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

[Rakaydos]

This topic is going afield of why I broght it up. The balance of the engines is only one aspect to consider.

If Gas Planet 2 and Gas Planet 3 are added in the outer system, it's going to be difficult to reach them. Making the SLS parts the standard for rebalancing them keeps those planets reachable, but buffing the other engines to match the SLS parts avoids filling the inventory with useless engines.

[Varses]

I think that the current balance should be left the same. When the new planets were added in 0.17 and the 2.5m parts were added, they left the 1.25m engines the same. The greater challenge of reaching new planets (especially ones requireing more delta-v like Moho and Jool) was met by proportionally more powerful engines.

Any future outer planets will be more difficult to reach which will put the SLS engines to good use. The way I see it, each size class will be required to reach certain parts of the solar system. 1.25m parts for the Kerbin system, 2.5m parts for the inner solar system, 3.75m parts for the outer solar system.

Rebalancing isn't necessary because (in my oppinion) the curren difficulty level of the game is just about right. Reaching any future outer planets will be a bigger challenge but at the same time you'll be given more powerful engines so the difficulty remains largely the same. At the moment, the 3.75m engines are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet.

[a2soup]

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.

Sure, but that's not what the SLS engines do. The words you're using are the same words used to describe the SLS engines sometimes, but the resemblance is only superficial. They "make skills obsolete" only because it will be so much easier the next time you don't have to really think about it. They don't kick you out of your comfort zone, they make it even more comfortable. They "change the rules" by making skills you've mastered so easy that you don't need to have to apply your newfound mastery to progress. An "engineer" unlocking the SLS would be in a changing world, sure, but it would be changing in such a way that all his past work is now unnecessary-- he might as well build sloppy rockets from here on out.

If they were higher thrust, but on the same Isp-TWR curve (i.e. balanced), then they would do what you're describing, to a certain extent.

[Jouni]

Combat tactics in Civilization vary significantly by era, as new units often have qualitatively different capabilities than the units they replace. When that happens, old tactics no longer work, as things have become simpler, more complicated, or just different.

Archers are basically weak ranged units that deal significant damage from behind stronger units, while machine gunners are reasonably strong melee units that don't get damage, when they attack the enemy. A frigate is jack of all trades, while a battleship is a specialized unit that works only as a part of a fleet (or in city defense). Before the industrial era, capturing cities involves getting as many units as possible into firing range at once, as it minimizes the damage from city defenders. After the discovery of long-range artillery, it's feasible to wear down multiple cities at once, instead of concentrating on one city at a time. Longer range also makes artillery more useful in offensive field operations, while tanks make artillery more vulnerable and force you to have more frontline units to defend the artillery.

Airports really revolutionize warfare on strategic scale. Before them, the amount of mobile forces you need depends on the geographical spread of your empire. After them, the number of mobile units just determines how many regional conflicts you can fight at once. Before airports, you had to carefully consider how many units you need to defend each major region. With airports, threat assessment and the planning of defenses become much simpler, as the empire is essentially a single region.

In KSP, there is currently one game-changing technology like that: docking ports. Before them, you plan the mission in advance, build a rocket for it, launch the rocket, and execute the mission. With them, advance planning becomes less important, and you start building reusable modular ships instead of rockets. Modularity gives you flexibility and allows you to change your plans during the mission. You may start building lifter stages, interplanetary transfer stages, crew shuttles, space stations, utility tugs, fuel tankers, and other specialized support ships.

I would like to see more changes like that during the game. Changes that don't just allow you to make things in an easier or more efficient way, but completely change the way you play the game. If you have a cheap and efficient way to launch huge payloads into orbit, maybe it's time to start colonizing the solar system instead of exploring it.

[a2soup]

In KSP, there is currently one game-changing technology like that: docking ports.

And, ironically enough, the SLS engines make docking much less valuable given the payload sizes you can just haul into orbit, without a second thought.

What I think you're not getting is that everyone calling for rebalancing knows the engines are revolutionary and they like that. Just like the Mainsail unlocked a new payload weight class above that of the LV-T30, the SLS engines unlock a new payload weight class above that of the Mainsail. This is an awesome progression of the game.

The problems with the SLS engines are twofold, and neither problem is that they are revolutionary.

The first problem is that they can substitute for smaller engines, obsoleting some of the older techs. This is fundamentally different than your example of upgrading units in Civ, because the enemy in Civ grows stronger over the course of the game, while the Kerbal solar system does not grow bigger. In Civ, your units upgrade because your enemies become stronger. Civ stays the same difficulty (hell, it probably even gets harder) and the game progresses. In KSP, your "enemies" are the planets, and they stay the same. Thus, when your old engines are upgraded the game becomes easier. This is not and will never be good game design in any genre.

