Sign in to follow this  
NASAFanboy

I don't understand the fuss behind ARM

Recommended Posts

I think the solution is rather simple.

Squad releases two ARM's, one normal, one "balanced".

This why, you don't have to take away the capability from players who like to dream big and don't care as much about rocket design as the payload or dislike asparagus due to aesthetic tastes (Me), and players who want a challenge to getting their massive payloads into orbit can get themselves sastified.

Squad could get a volunteer community member who will edit the .cfg files to whatever they wish for every update. They wouldn't need pay, since the honor of doing it would most certainly me enough (Especially for me; not in anyway a self promotion :P).

Thus, a simple solution.

No need to argue over it and get nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squad has stated in the past that they don't want to divide the community which is why we don't have random solar systems, I'm not sure if this would apply here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was in a Squadcast. They weren't sure how many people would actually bother to get ARM if it was a separate addon, and it would require extra testing with every new update to support two versions.

Edit: none of this is relevant anyway since this "volunteer community" to support a separate version is essentially the mod community.

Edited by SpaceGremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the "logic" of people complaining, reason being:

How on earth can you claim the new engines/parts are OP, but at the same time post pictures of your HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE 20+ orange tank rockets? I mean, if you're complaining about realism and stuff, you should also ask Squad to remove the ability to create large rockets with conventional parts. If you want that, start a thread and see how well that goes :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand the fuss behind ARM

I don't understand it either. The game is delivered as is and devs are making it the way they like it. You may either play it how it was meant to be played by devs, or make a mod that will change things to suit your liking.

The whole rest of the debate is about "I don't like that other people may be playing differently than I want them to play".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you object if Squad added in an engine that had an ISP of 1000 and a thrust of 5000? Or would you just accept it and say, well that's how they ment it to be. Kasuha, doesn't your argument go against the point of the suggestions page?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because now we can create even huger rockets even easier?

A lot of KSPers don't like to spend hours trying to build a launcher.

We prefer to our hours on the payload, thank you very much, and we don't want our capabilities suspended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you object if Squad added in an engine that had an ISP of 1000 and a thrust of 5000?

But they haven't. SLS is nowhere near this strawman-level of overpoweredness... indeed they're not the game breakers the sackcloth & ashes brigade is making them out to be. They're useful for heavy lift, which is what you want for an asteroid redirection mission, but I haven't suddenly found the rest of my fleet obsolete. I'm still using Mainsails and LV-T45s and aerospikes, a lot actually.

(If anything, it's the stronger joints that make things so much easier for me with so many fewer struts... but I'm not complaining about that, nosiree...)

-- Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The condescending people complaining about the complainers are just as annoying. The game is in development and we're supposed to give feedback, not to sit down and play without questioning anything as if Squad is some know-it-all deity.

The whole rest of the debate is about "I don't like that other people may be playing differently than I want them to play".

Nobody is trying to curb anyone's game style, try to argue back without strawmans please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that it was a major over statement but my point is if it was added would you care like we care about the new engines? That is my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of KSPers don't like to spend hours trying to build a launcher.

We prefer to our hours on the payload, thank you very much, and we don't want our capabilities suspended.

Not talking suspending, the improved joint strength alone helps enormously, just talking bringing them back into the balance curve. You will still be able to launch massive payloads.

If you make it too easy you may as well use hyper edit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But they haven't. SLS is nowhere near this strawman-level of overpoweredness... indeed they're not the game breakers the sackcloth & ashes brigade is making them out to be. They're useful for heavy lift, which is what you want for an asteroid redirection mission, but I haven't suddenly found the rest of my fleet obsolete. I'm still using Mainsails and LV-T45s and aerospikes, a lot actually.

Why are you still using mainsails? Honestly curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you still using mainsails? Honestly curious.

If I'm not lifting much more than a single Jumbo orange tank, then going to the LFBs is overkill with its added fuel. I have some light crew exchange vehicles that don't need anything more... so in those cases Mainsails (for which they were designed) make sense.

