What does "OP-ness" mean?

[LaissezPasser]

I've come across multiple threads (e.g. here, here, here, here, or here) that use the term "OP-ness". What does this mean?

All I can glean is that it seems to carry a derogatory connotation, especially towards something new. For example: 

(1) For one, many people do not like the OP-ness of the new Kerbodyne parts, which is funny, because the tank you are quoting is actually worse than the Jumbo. 

(2) I feel like survivability (on the part of Kerbals) would be an interesting nerf to the OP-ness of the airbrakes. Yeah great you killed 2000 m/s of velocity in 5 seconds but Jeb is now dead because 40 g's turned him into jelly.

(3) Oh I've had USI for a while, don't worry I just never thought about it balancing out a science lab's overall OP-ness.

Thanks in advance for clarifying this.

[Snark]

Hello, and welcome to the forums! 

12 minutes ago, LaissezPasser said:

What does this mean?

In this context, "OP" = "over-powered", i.e. "too 'good', so that it upsets game balance."

The other common usage of "OP" is "original post", i.e. the first post in a thread, but in the this context, it's "over-powered."

[Hotaru]

It might be worth updating the forum's hint text for "OP" to reflect both possible meanings, seeing as the "overpowered" meaning is at least as common as the "original post(er)" one, and possibly less obvious to someone familiar with internet forums but not video game lingo.

[Urses]

OP as original post/poster is more Kerbal unic i think.

OP as owerpowered is more nerd/geak talk

@LaissezPasser

Welcome in the Family and have a great time. And like Snark said in your context it's the overpower meaning.

You can mostly decide wich meaning it has by looking if it is used to describe something like "it is way to OP" or as a target nomen "on OP, did you...".

And you found the wisest option/thumb up/ if in concern ask

Funny Kabooms 

Urses 

[dangerhamster]

If I see OP on this forum I assume it's original poster. Unless the discussion refers to mods.

On something like the World of Warships forum I assume it's overpowered. Usually followed by OMGPLZNERF because all caps must be taken seriously.

 

 

[MinimalMinmus]

A rarer variant is "UP" for "LV-30" "Underpowered".

[Red Iron Crown]

On 4/15/2017 at 5:56 AM, Hotaru said:

It might be worth updating the forum's hint text for "OP" to reflect both possible meanings, seeing as the "overpowered" meaning is at least as common as the "original post(er)" one, and possibly less obvious to someone familiar with internet forums but not video game lingo.

Done, but it only seems to affect new posts rather than retroactively applying to old ones. OP.

[suicidejunkie]

On 4/16/2017 at 11:24 AM, MinimalMinmus said:

A rarer variant is "UP" for "LV-30" "Underpowered".

I swapped to Whiplash + Reliant and added oxidizer to the fuel tanks... and my SSTO plane still SSTOs.

LV30 isn't underpowered; all the other engines are simply more OP.

[SpacedCowboy]

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 11:24 AM, MinimalMinmus said:

A rarer variant is "UP" for "LV-30" "Underpowered".

Being from Michigan, all it means to me is "Upper Peninsula".

[MinimalMinmus]

5 hours ago, suicidejunkie said:

I swapped to Whiplash + Reliant and added oxidizer to the fuel tanks... and my SSTO plane still SSTOs.

LV30 isn't underpowered; all the other engines are simply more OP.

This gives me an idea for re-balancing the whole, with a distinc "tech" feel:

When you researtch "precision propulsion", the three 1.25m are changed:

-The Reliant gets 3° of gimbal, just like the Swivel

-The Swivel gets lighter, from 1,5 tons to 1 ton, improving its TWR and allowing it to actually be used as a mid-stage engine

-The Terrier gets a 3ec/s alternator

[cantab]

The Reliant's not bad for a 1.25m engine. More thrust and similar TWR to the aerospike, and significantly better TWR than the Swivel. Isp is a bit lousy and no gimbal requires designing for. And of course it's nothing compared to the Vector but everything is nothing compared to the Vector.

[Reusables]

2 hours ago, cantab said:

The Reliant's not bad for a 1.25m engine. More thrust and similar TWR to the aerospike, and significantly better TWR than the Swivel.

Can't agree more. It nullifies use of Aerospike on career as atmospheric engine. (It's significantly cheaper than Aerospike, and has better atmospheric TWR)

I rather think that Swivel needs some redesign. (Especially the weight; It's 0.25t heavier and has 40kN less thrust)

Edited April 18, 2017 by Reusables

[pincushionman]

15 hours ago, SpacedCowboy said:

Being from Michigan, all it means to me is "Upper Peninsula".

In the same context, "troll" also has a completely different meaning on the forum  than it does back home. Ain't jargon fun?

[Fearless Son]

14 hours ago, Abastro said:

Can't agree more. It nullifies use of Aerospike on career as atmospheric engine. (It's significantly cheaper than Aerospike, and has better atmospheric TWR)

I rather think that Swivel needs some redesign. (Especially the weight; It's 0.25t heavier and has 40kN less thrust)

I would be okay if the Swivel had better gimbling for that cost, weight, and thrust.  The Reliant is great as a LF/O booster engine (good TWR and inexpensive) but there are control advantages to having the main lifting engine be capable of vectored thrust to adjust for perturbations or slight aerodynamic imbalances during the lower ascent.