The second problem is that designing appropriately-sized lifters with the SLS engines is much easier than designing appropriately-sized lifters with the tier 1 or 2 engines. That is to say, a Mainsail-sized lifter using Mainsails is just as hard to design as an LV-T30-sized lifter using LV-T30s. An SLS-sized lifter using SLS engines, on the other hand, is far easier to design. The engineering skill required for the new weight class goes down, which was not the case for the LV-T30 to Mainsail transition.

In sum, the SLS engines should be revolutionary, they should make much bigger payloads possible. They should not make the game easier. It is possible to distinguish between these two things, as the LV-T30--Mainsail comparison demonstrates. Balancing the SLS engines according to stupid_chris's Isp-TWR curve would preserve their revolutionary nature while maintaining the challenge of the game.

I stated this better in this post on another thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74638-ARM-engines?p=1062406#post1062406

Edited April 3, 2014 by a2soup

[Jouni]

I understand all this. What I don't understand is why it's a problem. KSP is apparently moving into a direction, where we have parts from different eras, with new parts making old ones obsolete. In sandbox, you can always choose what parts to use (the game might eventually make that easier), while the career mode is still pretty much under development. With the SLS parts, it may be trivial to launch a small scout ship to Jool, but you may find it a bit harder to build and launch an orbital colony housing hundreds of kerbals in a reasonable way there. When we are routinely moving tens of thousands of tonnes between planets, we may need something better than Apollo-era hardware.

[KASASpace]

Honestly, I think that the Kerbodyne KR-2L should be smaller, not diameter, but in length.

The scale just doesn't really, you know...

Look right. :|

[Varses]

I understand all this. What I don't understand is why it's a problem. KSP is apparently moving into a direction, where we have parts from different eras, with new parts making old ones obsolete. In sandbox, you can always choose what parts to use (the game might eventually make that easier), while the career mode is still pretty much under development. With the SLS parts, it may be trivial to launch a small scout ship to Jool, but you may find it a bit harder to build and launch an orbital colony housing hundreds of kerbals in a reasonable way there. When we are routinely moving tens of thousands of tonnes between planets, we may need something better than Apollo-era hardware.

This is really just the narrative you've formed based on the last update. The aerospike is an advanced technology yet it was realeased many, many updates ago. The LV-N was developed during the immediate post-Apollo era but it was and remains an experimental technology. On the other hand, ion engines have been in wide use since the 1970s so even though they're more 'high tech' they're a fairly established technology in a way that nuclear thermal rockets and aerospikes aren't.

Some Russian engines (such as the NK-33) are quite old (dating back to the early 70s) and yet are extremely technologically advanced, even by modern standards. Better engines aren't necessarily newer, nor are 'high tech' engines newer. KSP development has really been a smattering mixture of both high tech and low tech engines and it always has. This whole 'moving into a direction where we have parts from different eras' is completely false. By your logic, if Squad truly meant for more advanced engines and technologies to replace less advanced ones rather than augment them or open up new possibilities, they never would've nerfed the aerospike in 0.18.

[KASASpace]

This is really just the narrative you've formed based on the last update. The aerospike is an advanced technology yet it was realeased many, many updates ago. The LV-N was developed during the immediate post-Apollo era but it was and remains an experimental technology.

Well, this is wrong-ish.

The J-2, had an Aerospike variant designed.

NERVA was started in the 1950s as Project Rover, and then became NERVA.

They developed NERVA engines, such as the Kiwi reactor.

Ion engines were first tested in the late 1960s, albeit using Mercury as a fuel.....

[stupid_chris]

To give everyone an example: ithe KR-2L has four times the TWR it should have for it's ISP. If the Mainsail had four times the TWR for it's ISP, it would have a TWR of 104. This makes 6100kN of thrust. Of course it doesn't scale 4xTWR = 4xbetter, but it just shows how silly the engines are right now.

[thorfinn]

Any future outer planets will be more difficult to reach

not really: the difference in delta-V between a Kerbin-Eeloo transfer and a Kerbol escape (transfer to infinity) isn't really much. I don't see life support getting in the mainline game soon (if ever) so travel times aren't really a problem, so no incentive to flying much faster than a Hohmann. Future inner planets would be a much bigger challenge.

[Varses]

Well, this is wrong-ish.

The J-2, had an Aerospike variant designed.

NERVA was started in the 1950s as Project Rover, and then became NERVA.

They developed NERVA engines, such as the Kiwi reactor.

Ion engines were first tested in the late 1960s, albeit using Mercury as a fuel.....

