Can both Career Mode and Sandbox Mode be balanced simultaneously?

[SkyRender]

One of the main reasons that games exist is that they don't follow the rules of real life.

Were this a role-playing game, would you recommend the most powerful spell available to the wizard be granted at level 10, if level 50 is the maximum? Basic game theory, folks.

Quite. It's a good thing we have Career mode to lock off progression in some fashion so the player doesn't just get everything from the get-go! Locking off Sandbox in a similar fashion, however, kind of strikes me as, well, redundant? Certainly missing the point, if nothing else.

[xcorps]

One of the main reasons that games exist is that they don't follow the rules of real life.

Were this a role-playing game, would you recommend the most powerful spell available to the wizard be granted at level 10, if level 50 is the maximum? Basic game theory, folks.

At first glance, this is an apt comment. However, after some thought it falls short.

Gaming progression in most games is a question of risk versus reward, and balance is based on that. You generally don't give a low level player powerful stuff because it skews the RVR balance.

KSP is different though. There is no risk vs reward. KSP has rules, but those rules aren't in place to create a competition between the player and his foe. (I guess you could say you are in competition with gravity, but it's a contest you can only win). It's more of a puzzle game than an RPG where you develop over time to meet new challenges. The challenge in KSP is always static. You're really only dealing with a question of how to get X from A to B in the fewest number of trips.

The reward in KSP isn't the level 50 boss at the end of the dungeon. It's the unbroken lander at the end of the journey.

The tech tree isn't really a path to win/finish the game, like in most games with progression. It's just a reason to build ships and go places.

So to answer the OP, I say no. They can't be balanced simultaneously, because this game doesn't base it's reward on risk.

Edited April 5, 2014 by xcorps

[LethalDose]

From that perspective, the ARM update was a waste of time, as it improved neither scope-completion nor balance. I'm not sure I'd go that far.

You don't think the ARM update advanced scope completion?

The update added asteroids, the claw, 3.75m parts, and a slew of other minor features (Kerbin-time, improved joint logic, performance improvements). All important features.

I... I'm baffled by your statement.

[regex]

You don't think the ARM update advanced scope completion?

The update added asteroids, the claw, 3.75m parts, and a slew of other minor features (Kerbin-time, improved joint logic, performance improvements). All important features.

I... I'm baffled by your statement.

I, too, am completely baffled by that statement.

[Comrade Jenkens]

I have a fantastic idea for how you can balance your sandbox experience all on your own!

I've done exactly that! Gone into the config files and tweaked things to the way I like them.

More on topic however I think that it will be very difficult to balance for both. In sandbox the parts would be best balanced against each other and simply be better for different tasks. In career there should be a progression in capability.

Maybe parts get upgraded as you advanced in career and in sandbox they are simply fixed at a certain value?

[cantab]

Even in the barebones career mode we have now, there is risk vs reward. Do you play it safe and do another Mun landing, or go off on an ambitious trip to Gilly? Do you try and bring the plane back under control, or deploy the chutes for a safe emergency landing? Do you take the time for an unmanned test, or just stick Kerbals in the pod and go for it?

True, at present the only thing really being risked is player time. But once we have money and so on, and maybe Revert Flight gets taken out of career, there'll be more in-game risks to take.

[Red Iron Crown]

You don't think the ARM update advanced scope completion?

The update added asteroids, the claw, 3.75m parts, and a slew of other minor features (Kerbin-time, improved joint logic, performance improvements). All important features.

I... I'm baffled by your statement.

I didn't think any of those were on the planned features list, though I certainly could be wrong.

I don't think the update was a waste at any rate, the features added were very useful and interesting.

[vger]

At first glance, this is an apt comment. However, after some thought it falls short.

Gaming progression in most games is a question of risk versus reward, and balance is based on that. You generally don't give a low level player powerful stuff because it skews the RVR balance.

KSP is different though. There is no risk vs reward. KSP has rules, but those rules aren't in place to create a competition between the player and his foe. (I guess you could say you are in competition with gravity, but it's a contest you can only win). It's more of a puzzle game than an RPG where you develop over time to meet new challenges. The challenge in KSP is always static. You're really only dealing with a question of how to get X from A to B in the fewest number of trips.

Ehh... how did you arrive at the conclusion that the only reason to not overpower lowbies in a game is for PvP purposes? The example I gave is at least as old as Dungeons and Dragons. So I'll give you a PvE example of how this is bad. You give the 'nuke' power to your low level wizard who is running around in noob territory. He starts blasting the weakling creatures in droves, and levels up 10x faster than he should be, until he finally reaches the stages with bigger monsters that the power was actually created to deal with.

