It's also worth noting the Squad has nerfed overpowered parts in the past, before career mode, when sandbox was the only game mode. In fact, Aerospikes are a perfect precedent for balancing overpowered engines. Aerospikes were nerfed (IIRC) in version 0.18 because they were stupidly strong before that. Just like the new engines, they had minor downsides (no bottom attach node and no thrust vectoring). They were the engine you used for everything--there was no need to use anything else because they had a very high TWR and extremely high ISP. You could literally make every design work by spamming aerospikes.

This whole blog is very fascinating reading but here are some important links and a summary:

“When players have multiple options or routes to victory, each option or route should have a risk-reward relationship that prevents dominant strategies."--The new SLS engines create a dominant strategy.

“All the best games are easy to learn and difficult to master.â€Â--The new SLS engines reduce challenge by generally allowing you to skip a skill that's more difficult to master: docking. It also makes lifting large payloads to orbit (another difficult to master skill) much easier.

"Reward the player with more than just score increases. Include rewards that expand gameplay itself.â€Â--The SLS engines reduce gameplay significantly (making it much easier to achieve orbit, a skill you use for everything) while only increasing gameplay marginally (allowing you to move asteroids around, a very specific feature.)

Edited April 3, 2014 by Varses

[Jouni]

This is true, but I don't think that this should happen anyways. Unlocking better versions of existing parts would just make the game easier as you get better at it, which is clearly boring gameplay.

This is what happens in the real world too, and the real world isn't too boring. The better you are, the better tools you have access to, and the bigger challenges you can face.

[Varses]

You could already face all of the challenges with existing parts and docking. The SLS engines don't open new gameplay, they simply make old gameplay enormously easier. A little easier would be fine, but they make things way too easy which is why they need to be tuned down. stupid_chris' suggested changes at the start of this thread still put the SLS engines above the power curve. And that's fine. Us people who think they're OP don't want to see them nerfed into uselessness. We just want them to be more in line with everything else.

[Jouni]

The game may have bigger challenges in the future.

Besides, I don't want to see technology progress nerfed into uselessness. Late career mode engines should be cheaper, more powerful, and more efficient than the early ones.

[a2soup]

The SLS engines don't open new gameplay, they simply make old gameplay enormously easier.

While I completely agree with you that the SLS engines make gameplay much easier, I would note that they do open new gameplay-- the possibility to send up much bigger payloads. This is an exciting and very good development! The problem is that they a) obsolete smaller engines, and make the bigger payloads that they enable almost trivial to launch.

If SLS engines were to be balanced according to stupid_chris's suggestions (or something similar, as long as they stay on the curve) they would be to the Mainsail what the Mainsail was to the LV-T30-- opening up a whole new payload weight class without supplanting the role of lower-thrust engines. Even more importantly, launching the plus-size payloads that they make possible would require the same amount of design and engineering work as launching smaller payloads. Right now it is stupidly easy, which is no fun for anyone in the long run. It is the perfect balance of challenge and reward that keeps players interested-- a balance that was (mostly) maintained in KSP before the SLS engines.

With great power comes great responsibility. The SLS engines open up a whole new payload weight class, but we must not let them ruin the art and satisfaction of proper rocket design.

[Varses]

Jouni: I guess that's where I fundamentally disagree with you. I don't think they should be cheaper, more powerful, and more efficient than early ones. I think they should instead occupy new niches and open up new possibilities, not replace old engines.

Take the Aerospike, for example. It's high on the tech tree (as compared to other 1.25m engines) so it takes a long time to unlock but it has an extremely high atmospheric isp (a new niche!). Or the Rapier--again, late unlock, but new niche: hybrid engine.

The SLS engines, on the other hand, unlock at the same levels as most 2.5m engines and deliver far superior performance in the same niches. The Mainsail and KR-2L occupy the same niche: 'heavy, atmospheric launcher'. And the KR-2L is completely superior.

[Random Tank]

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 don't know why you say leave it as it is; it is MUCH better to nerf it now rather than later, and after all, which would go down better?

Nerf them 2 days after being introduced, when some people have only just started using them; or to nerf them in a year's time, when Everyone is using them? (apart from a hardcore few) Hmmmm I wonder....

