Do you feel cheaty using reaction wheels?

[Randazzo]

I do not feel cheaty using reaction wheels nor do I feel elitist for any of my gameplay decisions.

[Starwhip]

I use them a lot, but I don't find them cheaty, mainly because there are other options that are usually better than reaction wheels. Say, canards, or airbrakes, or RCS thrusters. (VERNOR thrusters too. )

[aleis]

Well when I get a team of 700 engineers and 500 experts to build my rockets perfectly balanced and space my rcs thruster perfectly around my center of mass,

Then I'll ask for the game to be a perfect sim until then ill take a little fudging so the game is fun

[MrWolf83]

Nope - not a cheat at all, now going into Debug and messing around in there that is cheating in a way, but it is something that the developers implemented in the game and gave users the access to in all game modes without consequences to contract completion. So, in a sense neither is that, unless you feel it in yourself you have no other option or you are just giving up and want to just win all the time and do that in this game.

[TimePeriod]

Two words:

Single - Player.

Nuff said.

[Red Iron Crown]

Two words:

Single - Player.

Nuff said.

While that's true, are we going to have all these discussions again when multiplayer arrives?

[Jouni]

Two words:

Single - Player.

Nuff said.

It's obviously possible to cheat in a non-competitive single-player game. Because you're only cheating yourself, it's up to you to decide whether it matters. If something feels cheaty, then it probably does matter.

[micha]

While that's true, are we going to have all these discussions again when multiplayer arrives?

In a multiplayer environment you either need a couple of people who are all on the same page when it comes to playing together (ie, Gentlemen's Agreements in force regarding how the gaming session should proceed), OR Squad will need to add a pretty hefty set of restrictions around the game.

Such as, no editing save files (eg, they are stored on the server, or are signed/encrypted instead of just XML); heavily restricted interface (no mods, or mods must be signed and whitelisted by the server); no debug menu; game options set and enforced by the server; all game communications encrypted and/or signed; etc etc etc.

And even then the cry of "cheat" will probably be ringing loudly around these hallowed halls.

[TimePeriod]

It's obviously possible to cheat in a non-competitive single-player game. Because you're only cheating yourself, it's up to you to decide whether it matters. If something feels cheaty, then it probably does matter.

Its only cheating if you have someone to cheat against.

Cheating against yourself in hopes of getting a competitive advantage over yourself, is just being an idiot.

Edited July 21, 2015 by TimePeriod

[Jouni]

Its only cheating if you have someone to cheat against.

Cheating against yourself is just being an idiot.

It's only real cheating, if you're cheating yourself. Cheating others just means that you're playing a different game.

[TimePeriod]

It's only real cheating, if you're cheating yourself. Cheating others just means that you're playing a different game.

The problem with that line of thought is, its a grey area. (50 shades).

There's multiple choices here really, because:

Cheating could be an introduction to modding, messing around with the part values is considered cheating but on the other hand, its also modding. Where do you draw the line on what is either?

^Must it be a concious choice, an act of randomness, a specific line of design or act of god?

It could be a clear concious choice you personally make, not playing the game like everyone dictates you should.

In the end, when you shove the thought-concept of 'cheating' back and forward, it comes down to you personally decide what cheating really is. There is no definitive answer, as what everybody else is trying to force down your throat is just their own personal opinion and not a definitive answer (This is a definitive answer: 1x2=2 / 2x1=2 / 1+1=2 / 4:2=2)

(Think of it as a matter of self-discipline rather then exterior-force discipline)

Air-hogging could be considered cheating but on the other hand, utilizing it in experimentation of SSTO's is not cheating as you are experimenting.

Excessive strutting could also be considered cheating but on the other hand, ask Whackjob.

Its all a matter of perspective, which means unless multiple people are involved in the same game you are currently playing, there will never be an answer.

The question of 'cheating' is philosophical, which has been placed in game of science, with little green men.