How does this apply to KSP? Let's look at how the career system is currently structured.

1. Each tier of the tech tree costs more science to research than the previous one.

2. Distant planets yield more science than local bodies such as the Mun or Minmus (Kerbin itself being the least generous, since it's right under your nose).

3. Gaining a tier on the tech tree gives you the tools to gain more science from places you've already been to, as well as reach more distant worlds. Were it not for upgrades from Tier 2, gaining enough science to research tier 3 would be next to impossible.

More distant planets yield more science than the Mun for a reason, because they're harder to reach. Players can now use this rocket at an earlier tech stage to grab a disproportionate amount of science, resulting in an unintended (probably) quantum leap in research. Often in single-player games (this is particularly important in open world games with non-linear progression - which KSP definitely is) there will be places you pass by while carrying your pathetic collection of equipment, and think, "Now how am I ever going to get over there?" or "How am I going to kill that thing?" The answer comes later when you find the grappling hook and the silver arrow, which can only be unlocked by doing lower level content.

And even without what I just said, risk is coming to KSP anyhow. One of the systems that has yet to be added to career mode is reputation. Reputation means the whole world is watching, so don't do things like... forget to convert English to Metric and smash a 10-billion-Kredit probe into Duna, and it DEFINITELY means you should avoid getting your Kerbonauts killed. I'm not really sure why this addition is even necessary to say the game has risk though. It already does. In countless games, death doesn't come with any risk beyond having to start over again at your last save point. Why is this good enough to be considered risk in a combat game, but not KSP?

Edited April 5, 2014 by vger

[Tripzter]

Why would you want to balance it? The sandbox is exactly what its suppose to be. A sand box. Theres no reason to make it different than the other.

The way i see it is once you get over the first few hours of gameplay Career mode becomes a sandbox as well.

[Rickenbacker]

I don't even understand the OPs question. Why would you need to "balance" sandbox mode? Career will be balanced, and sandbox will be there beside it, for those who want no restrictions....

[Jouni]

Ehh... how did you arrive at the conclusion that the only reason to not overpower lowbies in a game is for PvP purposes? The example I gave is at least as old as Dungeons and Dragons.

Actually, game balance wasn't that important in D&D before the 3rd Edition. In the earlier editions, some classes were just superior to others, and the weapons, armor types, and spell lists weren't that balanced either. The balance between classes also shifted significantly, as the game progressed. Old adventure modules are often full of unfair traps and other frustrating challenges. When certain kinds of undead creatures managed to touch characters, they lost levels permanently, regardless of their power level. While the level drain could be reversed in principle, it wasn't so readily available from market as in the later editions.

[PDCWolf]

Balancing engines is really easy, all you have to do is ask yourself "Does my new engine nullify the already existing ones?" If yes, then you did something wrong. Balancing the other parts may be a bit harder, because you are dealing with things like "How useful is this" which is way more complex to answer.

I think their care for balance went downhill as soon as they added the R.A.P.I.E.R. and some think it traces back to when they added the 48-7. In fact, it could be totally traced back to the addition of the tech tree, since you go from "is this balanced" to "I'll just add it latter in the tree"

Edited April 5, 2014 by PDCWolf

[Dodgey]

You don't think the ARM update advanced scope completion?

The update added asteroids, the claw, 3.75m parts, and a slew of other minor features (Kerbin-time, improved joint logic, performance improvements). All important features.

I... I'm baffled by your statement.

The ARM is only really superficial when compared to the other mechanics of the game. It didn't really add any major features such as reentry heating or resource mining. What people seem to forget is that there will be multiple ways to balance career mode, money, rep, science ect. So it is much more easy to balance sandbox.

[SpaceGremlin]

Right now, much of career mode is a holdover from sandbox being the only game mode. As they diverge, balancing both will become more difficult. One will have to be favored over the other.

[Dodgey]

Why does career have to be more favored than sandbox? All we are asking is for the parts to be balanced to eachother in sandbox, in career there are at least two more variables that could be used to balanced the game. People have even suggested using those two variables to balance the parts as they are, why not do that after the parts have been balanced to each other.

[zarakon]

Yes, they can be balanced.

Each part can have its own role without totally replacing others so that everything is useful in sandbox. In career mode, you wouldn't necessarily be unlocking better parts, you would be unlocking more possibilities. The LV-N is a good example - it's not a replacement for anything, but it adds to what you can do.

If the new large engines were adjusted to have their ISP and TWR more in line with the other engines, they could still have their role. Just like how the LV-T30 and Mainsail can coexist, the Mainsail, KR-2L, and the 4x cluster could probably be made to coexist.

