0.23.5 complaining?

[TheFactory]

Merlin 1C

480kN TWR (96:1)

275 Atmo/305 Vac ISP

Merlin 1D

620kN TWR (150:1)

282 Atmo/311 Vac ISP

Doing the math, the Merlin 1D is smaller than the 1C, but gets a lot more thrust and slightly better ISP. Basically just what you're complaining about here. I guess we should stop using the Merlin 1D immediately, then. Silly SpaceX, trying to make progress!

Lol! Too true!

Honestly, it feels like the average age on here is 12 with all the complaining. Why is it an issue that its easier to launch things now? Its more realistic and just god damn nicer to play. The launch shouldn't be the most challenging part of the game.

Also while im here, it seems like there is alot of complaining due to people thinking this is a simulator? Its clearly not so why do some people moan about these sort of things? Just get on with it and enjoy the game!

[Kodiak42]

There are some who think that they need a certain bar that separates them from other players, and make them the unique "snowflakes" of players. This same thing happened at .23 when RAPIERS came out many complained that it made SSTO's too easy, and the engines were "overpowered'. It will happen more and more as the game develops sadly, and the forums will have more negative posts that things are either overpowered or not as good as, in the players mind who has never developed game in their life, could be to them.

Ticked off people are more likely to complain than satisfied people, please keep this in mind.

Quite frankly, I see the new engines as a tradeoff: You get an engine that's better on paper, but still not as versatile as the mainsail. Pointing out how this engine completely outclasses the mainsail is like pointing out how the new five meter cluster engine completely outclasses the single five meter engine. You say the stats put the new engines high above the mainsails because their numbers look better on the screen, this is true when on the launchpad, but the mainsail is still more usable as a launch-from-lander-lifter (i.e., getting off of eve, duna, laythe, tylo, or some other planet). As with the RAPIER engines, yes, they were best for SSTO's, but they were also the worst at everything else.

[Rakaydos]

Let me see if I have this clear. Your issue is that people can accomplish tasks more easily now than they could before? So effectively what you're taking issue with is that it was harder in the past and is easier now, therefore people can do the same things you did in the past without that kind of trouble you had and it makes you upset? Have I got about the right measure of this, or is there something else you're trying to say here?

My issue is that tasks are accomplished EXACTLY THE SAME now, no matter what the objective is. Want to bring an asteroid back? SLS parts. Want to land on the Mun? SLS parts. Want to land on Moho? SLS parts, the whole way. Same goes for Tylo. Heck, throw a kethane miner on it, and you can probaby build a ship capable of a grand tour, including eve landing and return!

Before, there were enginneering limitations that prevented this spammyness. Moho needed a huge transfer stage to reach orbit, and had not-insignificant gravity. Tylo needs kerbin ascent engins just to land safely, and there's no parashutes on it. Laythe allows some of the most efficent engines in the game to operate there, but you have to GET them there, first.

[Comrade Jenkens]

Doing the math, the Merlin 1D is smaller than the 1C, but gets a lot more thrust and slightly better ISP. Basically just what you're complaining about here. I guess we should stop using the Merlin 1D immediately, then. Silly SpaceX, trying to make progress!

By that argument if the devs give us an engine with 10,000kN of thrust and 1000 ISP its all good then?

[SkyRender]

My issue is that tasks are accomplished EXACTLY THE SAME now, no matter what the objective is. Want to bring an asteroid back? SLS parts. Want to land on the Mun? SLS parts. Want to land on Moho? SLS parts, the whole way. Same goes for Tylo. Heck, throw a kethane miner on it, and you can probaby build a ship capable of a grand tour, including eve landing and return!

Before, there were enginneering limitations that prevented this spammyness. Moho needed a huge transfer stage to reach orbit, and had not-insignificant gravity. Tylo needs kerbin ascent engins just to land safely, and there's no parashutes on it. Laythe allows some of the most efficent engines in the game to operate there, but you have to GET them there, first.

Okay, so your issue is that there is an optimal solution, which incidentally you have absolutely zero obligation to use? That sounds more like an issue of personal willpower than it does anything else. If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple solution, perfect results, doesn't force everyone else to play exactly the way you do. Where do you take issue with this idea, exactly?