You are right, I was just saying that many old technologies are still experimental. To my knowledge, aerospikes have only ever been used on test rockets (never carrying a significant payload) and the NERVA was never even put on a spacecraft (though it did have extensive ground test firing--and significant issues i.e. fuel rod erosion). On the other hand, dozens of ion thrusters have flown in space on full missons.

That's what I meant about 'experimental' technology--it has never been deployed in an actual payload-lifting capacity and is still under active development.

thorfin: I stand corrected. I've never even attempted to go to Eeloo or Kerbol escape so I don't have experience with that. I suppose it should've been obvious to me considering the fact that gravity is an inverse square relationship with the radius but I was thinking in linear terms. EDIT: although it occurs to me that high inclination orbits would add an additional degree of challenge though not an enormous delta-v cost.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Varses

[a2soup]

I understand all this . . . When we are routinely moving tens of thousands of tonnes between planets, we may need something better than Apollo-era hardware.

Not entirely sure you do understand this, because your argument appears to revolve around the concept that we need more powerful parts to do bigger stuff. I agree with this 100%. However, as I have thoroughly explained in several past posts, including the one just before what I have quoted above, there is a difference between more powerful ("bigger") and simply easier ("better"). I also explained this distinction in depth here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74638-ARM-engines?p=1062406#post1062406.

What you fail to provide is a cohesive argument against the proposed rebalance, which would maintain the higher power and payload potential of the SLS engines while ensuring the game has a consistent balance curve, and thus does not get easier as it progresses.

As a side note, notions of KSP's "direction" don't factor into it. KSP is a game, and no game that gets easier as it progresses is well-designed. A negative difficulty curve is not a "direction", it is a flaw.

Because of KSP's fundamental status as a game, not a history lesson, history is also irrelevant to engine stats. History can be superimposed on any well-balanced set of engines using names/textures/etc. This is coming from someone who absolutely loves the history of spaceflight.

In conclusion, I challenge you to argue against the proposed rebalance, keeping in mind (as I have exhaustively explained before) that this rebalance would maintain the higher power and payload potential of the SLS engines while ensuring a consistent level of challenge at higher tech levels.

Edited April 4, 2014 by a2soup

[Jouni]

It's perfectly normal for game developers to change their minds many times over the development of the game. Normally it's fine, but it can be a problem in early access games, if the developers listen too much to the early players who have grown too fond of the way the things are at the moment.

[stupid_chris]

It's perfectly normal for game developers to change their minds many times over the development of the game. Normally it's fine, but it can be a problem in early access games, if the developers listen too much to the early players who have grown too fond of the way the things are at the moment.

This logic can be applied all backwards too. Developpers can change their mind by listening to brand new players who are insanely hyped on the game. Ind the end we can pretty much consider it cancels out.

This is not the purpose of this thread though. It's not a bunch of "old fond polayers" complaining about the game being too easy. This is about a lack of consistency.

What I believe the point of the OP was ââ€â‚¬ and also what mine was when I made those charts ââ€â‚¬ is to point out that the new engines don't follow any logic when compared to the current tendency.

For now they /are/ overpowered. I'm not necessarily asking for them to be nerfed, although it's what I'd prefer. I think something should be done about it, be it adjust the other engines to this new logic, or to bring those down to the current stock baseline.

In the end this thread is a big melting-pot of opinions the devs will be able to look at when and if they reconsider the balancing of the engines. They'll be able to see feedback from the community, and then take their decision depending on what they think works the best for the game.

[ProGamerGov]

The new big engines are fine. I can finally just barely put my extra large payloads into LEO and I don't have to use HyperEdit. Of course these large parts will lift smaller objects better, if you upset about that just leave. They serve a purpose for lifting the biggest stuff you need into orbit so that the part count can stay down and you can have larger solid parts as opposed to a wobbly docking port ship.

[Jouni]

What you fail to provide is a cohesive argument against the proposed rebalance, which would maintain the higher power and payload potential of the SLS engines while ensuring the game has a consistent balance curve, and thus does not get easier as it progresses.

I feel that balancing the sandbox is an incredibly bad idea, if the game concentrates on the career mode. There could be several sub-sandboxes, where the parts are balanced, but early career mode engines should be obviously worse than late career mode engines in the same way as musketeers are worse than tanks.

I generally dislike games that feel too much like games, unless they operate on an abstract level. I prefer simulationist game mechanics over gamist and narrativist mechanics. If some aspect of a game breaks my suspension of disbelief, that aspect makes the game worse for me. If the guys employed at R&D are such morons that they can't even produce stuff that's unconditionally better than what existed before, while the operative guys proceed from suborbital flights to long-term manned missions to outer planets, that definitely breaks my suspension of disbelief. Among the spaceflight games I have played for a significant amount of time, the one feature that distinguishes KSP from the others is realism. If R&D doesn't work in a pseudo-realistic way, it doesn't fit my perception of the rest of the game.