[boomerdog2000]

The question doesn't really make sense to me. The entire point of sandbox is to remove all restrictions which seems to throw most ideas of balance out the window. I understand the argument of parts being balanced against other parts but past a certain point some parts are going to have to be upgrades of others in certain regards. For instance the Mainsail is a better lifter than the LV-T30, but the LV-T30 is a better upper stage engine if you need more power since it's lighter. If you need less power use the 909. If you need fuel efficiency go for the Nerva.

The progression through career mode starts you off with a few engines, meaning you have to use those engines for basically everything. Then later you unlock more specialised engines and slowly everything falls into its own little niche as you would expect.

[Yarrula]

I find the whole notion of part balance fairly unimportant, especially in sandbox mode.

Let me try to explain. I see no game mechanics problem with having some parts be strictly better than others. Every other game out there has parts/tool/gear that gets better as you progress through the game. See every RPG, ever, for example.

This gear also becomes more expensive as the player gains power/money etc. As long as KSP follows this trend, I see no problems. Sandbox should be be where there are all the options of career with none of the restrictions.

One point that I am unclear on is how people say the new engines totally replace the mailsail, skipper et. al. What if you want an inline size 2 part with a node at the bottom, say for a second stage or something? I have needed such an engine many time. With the ARM pack, I have even used mainsails as a second stage for larger craft. I can't see how they are considered useless now.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Yarrula
typo

[Dodgey]

As Zarakon said, instead of new parts replacing old parts, the new parts should unlock new possibilities. The new engines are not only a problem in sandbox but also in career, aside from ascetics numerically there is no use to use the mainsail any more, the skipper is much more useful as an upper stage engine due to its increased ISP. Which brings me to another point, why is career mode more important than sandbox? Why should I have to play career mode to play a balanced game? As I've said the only variable that can be use for balancing the engines in sandbox are their stats, in career mode you have theoretically two more variables on top of that which can be used for game balance. Why not balance the engines in sandbox first and then balance them in career mode using the other two variables?

[FlowerChild]

I think they can yes. The trick there though is that Sandbox represents the end of the career game, and likely where players will spend most of their time. As a result, it's also the place where you want them to have access to the most variety in creating their own designs to keep things interesting.

Thus, I think if they went wrong with the NASA parts, it's by putting such a power boost in such a limited number of parts at the end of the tree, which severely narrows down the effective part choices available in the end game of career (and thus in sandbox). By doing this, they're effectively sucking all the variety out of sandbox play and relegating most of the parts they spent so much time on up until now to being middle-game temporary solutions in career mode.

So, to my mind, what would have made more sense is to build a small number of weaker parts at the beginning of the tree which are quickly outclassed and forgotten about (maybe with a visual filter toggle in the VAB to not display obsolete parts). This approach leaves a much wider selection of effective parts for the player to choose from at the end (and in sandbox).

To my way of thinking, you basically want the part selection to blossom at the very end of the tech tree so that it's the point at which the player has the most variety at their disposal, not for it to wither down to a small selection of parts so that it becomes the least creative point in the game.

But to put the question another way: how can they not balance sandbox at the same time given it's the end state of career mode? It seems to me then that you can't balance career without balancing sandbox.

Edited April 6, 2014 by FlowerChild

[lordlundar]

I don't feel they can be balanced together because of the different play styles. Career mode is being built around restrictions. R&D at current with business and other logistics coming down the road. Sandbox on the other hand is built around the freedom to play around and experiment with the full gambit of parts available at once. By trying to implement restrictions that are applicable to career into Sandbox you remove the concept behind Sandbox.

It's like trying to balance creative in Minecraft by say requiring you to get the items you want in the world like in Survival. It defeats the purpose of the Creative mode.

[Eric S]

Ehh... how did you arrive at the conclusion that the only reason to not overpower lowbies in a game is for PvP purposes?

RVR can mean realm vs realm, but it can also mean risk vs reward. Yes, I thought it was the first for a few seconds at first two, and was rather confused.

Why does career have to be more favored than sandbox? All we are asking is for the parts to be balanced to eachother in sandbox, in career there are at least two more variables that could be used to balanced the game. People have even suggested using those two variables to balance the parts as they are, why not do that after the parts have been balanced to each other.

OK. Let's say you have 5 stats, where the "goodness" of each engine is represented by U, V, W, X, and Y, the first three to Z1 for sandbox and all five should all sum to Z2 for career.

If U+V+W+X+Y=Z2 and U+V+W=Z1 for every engine, then X+Y=Z2-Z1. Which means that X and Y can only vary with each other. There's no way to change X without changing Y, and the reciprocal is also true. This really restricts what can happen in career mode with those two variables.