By that argument if the devs give us an engine with 10,000kN of thrust and 1000 ISP its all good then?

Trying to reducto-ad-absurdium an argument with something that has no real context is a bit silly, wouldn't you agree? My point was that SpaceX has already made improvements very in line with what we're seeing with the Kerbodyne parts in 0.23.5. Your "argument" is that this will somehow go into the realm of absolute absurdity as a result of loosening restrictions of gameplay from "one standard only". Not a lot of sense, in short.

Edited April 5, 2014 by SkyRender

[Rakaydos]

Trying to reducto-ad-absurdium an argument with something that has no real context is a bit silly, wouldn't you agree? My point was that SpaceX has already made improvements very in line with what we're seeing with the Kerbodyne parts in 0.23.5. Your "argument" is that this will somehow go into the realm of absolute absurdity as a result of loosening restrictions of gameplay from "one standard only". Not a lot of sense, in short.

But you have no obligation to use it! why care if it gets implemented?

[Javster]

Career mode is almost a tutorial for new players, otherwise it would have plane parts nearer the beginning, so you could fly planes around Kerbin for science.

[SkyRender]

But you have no obligation to use it! why care if it gets implemented?

I wouldn't really care if that were implemented, to be honest, though outside of mods it's unlikely to ever manifest. Unlike some, I don't feel threatened by the existence of parts or features in a game which I don't have any personal interest in. I simply exercise this wonderful human trait called "willpower" and do not use whatever it is that I don't particularly want or care about. It's a fantastic solution that costs you nothing and does nothing to harm anyone else's experience either.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Hey, MalfunctionM1Ke, I am sorry to tell you that you are making the exact same useless arguments that people made when the 2m parts came out. You could previously get to any planet without a hassle with 1m parts. 2m parts allowed us to get larger things to those same planets with less of a hassle. The new 3m parts are in line with that same progression. Maybe you just aren't thinking big enough? You can, by all means, launch the same old landers with less of the newer parts. OR, you can build larger landers and habitats then you ever could have before, and get them to planets without needing 1200 parts to do it.

You can play KSP either way, but don't think because you aren't using the new parts to their maximum that it somehow makes them OP. I can SSTO a FL-T800 with an LV-909 and a control chair. Does that make them OP?

Edit:

Career mode will (hopefully) be the pressure that forces people to learn those things when the combination of unlocking the tech tree and part costs are both factored in.

You know what Ziff,

I think this discussing isn't leading us anywhere because the ways we play and understand this game are way to different.

In the beginning I was saying that I feel a bit odd about the new parts and I tried to explain why I do so.

Now I have to read that I am pointing out "useless arguments".

Maybe Squad should shut down the Forums, seems like constructive criticism isn't welcome in the community.

[SkyRender]

You know what Ziff,

I think this discussing isn't leading us anywhere because the ways we play and understand this game are way to different.

In the beginning I was saying that I feel a bit odd about the new parts and I tried to explain why I do so.

Now I have to read that I am pointing out "useless arguments".

Maybe Squad should shut down the Forums, seems like constructive criticism isn't welcome in the community.

There's not much constructive about "this part is better than other parts and therefore should be removed"... If you don't like it, don't use it; nobody is twisting your arm and making you, after all.

[Red Iron Crown]

There's not much constructive about "this part is better than other parts and therefore should be removed"... If you don't like it, don't use it; nobody is twisting your arm and making you, after all.

I'd have to spin that around on you. It is constructive to say "I don't think the new parts are balanced well with the rest of the game, here's what I think they should be." It is not constructive to say "Don't like it? Don't use it. You just lack willpower."

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

There's not much constructive about "this part is better than other parts and therefore should be removed"... If you don't like it, don't use it; nobody is twisting your arm and making you, after all.

I did never say such a Thing.

Maybe you should read my earlier post, before you go ahead speedposting.

[SkyRender]

I'd have to spin that around on you. It is constructive to say "I don't think the new parts are balanced well with the rest of the game, here's what I think they should be." It is not constructive to say "Don't like it? Don't use it. You just lack willpower."