Occam's Razor anyone? (Maybe even Newtons Flaming Laser Sword)

Edited July 21, 2015 by TimePeriod

[katateochi]

.....and keep them stable over jumps is to stick a few reaction wheels on. It works great, but it always feels a bit of an easy way out to use the already unrealistic reaction wheels in such an unrealistic way. ....

So, a common mistake people make when jumping a vehicle IRL is to release the throttle once they leave the ground, whereupon they suddenly pitch forward and land hard on the front (in a manner most unkind the front axle and driver!).

You want to keep the revs up while airborne because.....the gyroscopic force of the spinning engine and wheels helps keep the vehicle steady in flight!

(I used to jump quad-bikes in my more foolish days, learnt this the hard way!)

Then there is the Lit Motors C1 untippable bike/car thing that stays upright with a set of 3 gyros. I couldn't find the vid of them dragging it sideways with a truck I saw over a year ago, but the little thing stays upright!

So no, I'm quite happy slapping on a couple reaction wheels onto my rovers.

[FlowerChild]

To answer the question in the title of the thread (which appears to be distinctly different from the poll topic):

Yes, I do find stock reaction wheels to be overpowered and to feel "cheaty".

I don't say that as any kind of realism argument, but rather a gameplay one. The reaction wheels minimize the use of other (more interesting) control systems like RCS, and while I suspect Squad did this to decrease the initial learning curve, it in turn creates a spike at one of the more difficult parts of learning the game, which is first docking.

IMO, learning that you have limited maneuvering capability in vacuum early on is a fairly trivial bump in the difficulty progression that would help introduce players to the use of RCS. Instead, that's postponed until later once they decide they want to attempt docking, when they already have a huge hump to get over in terms of difficulty. So, instead of learning things like balancing thrusters gradually in general play, it's all dumped on the player at once during what is likely the most difficult portion of learning to play the game.

Personally, I think that using RCS more and thus having limited maneuvering capability also makes for a more interesting game overall as you have to keep in mind the efficiency of your maneuvers rather than simply performing them willy nilly. I rarely play stock these days, but when I do (generally right after a new release), I know that the reaction wheels are one of the things that bug me the most.

[ChickenNugger429]

I believe they should be heavily nerfed. I feel "dirty" whenever I use them. They are extremely overpowered and render RCS useless for most of my missions that don't require docking manoeuvres. I feel that they could be nerfed by cutting down the amount of torque they provide, and increasing the amount of electricity they require. I think it cuts out much needed challenge in the game, that as long as I have a few dinky solar panels strapped on my several ton craft I can spin it to hell without using much electricity. To compensate for this, I see it fit that there's an implementation of more RCS nozzles/systems. Also, in relation to attitude control, it would be great to see thrust vectoring added to some of the SRBs.

[r4pt0r]

Its only cheating if you have someone to cheat against.

But that's simply wrong. A lot of single player games have cheats. GTA is famous for them.

Lowering the gravity with the console commands in half-life 2 so you can jump over whole sections of the map, is cheating for example.

[micha]

But that's simply wrong. A lot of single player games have cheats. GTA is famous for them.

Lowering the gravity with the console commands in half-life 2 so you can jump over whole sections of the map, is cheating for example.

But again, it's only cheating if you're comparing your progress with someone else who isn't using those "cheats". Otherwise you're simply modding the game experience for your own personal benefit and enjoyment.

Same with infinite lives cheats from the days of yore - sure the game may not be played the way the developer coded it, and the high score achieved in this way can only be compared against people who also played with infinite lives, but perhaps the gamer was simply not wanting to invest the time and effort needed to master the game in order to reach the higher levels, but still wanted to visit those higher levels.

It's just a matter of semantics, but really, "cheating" only makes sense if you're comparing peoples achievements. A single-person experience can never be cheating.

[CobraA1]

Reaction wheels may be a bit OP, but I'm fine with them.

What really feels cheaty is the ability to translate parts to practically any position.

[Homusubi]

No, but I never put more than two in a stack.

[Jouni]

But again, it's only cheating if you're comparing your progress with someone else who isn't using those "cheats". Otherwise you're simply modding the game experience for your own personal benefit and enjoyment.