These parts literally make the game child's play; they can lift huge weights at supreme efficiency, making the Mainsail pointless as soon as you unlock it in career mode, and pointless right from the start in Sandbox. Also, you shouldn't make their only disadvantage be high prices; as because not only do you need less engines to carry heavy loads, you also need less fuel than a Mainsail to carry it, further reducing costs; this would mean that the price for the engines would have to be insane just to balance it (probably about 6/7 times the price of a Mainsail). The whole point of moving from a LVT-30 to a Mainsail is that your payloads are becoming to heavy for the T30, but you pay for it in fuel efficiency; but the SLS parts don't fit this at all.

[SciMan]

I bet the SLS parts will be changed to unlock after the 2.5m parts at some point in the future. They were probably placed with the 2.5m parts to avoid having to modify the tech tree at the same time.

About the aerospike, here's the stats for it before it was nerfed (v0.17), compared to current (v0.23.5).

Legend: Stat = Pre-nerf value (Current value)

• Thrust = 250 (175)
  
• Mass = 1.0 (1.5)
  
• Sea level ISP = 390 (388)
  
• Vacuum ISP = 390 (390)
  

Before the nerf, it had 250 thrust, and 390 ISP at all altitudes, and it only had 1.0t mass!!

That meant with payloads up to 5t (10t maybe?), the aerospike outclassed every single engine in the game. Even the LV-N. If you had a payload within that range and were using the LV-N, you were just plain doing it wrong.

From what I'm hearing reading thru this thread, the SLS parts aren't quite as obviously unbalanced as that, but they're still strictly better than all other options in almost every situation.

That's basically the definition of being overpowered, regardless of your opinion about re-balancing the SLS parts.

Slightly off-topic: Isn't it strange how people generally complain about overpowered things far more frequently than about underpowered things?

I guess I'm an exception to that generalization, because I'm more concerned about the Mark 55 being underpowered than I am about the SLS parts being overpowered. My reason for that is the Mark 55 has been underpowered since it was put in the game, while the SLS parts only just came out.

[Jouni]

As a computer scientist, my high-level job description is ruining people's lives by making their expertise obsolete. That's what I also expect from the career mode. When technology progresses, things that used to be hard should become easy. What was the correct way to do things in the early career mode should become useless by midgame. Most of the mid-career mode expertise should be worthless later in the game. Progress is disruptive by its nature, and if the career mode doesn't work that way, it doesn't feel reasonable.

[Varses]

When technology progresses, things that used to be hard should become easy. What was the correct way to do things in the early career mode should become useless by midgame. Most of the mid-career mode expertise should be worthless later in the game. Progress is disruptive by its nature, and if the career mode doesn't work that way, it doesn't feel reasonable.

This is just wrong, wrong, wrong when it comes to gameplay. I agree that things that used to be hard should become easy later on but that's because the player's skill grows, not because of some new item. In games, you want a player to grow their skill, each new skill building on the last, not cast it aside as soon as they gain a modicum of profiency. Take the typical progression of a new player, for instance.

1. Launch a craft to orbit.

2. Send the craft to the Mun and orbit it. (This builds off the first skill)

3. Send a craft to another planet and orbit it. (Again, this takes 'send a craft to the Mun' to the next degree).

Each skill builds off the others creating a feeling of mastery. That's what psychologically gives people satisfaction, what makes them feel like they're 'good at a game'. What you're suggesting is a game where, once you've mastered one skill, you never have to put much effort into doing it again. There's a difference between something becoming routine and something becoming easy. Instead of the game getting more difficult as you go on, what you suggest means it gets easier. This is the definition of a messed up difficulty curve. To keep a game fun, the game's challenge must keep increasing in order to match player skill.

It'd be like learning to play baseball and once you learned how to pitch, the coach goes 'ok, here's a pitching machine. Your job is now to feed balls into it, not to pitch the balls yourself.'