It's a perfectly valid argument, however. These new parts are optional, and complaining of their existence is pointless. Were this a competitive title, wherein your accomplishments held merit, then I could see complaining about "unbalanced" parts. But it is not competitive. You are not bound to any sort of contract to make use of anything within the game. Declaring that you want something nerfed or removed simply because it is outside of your comfort zone of what you see to be "balanced" is childish. Progress is inevitable, and superior alternatives do in fact come into existence all the time in real life as well as in games. Progress is good, and I do not see any valid argument for saying that we should forbid it.

[Red Iron Crown]

It's a perfectly valid argument, however. These new parts are optional, and complaining of their existence is pointless. Were this a competitive title, wherein your accomplishments held merit, then I could see complaining about "unbalanced" parts. But it is not competitive. You are not bound to any sort of contract to make use of anything within the game. Declaring that you want something nerfed or removed simply because it is outside of your comfort zone of what you see to be "balanced" is childish. Progress is inevitable, and superior alternatives do in fact come into existence all the time in real life as well as in games. Progress is good, and I do not see any valid argument for saying that we should forbid it.

Valid or not, it adds nothing to the conversation. People giving feedback on the new parts obviously want to use them and want them to be balanced in some way, and are expressing their opinion on how they think the game can be improved. Telling those people "Don't like it? Don't use it." adds nothing to that conversation.

Make a counterargument about how the parts are balanced in your mind, or why career mode balance is more important than sandbox balance in gameplay terms. Don't just dismiss people's opinions just because you disagree with them, that's childish.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Red Iron Crown
Grammar

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

I am out of this thread.

Dont get me wrong, I really enjoy to discuss something to the death but this Thread is just rising grief on each other.

My Intention was to Point out why (not "that") I feel confused about the new parts.

I never said that I dont like them, nor that I want them to be nerfed or removed.

[SkyRender]

Valid or not, it adds nothing to the conversation. People giving feedback on the new parts obviously want to use them and want them to be balanced in some way are expressing their opinion on how they think the game can be improved. Telling those people "Don't like it? Don't use it." adds nothing to that conversation.

Make a counterargument about how the parts are balanced in your mind, or why career mode balance is more important than sandbox balance in gameplay terms. Don't just dismiss people's opinions just because you disagree with them, that's childish.

I've already made my argument in another thread, but for simplicity's sake, I'll make it again here: Career and Sandbox are supposed to be distinct, with Career mode giving you a gradual progression and Sandbox giving you full access to everything at your discretion. By "balancing" Sandbox mode and making everything equivalent, you nerf Career mode's potential by having zero incentive to actually advance in technology. As it is, you can unlock parts that let you easily access any location in the entire game with well under 2000 science in Career mode, because that's all it takes to unlock the first tier of 2M parts. There isn't really any "point" in progressing further than that in Career mode right now, because everything is "balanced" for Sandbox mode. But Sandbox mode does not need to be balanced, because it's Sandbox mode. By definition, it is supposed to give you ready access to everything. And as I said in that other topic, balancing Sandbox would be as pointless as balancing every grain of sand in an actual sandbox and defeat the purpose of the mode completely.

[Red Iron Crown]

I've already made my argument in another thread, but for simplicity's sake, I'll make it again here: Career and Sandbox are supposed to be distinct, with Career mode giving you a gradual progression and Sandbox giving you full access to everything at your discretion. By "balancing" Sandbox mode and making everything equivalent, you nerf Career mode's potential by having zero incentive to actually advance in technology. As it is, you can unlock parts that let you easily access any location in the entire game with well under 2000 science in Career mode, because that's all it takes to unlock the first tier of 2M parts. There isn't really any "point" in progressing further than that in Career mode right now, because everything is "balanced" for Sandbox mode. But Sandbox mode does not need to be balanced, because it's Sandbox mode. By definition, it is supposed to give you ready access to everything. And as I said in that other topic, balancing Sandbox would be as pointless as balancing every grain of sand in an actual sandbox and defeat the purpose of the mode completely.