[..]

It's just a matter of semantics, but really, "cheating" only makes sense if you're comparing peoples achievements. A single-person experience can never be cheating.

By similar reasoning, you can't really cheat in a competitive multiplayer game either. You just choose to play a metagame, where the goal is to beat the opponent by changing the rules of the game without getting caught.

[TimePeriod]

By similar reasoning, you can't really cheat in a competitive multiplayer game either. You just choose to play a metagame, where the goal is to beat the opponent by changing the rules of the game without getting caught.

Ehm no. If you find yourself in a competitive multiplayer game, you will also find yourself in a set of rules which you adhere to follow by playing the game. If you decide to cheat by not following the rules, you are a cheater.

Meta-gaming and cheating is two different concepts.

[Psycho_zs]

I find it very cheaty. Especially when all what is left of the ship is a capsule, before reentry, wich can spin up wildly just from single touch. So I usually nerf them ten times with this Module Manager config:

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleReactionWheel]]:FINAL {
    @MODULE[ModuleReactionWheel] {
        @PitchTorque *= 0.1
        @YawTorque *= 0.1
        @RollTorque *= 0.1
    }
}

This way reaction wheels are much more subtle and RCS is much more valuable.

[Jouni]

Ehm no. If you find yourself in a competitive multiplayer game, you will also find yourself in a set of rules which you adhere to follow by playing the game. If you decide to cheat by not following the rules, you are a cheater.

Meta-gaming and cheating is two different concepts.

Why?

If one player thinks that both players should follow the rules, and another thinks otherwise, what makes one opinion outweight another? Is it the designer's intent that the game should be played in a certain way? Or is it a general belief that people should adhere to the rules? How are these different between non-competitive single-player games and competitive multiplayer games?

Or is it cheating, because a player says one thing but does another? In that case, you don't need other players or an audience for cheating, because cheating is just about being dishonest.

[sal_vager]

I can't picture KSP-MP being cheaty, I think it'll be more co-operative than competitive, or at most it'll be time trial-esque, unless you're using hyperedit to put your craft somewhere or relying on a mod to fly the craft for you.

[micha]

Why?

If one player thinks that both players should follow the rules, and another thinks otherwise, what makes one opinion outweight another? Is it the designer's intent that the game should be played in a certain way? Or is it a general belief that people should adhere to the rules? How are these different between non-competitive single-player games and competitive multiplayer games?

Or is it cheating, because a player says one thing but does another? In that case, you don't need other players or an audience for cheating, because cheating is just about being dishonest.

Every public event has a set of rules (whether it's participating in society or playing a multiplayer (computer) game). You specify the rules to follow at the outset (they don't have to be what was originally laid out or designed, but they do have to be agreed upon by all participants; ditto with changing rules mid-event, it's fine as long as everybody is aware and agrees). When somebody then decides not to follow all of the rules without aforementioned agreement, then that person is cheating.

Some (groups of/cultures of) people consider cheating to be "part of the game" and even applaud it if done successfully. But only because it's accepted and expected doesn't mean it's not cheating.

In a single-player event whenever you change the rules you are implicitly doing so with the full agreement of all participants (ie, yourself). Hence it's not possible to cheat.

[Jouni]

Every public event has a set of rules (whether it's participating in society or playing a multiplayer (computer) game). You specify the rules to follow at the outset (they don't have to be what was originally laid out or designed, but they do have to be agreed upon by all participants; ditto with changing rules mid-event, it's fine as long as everybody is aware and agrees). When somebody then decides not to follow all of the rules without aforementioned agreement, then that person is cheating.

You didn't answer to the question. Why is that cheating? Is it because others have agreed to a certain set of rules? Or is it because the cheater pretends to agree to the rules, but chooses to break them instead? Both reasons can apply to cheating in non-competitive single-player games as well.

In a single-player event whenever you change the rules you are implicitly doing so with the full agreement of all participants (ie, yourself). Hence it's not possible to cheat.

If you think that it's impossible to cheat oneself, you're cheating yourself right now.