Just because real life technological progress makes things cheaper, more efficient, and even obsolete as it's developed to maturity doesn't mean that a game should be that way. This is why KSP has much simplified fuel systems and extremely powerful engines as compared to real life--sometimes realism just isn't fun.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Varses

[Jouni]

This is just wrong, wrong, wrong when it comes to gameplay. I agree that things that used to be hard should become easy later on but that's because the player's skill grows, not because of some new item. In games, you want a player to grow their skill, each new skill building on the last.

That's just one way of designing games. I usually prefer games that keep challenging the player. Once you master a skill, the game responds by making that skill obsolete, and throws in all kinds of new challenges. Whenever you feel that you have reached your comfort zone, the game kicks you out of it and changes the rules, forcing you to relearn things in a new way.

In a way this is similar to the craftsman/engineer distinction I mentioned in another thread. The craftsman seeks mastery and perfection in a stable world, while the engineer lives in a constantly changing world, trying to create order out of chaos.

[LostElement]

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:

http://i.imgur.com/wrIiKSj.png

http://i.imgur.com/m3aqgU2.png

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).

Felipe said he didn't like how slow the Ion engines were. They were buffed for convenience. They are bearable now. I'd prefer not to burn of 4 hours. Although not realistic, it's buffed for gameplay reasons. Besides, if you don't like it you could always tweak the .cfg file

[Varses]

Name a game where a skill becomes obsolete once you master it. Where there's a certain point in the game where the game no longer tests that skill and there's zero reason to use it. I imagine you would be hard pressed to name one because they're quite rare and generally not very well recieved.

Nearly every game has new challenges which build on previous ones, not completely replace them. In RPGs as your player progresses they get more powerful and better items. The game continues to challenge you with new puzzles and harder enemies. Take Zelda games, for instance. Each dungeon has a specific special item and the dungeon's puzzles are built around using that new item. But puzzles in later dungeons use that item too. Very rarely is it that once you beat the dungeon where you get the hookshot, you never use it again.

If you're constantly removing old skills and adding new ones to master, it generally doesn't make a game fun. And this isn't just from my personal opinion--this is what they teach in game design courses. Constantly adding new things while removing old ones leads to the feeling that you're constantly playing a tutorial and never get to have the fun and satisfaction of further mastering your skills. A racing game where your car suddenly became twice as fast once you placed in 3rd or above on a previous race wouldn't be fun because it makes your previous effort feel meaningless and the game feel unfair and arbitrary.

Again, I'm not against the SLS parts in general or even against them being more powerful than previous parts specifically. I just don't think they should be so far above all the previous engines as to outclass their direct analogues. I think stupid_chris' suggestions are exactly the right attitude--keep the SLS engines more powerful than previous engines, just not to such an extreme degree.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Varses

[Jouni]

Name a game where a skill becomes obsolete once you master it. Where there's a certain point in the game where the game no longer tests that skill and there's zero reason to use it. I imagine you would be hard pressed to name one because they're quite rare and generally not very well recieved.

Civilization is one example of a game like that. There are so many different situations and so many different skills needed that every game presents you different challenges. Of course, if you always play in the same way or continue playing for 1000+ hours, you eventually master the game. At that point, I usually grow bored with the game and stop playing it until the next expansion pack or major version.

Constantly adding new things while removing old ones leads to the feeling that you're constantly playing a tutorial and never get to have the fun and satisfaction of further mastering your skills.

This is, like I said, the difference between a craftsman and an engineer.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Jouni

[Varses]

Technologies become obsolete and replaced in Civilization. Units become obsolete and replaced. Player-learned skills do not. Once you conquer one civilization, the game doesn't say 'Ok, you never have to do combat again. Instead here's a crossword you have to finish before you take over the next civ'. Because that's what you're saying a game should do: you master one skill and then it should be replaced by a new challenge.

All previous player skills build off of previous skills and achievements. You took over one civ? Maybe the others become more hostile, necessitating stronger units or more diplomacy. You made one city happy? Well, now you have to deal with pollution in addition to happiness. Those are not new challenges. They're harder versions of previous challenges, they don't replace them completely. And the new challenges are truly new--something you have to manage in addition to everything you had to worry about before.