I don't have a problem with parts that are a strict upgrade statwise over some other engine as long as there's a compensating drawback in career mode. That said, I think the ARM engines may be a bit too much of an upgrade. I don't care about sandbox balancing, because the concept of sandbox is to eliminate certain restrictions, and balancing is going to have to be one of those restrictions or else you wind up having to balance two separate sets of stats within each set with no option of trading off one set for the other.

[Rakaydos]

OK. Let's say you have 5 stats, where the "goodness" of each engine is represented by U, V, W, X, and Y, the first three to Z1 for sandbox and all five should all sum to Z2 for career.

If U+V+W+X+Y=Z2 and U+V+W=Z1 for every engine, then X+Y=Z2-Z1. Which means that X and Y can only vary with each other. There's no way to change X without changing Y, and the reciprocal is also true. This really restricts what can happen in career mode with those two variables.

-Sandbox-

Size/part efficency (skipper vs a cluster of 3 LV45)

Thrust to Weight Ratio (what planets can it land/launch from)

Thrust to Cross Section ratio (How tall a rocket you can put on top of it)

ISP (How little fuel do you need to do what you do)

-Carear only-

Cost

Tech Tree placement

Expected Player skill

To explain the terms, The SLS parts have the best Size in stock, crazy good thrust to weight, making up for a lackluster Thrust to Crosssection, and some of the best ISP outside dedicated orbital engines like NERVA and Ion. There is a mod available that changes the SLS parts, reducing their TWR and ISP, but increasing their thrust to Cross section. (More thrust, more weight= taller rockets, less single-stage-to-jool)

Concerning Expected player Skill, I believe there's a developer quote goig around that the intent of carear is a tuturial for sandbox- therefore Science should go from simple to understand and general purpose, to more specialized equipment needed for specific missions. (the aerospike is rarely worth using outside an endgame eve surface return or Jool datum return, so it shouldnt clutter up a newbie's engine tab until their tech tree is complete.) In short, Tech tree placement corrisponds to Expected Player Skill.

My theory for Budgets is that they will be a limit-per-launch, but not carry over between launches. (beyond success bonuses/failure penalties) If this is correct, Price would be balanced against Partcount. A skipper is more expensive than a LV45, but cheaper than 4 LV45s and a roccomax-to-4-engine adapter. An SLS engine would be even more expensive, but not to the point that it's cheaper to make an asparagused monster to get the same payload to orbit. Having Cost reinforce Part efficiency would balance various designs by capability- an asparagused monster for X budget has similar capability to a powerful cluster of high tech parts for the same budget.

[Dodgey]

-snip-

OK. Let's say you have 5 stats, where the "goodness" of each engine is represented by U, V, W, X, and Y, the first three to Z1 for sandbox and all five should all sum to Z2 for career.

If U+V+W+X+Y=Z2 and U+V+W=Z1 for every engine, then X+Y=Z2-Z1. Which means that X and Y can only vary with each other. There's no way to change X without changing Y, and the reciprocal is also true. This really restricts what can happen in career mode with those two variables.

I don't have a problem with parts that are a strict upgrade statwise over some other engine as long as there's a compensating drawback in career mode. That said, I think the ARM engines may be a bit too much of an upgrade. I don't care about sandbox balancing, because the concept of sandbox is to eliminate certain restrictions, and balancing is going to have to be one of those restrictions or else you wind up having to balance two separate sets of stats within each set with no option of trading off one set for the other.

What do you mean there is no way to change X without changing Y? Going by your math, if you increase X, you increase Z2, which increases the difference between Z2 and Z1, it all balances out. Let me show you.

U=1, V=2, W=3, X=4, Y=5.

U+V+W+X+Y=Z2 = 1+2+3+4+5=15

U+V+W=Z1 = 1+2+3=6

X+Y = Z2-Z1 = 4+5 = 15-6=9

If you change X to 6 it becomes:

U+V+W+X+Y=Z2 = 1+2+3+6+5=17

U+V+W=Z1 = 1+2+3=6

X+Y = Z2-Z1 = 6+5 = 17-6=11

I don't see what your point is. Yes sandbox removes certain restrictions, balancing of the parts is not one of them. Please explain why the two variables X and Y are proportional to each other.

[Rakaydos]

What do you mean there is no way to change X without changing Y? Going by your math, if you increase X, you increase Z2, which increases the difference between Z2 and Z1, it all balances out. Let me show you.

I dont agree with Eric's point, but he' referring to how, if all the engines are perfectly balanced for sandbox, and price and tech tree position are the only things added to that balance for carear, than he believes that price must cancel Tech Tree position in order for balance to be maintained.