Rebalance part costs for KSP 0.24/0.25

[diomedea]

Balancing is certainly not easy: most of Fustek parts are complex, with capabilities spanning what requires a number of other parts. One major factor is the activation of extra modules with MM configs. In particular, patching to support TACLS. E.g., a Karmony Hab Module cost is 8500. It provides same characteristics as if using a PPD-10 HitchHiker, a Z-100 Battery, an Inline Adv Stabilizer and a FL-R25 RCS Fuel Tank, for a total cost of 6080. So, the Karmony Hab cost should be put at around 6000 based on this comparison. However, if using TACLS, that same Hab module also gains Life Support Resources (amounts about 1.25 what a small LS container from TAC has, that would be worth 66 Funds; but in particular the same capabilities of a TACLS Carbon Extractor, that is worth 6800 Funds (believe discussing cost of other add-ons parts is beyond scope here, but that module really changes things a lot). Now, unless that Carbon Extractor part cost is revised in TACLS, the total value of the parts that offer the same as a Karmony Hab module is 12946 Funds. In conclusion, it may be necessary to change the value of Karmony parts with the MM patch config (however, can't say if MM can do simple math like "@PART... %cost = %cost + 6866"). Otherwise we can't have a correct balance valid for all possible situations.

[sumghai]

Actually, MM patches to modify part costs depending on the presence of other installed dependencies is a neat idea - and it looks like MM 2.x now supports maths for variables:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55219-Module-Manager-2-3-5-%28Sept-14%29-Loading-Speed-Fix?p=728591&viewfull=1#post728591

By the looks of things, I may have to check & rebalance the prices myself, with the following in mind:

• FusTek parts should be generally more expensive than their stock counterparts, since they are considered "premium"-quality space station modules
• Additional cost for life support provision storage / equipment installation if TAC-LS is installed

Thanks for the heads-up, much appreciated :)

[ghost]

Might I suggest to:

• Ignore TAC provision storage in the module prices. My position is that LS is "implied" in stock game, and it doesn't really makes sense that taking MRE storage into account increase the price: You're counting MREs and oxygen tanks in a box, but the box doesn't change.They are already supposed to be there (and indeed no other hab module increase its prices for any LS mod). The food and oxygen (not water ATM) on the other hand does have a cost (although negligible), wich makes sense. -Remove the carbon extractor from the hab modules, and stop worrying about it. 7k worth of equipment by module. Either an "energy free" recycler, or a huge power draw. It's a big, technical thingy, better left in its own module, leading to "technical modules" (water/air recycling, power generation, CnC systems etc...), wich add a soul to a station.

[sumghai]

Might I suggest to:

• Ignore TAC provision storage in the module prices. My position is that LS is "implied" in stock game, and it doesn't really makes sense that taking MRE storage into account increase the price: You're counting MREs and oxygen tanks in a box, but the box doesn't change.They are already supposed to be there (and indeed no other hab module increase its prices for any LS mod). The food and oxygen (not water ATM) on the other hand does have a cost (although negligible), wich makes sense.

Now that I think about this, this makes sense.

• Remove the carbon extractor from the hab modules, and stop worrying about it. 7k worth of equipment by module. Either an "energy free" recycler, or a huge power draw.

I included carbon extractors for all crew habitable compartments so that if a space station disintegrates, the small power reserve in each module will provide some breathable air while the occupants await rescue.

Consolidating carbon extractors means a single point of failure in a station's ECLSS system, and if a Kerbal is trapped in an isolated compartment with no carbon extractor, he or she won't last very long.

It's a big, technical thingy, better left in its own module, leading to "technical modules" (water/air recycling, power generation, CnC systems etc...),

The Utilities module already serves the purpose of this proposed "technical module", as it already acts as a control point, and includes a higher-capcity water recycler and air filter.

wich add a soul to a station.

Space stations don't have souls.

[diomedea]

I didn't suggest changing how Karmony parts work, being your decision to make and you certainly would have considered that. But now that the subject has been brought up, my preferred solution about carbon extractors would be be to define a much smaller extractor unit with any habitable module (e.g., with 1/10 the capacity of the regular, very expensive part in TACLS), able to act as an emergency system (or if compartments were to be closed, in reality). In itself such a unit would not be able to keep air breathable for a long time, and that is similar to what happens with real emergency extractors. The true big, expensive carbon extractor is indeed best placed with the utilities module, and should be able in itself to keep air clean at all times for a set number of kerbals aboard a station.

Still, the presence of TACLS or not with a game changes deeply how crafts are to be built, and the price of them. I see no way not to consider the price for Karmony parts variable due to the possible presence of TACLS add-on, other choices would make these parts unbalanced when compared to stock and/or TACLS ones.

[Fusty]

If there are already balanced prices for parts of similar function I'd just do something like ( function1existingPartPrice + function2existingPartPrice ... + functionNexistingPartPrice) * premiumRate

With premium rate at something like 1.1. I'll do a survey of part costs when I get home tonight. I guess I shouldn't expect too many balanced mods yet.

[sumghai]

I had a little free time today to revisit part balancing in more detail, and after consulting Fusty's pull request (https://github.com/sumghai/FusTek_StationParts/pull/41), I put together my own pricing proposal:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1O4F2ws5sF8Xv1t9SDwLH5QW6Wsq4gga20W_V9wlGWTI&authuser=0

Rationale

• The basic structural framework of most FusTek modules are built from one of two common form factors: the standard full-length module and the half-length module. It is only the internal fittings and viewports that differentiates, say, a Habitation module from a Science module - this makes more sense than pricing each variant individually based on the number of typical occupants (in the psuedo-real-world of the Kerbal universe, it's physically possible for six Kerbals to gather in the nominally 2-crew utilities module to take a group photo or something).
• I've settled on the notion that Life Support is implied in the stock game, so prices have been set accordingly. If a user chooses to install a life support plugin like TAC-LS, the cost is already covered.
• After looking at the current results, I've decided that an additional premium won't be necessary, since FusTek parts are intended to be high-quality but expensive parts.
• Some of the existing parts will get resource / feature buffs (e.g. increased ElectricCharge capacity)

[sumghai]

All part costs rebalanced and ready for R0.04a.

[Fusty]

Very cool. Looks great!