What makes civilization fun, as you noted, are all the different choices and fun decisions you can make. Do I focus on this technology or that one? Do I want to be a Fascist or Democratic government? Do I want to be warlike or peaceful? Choices are fun. Sid Meier (the designer of the Civ games) is quoted as saying that 'a game is a series of interesting choices'. The problem with the new SLS engines is that there are zero interesting choices to be made regarding them--they are better in every way than previous engines. That's a very dull choice, like choosing between

Edited April 3, 2014 by Varses

[Joonatan1998]

If they make higher tier parts better than the lower tier ones they should make the low tier parts worse than they are now and keep the high tier ones the same.

This way the game would still be challenging when you have all the parts.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Joonatan1998

[Random Tank]

quite as obviously unbalanced as that, but they're still strictly better than all other options in almost every situation.

That's basically the definition of being overpowered, regardless of your opinion about re-balancing the SLS parts.

Slightly off-topic: Isn't it strange how people generally complain about overpowered things far more frequently than about underpowered things?

I guess I'm an exception to that generalization, because I'm more concerned about the Mark 55 being underpowered than I am about the SLS parts being overpowered. My reason for that is the Mark 55 has been underpowered since it was put in the game, while the SLS parts only just came out.

The SLS parts are exactly like the old Aerospike; A2soup made a 3 part + payload SSTO that could get to Laythe without dropping a single stage (2 large SLS tanks and a KR-2L). Yeah, who needs Ion or LV-N probes when you can just attach 2 tanks and an engine and get to pretty well wherever you want! Why did they even bother to add a decoupler? You won't need stages with these new SLS parts...

Also, I have been saying about how the LV-1 needs changing (still); check my post on the first page, and I also agree that the Mark 55 needs some work too, they are useless, and I don't think any engine should be useless....

[Jouni]

Technologies become obsolete and replaced in Civilization. Units become obsolete and replaced. Player-learned skills do not. Once you take over one civilization, the game doesn't say 'Ok, you never have to do combat again. Instead here's a crossword you have to finish before you take over the next civ'. Because that's what you're saying a game should do: you master one skill and then it should be replaced by a new challenge.

In Civilization V, many player skills become obsolete as the game advances. For example, archers are the kings of early battlefields, at least in certain playstyles. They function as defensive artillery, hiding behind the less numerous infantry units and raining death upon the enemy. Then, as you get machine guns, the former archers become defensive frontline units, and you have to rethink your tactics.

Similarly, frigates rule the late renaissance and early industrial seas. Packs of frigates roam the seas, and easily kill anything that comes across. Then, as someone develops airplanes or submarines, the formerly so powerful frigates break like eggshells. Their replacement, the battleship, is mostly a mobile artillery unit used for bombarding land-based targets. It can't even go anywhere on its own, as it's very vulnerable without a shield of destroyers, carriers, and/or submarines.

Defending faraway colonies is hard, because your reinforcements probably won't arrive in time, if the local forces get overwhelmed. Then, as you develop airports, your carefully planned system of regional forces becomes obsolete. It's now far more efficient to maintain a small strategic reserve that can be quickly moved to anywhere it's needed. (This is quite similar to the situation we have now with the SLS engines.)

There are many other situations like that. If you add player choices and random chances, things will also change from game to game. You may develop a very efficient way of fighting defensive warfare, but it depends on the terrain and enemy civilizations you have in that particular game. After the game is finished, similar circumstances may never arise again, making the newly learned skill useless.

Add different player strategies, and things become even more complicated. Different skills are needed, depending on how much you concentrate on warfare, expansion, economy, culture, religion, science, and diplomacy.

[Varses]

Ah, but you're talking about units again, not player skills. The basic strategies remain the same at each point in the game.

The skill is in the organization of battle groups. A defensive frontline with a powerful but frail backline. Archers and machine gunners fit the same niche, they're just from different power level. No matter what point you're at in the game, your battle lines will generally have the same structure.

With airports and such, the basic strategies of defense didn't change, just the mobility and force projection of your units. The airport opened up new gameplay while still maintaining the skills required to know when a city needs defense, what units to garrison, etc. The player skills have remained the same, they weren't replaced. But by this point, we've digressed far from the original discussion and you seem to be doubling down and focusing on the minutiae of my argument rather than the broader point