Thanks, that's a much more useful post.

Before career mode existed, there was only sandbox. Yet there was still endless debate about the balance of new parts when they were introduced. So obviously balance in sandbox is a real thing that matters to some players.

I think it might be possible to have progression in career without strictly better parts. If all parts fall on the same TWR vs Isp curve, have the middle of the curve parts exposed first (the general purpose parts), then have the parts closer to the ends of the curve exposed gradually after that (the specialist parts). The higher TWR/lower Isp parts will enable bigger payloads into orbit, while the lower TWR/higher Isp parts will allow delta-V improvements on orbital craft. Yet all those engines would be balanced in sandbox mode.

Plus, it is also possible to have progression in the types of parts unlocked. Not having docking ports available limits the early game in some ways, same with solar panels, jet engines, or RCS systems. Unlocking those systems creates progression for the career player while not breaking balance for the sandbox player.

All this is just IMHO, and maybe there are flaws in it that I'm missing, which is why I started the career vs sandbox balance thread.

[SkyRender]

I can see where you're coming from, but I have a bit of a different perspective (unsurprisingly, huh?). My own take is, we wanted a balance in Sandbox because we didn't have a mode where balance was to be the focus just yet. Before Career mode existed, basically, Sandbox was our Career mode. I should know, I was one of those people who came up with a pseudo-Career mode challenge back in the day that gave the player goals, limits, and progression. Now that Career mode gives us that, it makes sense to me to let Sandbox be what it's supposed to be, an open experience without constraints on the player.

[The Destroyer]

I like it. I mean, sure, it might be a lot more powerful, but this expands our payload capacity by a lot.

Mainsails and skippers still have their roles- landing large crafts? The liquid boosters... hmm. Maybe skippers when liquid boosters are overkill or too tall?

Edited April 5, 2014 by The Destroyer

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

I like it. I mean, sure, it might be a lot more powerful, but this expands our payload capacity by a lot!

Exactly my opinion

[Superfluous J]

By that argument if the devs give us an engine with 10,000kN of thrust and 1000 ISP its all good then?

This is as reasonable an argument as "Maybe we should make all engines have 1kN of thrust and 1 Isp. Would you complain then?"

I'd have to spin that around on you. It is constructive to say "I don't think the new parts are balanced well with the rest of the game, here's what I think they should be." It is not constructive to say "Don't like it? Don't use it. You just lack willpower."

The problem is a lot of people are NOT saying that. Most people in this forum are not saying "I've looked over the engines and believe that bladdidy blah yadda yadda here's my spreadsheet, thought process, and reasoning." They're saying "OMG Squad ruined the game OP OP OP."

I am directing my ire at that second set of people, and am interested and engaged with the first set. I do not personally agree that the engines need balanced, but I am intrigued by the argument posed where there was a graph that showed exactly how much better the new engines were than current engines.

I guess one of the big problems is, if 0.24 comes out and these engines (and the 48-7S) got nerfed a bit, I wouldn't mind that either. As long as they're within a fairly wide range of usability, I'm pretty much cool with it. What I'm NOT cool with is the fact that if Squad did that, a similar number of people would come on the forums sceaming "OMG Squad ruined the game I can't even reach orbit now!"

[Red Iron Crown]

I think there are people on both sides of the debate who are adding nothing to the discussion in one way or another. There does seem to be a lot of noise compared to signal.

[TMS]

Balance should be one of the last steps in game development. When the game is "scope complete" and all of the game features are implemented, then the devs should start evaluating part balance, because that's the only time they'll have the tools in place to actually balance the parts. I've got more thoughts on this, but I'm keeping any theses out of these forum posts.

Occasionally, "the game is in development" actually is avalid response to these issues. This is one of those times.

Yup.

/thread

[xcorps]

By "balancing" Sandbox mode and making everything equivalent, you nerf Career mode's potential by having zero incentive to actually advance in technology.

Aren't the disputed engines at the end of the tech tree?

[Hodo]

Ask

Complain

Rage

Acceptance

*Rinse and Repeat*

This is the nature of customer service and sales.