[stupid_chris]

The new big engines are fine. I can finally just barely put my extra large payloads into LEO and I don't have to use HyperEdit. Of course these large parts will lift smaller objects better, if you upset about that just leave. They serve a purpose for lifting the biggest stuff you need into orbit so that the part count can stay down and you can have larger solid parts as opposed to a wobbly docking port ship.

I think what people are missing is that you can be able to do that with large parts without having them overpowered. NovaPunch, KW Rocketry, both are wonderful examples of balanced parts doing some very heavy duty lifting with minimal part count.

And also, moderator notice, (not just to you, to everyone to post below me): please refrain from using "if you don't like it don't play it" arguments. This will only end up upsetting people and it won't end nicely. Let's just carry on with the same friendly atmosphere we have, alright?

EDIT:

I feel that balancing the sandbox is an incredibly bad idea, if the game concentrates on the career mode. There could be several sub-sandboxes, where the parts are balanced, but early career mode engines should be obviously worse than late career mode engines in the same way as musketeers are worse than tanks.

I generally dislike games that feel too much like games, unless they operate on an abstract level. I prefer simulationist game mechanics over gamist and narrativist mechanics. If some aspect of a game breaks my suspension of disbelief, that aspect makes the game worse for me. If the guys employed at R&D are such morons that they can't even produce stuff that's unconditionally better than what existed before, while the operative guys proceed from suborbital flights to long-term manned missions to outer planets, that definitely breaks my suspension of disbelief. Among the spaceflight games I have played for a significant amount of time, the one feature that distinguishes KSP from the others is realism. If R&D doesn't work in a pseudo-realistic way, it doesn't fit my perception of the rest of the game.

Well I probably have some bad news for you. If I remember correctly when Harv started talking about the then-in-creation tech tree, the goal is not to do that. The goal is to go from basic parts, the 1.25m parts, and then go wider up and down, going bigger and smaller in different branches. It's not built on a "technological" standpoint, but in a view to unlock different regions of the system for you by granting you parts that are more fitted for the job.

Edited April 4, 2014 by stupid_chris

[a2soup]

I generally dislike games that feel too much like games, unless they operate on an abstract level. I prefer simulationist game mechanics over gamist and narrativist mechanics. ... Among the spaceflight games I have played for a significant amount of time, the one feature that distinguishes KSP from the others is realism. If R&D doesn't work in a pseudo-realistic way, it doesn't fit my perception of the rest of the game.

This is precisely where we differ.

I want KSP to work from a video gaming perspective, which entails a consistent level of difficulty throughout tech progression at the expense of realistic tech development. You want KSP to work from a spaceflight simulation perspective, which entails realistic tech development at the expense of a consistent level of difficulty throughout tech progression.

I'm really glad we were able to boil the argument down to non-debatable matters of opinion. From here, it is just which vision of the game the devs choose to adopt, and to what extent they choose to adopt it. However they choose, I hope it turns out the best for KSP and its wonderful community

Edited April 4, 2014 by a2soup

[Jouni]

I want KSP to work from a video gaming perspective, which entails a consistent level of difficulty throughout tech progression at the expense of realistic tech development. You want KSP to work from a spaceflight simulation perspective, which entails realistic tech development at the expense of a consistent level of difficulty throughout tech progression.

The difference is not that much about games vs. simulations as about two different approaches to game design. Gamism is the traditional school of thought that centers around challenges and game balance. Simulationism concentrates on an internally consistent world that follows its own rules without revolving around the player. The world is still designed in such a way that the player can find interesting things to do, but as life is ultimately unfair, there are no guarantees on how difficult challenges he/she finds.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Jouni

[a2soup]

The difference is not that much about games vs. simulations as about two different approaches to game design. Gamism is the traditional school of thought that centers around challenges and game balance. Simulationism concentrates on an internally consistent world that follows its own rules without revolving around the player. The world is still designed in such a way that the player can find interesting things to do, but as life is ultimately unfair, there are no guarantees on how difficult challenges he/she finds.

Yes, I completely agree with this. This is what I was trying to say earlier, but I'm not very well-versed the language of game design.

I'm a gamist, and you're a dirty simulationist

Edited April 4, 2014 by a2soup

[NERVAfan]

I'm not sure I necessarily have a problem with "getting to orbit" getting easier with new technology, as I think the assumption is that you'll be moving on to doing bigger things, which will still be difficult (whether that's building your 2000 ton Kerbin orbit space station or a sprawling Munbase or returning Kerbals from Tylo or Eve or whatever...)