(I suppose I could switch to LFBs for my refuelling missions, but the current arrangement works fine and I don't see the need to change them up.)

-- Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody is trying to curb anyone's game style, try to argue back without strawmans please.

"Devs should change it" is exactly that kind of saying "I'm not happy with it so devs should change things my way to make everyone play the way I want". And I've seen number of such posts in recent discussion on the topic. So where's the strawman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't really have a major problem with the new parts per se, I'm actually pretty happy that I no longer need to use Asparagus staging every time I plan a refuelling trip, that said however, I do not feel that being able to carry two orange fuel tanks with a payload and 6 nuclear engines all topped off with 3 of the largest new fuel tanks on a single main engine should be possible. I haven't got a clue how well they match up with their real life counterparts performance wise, but the new engine that takes the place of the mainsail certainly does feel like it could be overpowered, maybe even quite heavily.

The reason this doesn't really bother me though is because I generally don't build a ship beyond it's means, so I don't tend to look at using any of the larger parts unless I'm sending a huge payload interstellar, which is practically never for me. My playstyle just limits my use of them and I don't really know enough to point realise if they are OP or how much, but something does feel off about the weight they can lift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize everyone is allowed their own opinion but let me ask this, the 'anti' crowd has provided charts, measurements and statistics to show why they think they are overpowered and should be changed. Heck, stupid_chris has done most the heavy lifting, even to go so far as to provide a basic module manager patch to demonstrate said changes.

The 'pro' crowd simply says, "We like them!" and uses strawman arguments to justify their position. And, Kashua, explain how making changes to align these engines somewhere along the linear progression curve the other engines tentatively follow would ruin your fun. Explain that. Describe in detail, like the anti crowd has, how making the variously proposed adjustments would ruin the game for you. These supposed changes are your boogeyman, and you use that as a defense against making changes. That is a strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Devs should change it" is exactly that kind of saying "I'm not happy with it so devs should change things my way to make everyone play the way I want". And I've seen number of such posts in recent discussion on the topic. So where's the strawman?

The strawman, as I see is, is that the argument that you said "The whole rest of the debate is about "I don't like that other people may be playing differently than I want them to play". Implies that we don't like that people play differently than us, and that's the only reason we are creating such a stink as it were. And how does what you are saying not also say the suggestions page is just people trying to get people to play their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why everyone is complaining. Personally, I'm, reserving judgment until a budget is implemented. If the SLS parts are too cheap/OP, then I will engage in negative discourse. Until then, I will enjoy building rockets that actually look like rockets, thanks to the SLS parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure why everyone is complaining. Personally, I'm, reserving judgment until a budget is implemented. If the SLS parts are too cheap/OP, then I will engage in negative discourse. Until then, I will enjoy building rockets that actually look like rockets, thanks to the SLS parts.

Then the question is what about sandbox? Which is already been discussed here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75332-Can-both-Career-Mode-and-Sandbox-Mode-be-balanced-simultaneously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how something can be OP in a gamemode that has no goal. It is a mode to do whatever you want, including not using the SLS parts. However, I do understand that they very much simplify launchers. I wouldn't be surprised if Squad did nerf the parts, but I imagine it won't be by a lot.

I think the main issue behind why the SLS parts are considered OP is that, while they can carry huge payloads, we just don't have that much stuff to put on top. Yes, we could split an interplanetary rocket into 2 parts, instead of 3 or 4, to be assembled is space, but that isn't enough of an increase in weight to justify the sls performance. If new content, 2 or3.75m science lab and materials bay or other parts, with an increase in mass proportional to the SLS parts' increase in performance, this issue could be remedied. Basically, we don't have heavy enough content for the SLS parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Devs should change it" is exactly that kind of saying "I'm not happy with it so devs should change things my way to make everyone play the way I want". And I've seen number of such posts in recent discussion on the topic. So where's the strawman?

And that's called giving feedback, every time you give feedback you're suggesting a change one way or another, even if the suggestion for a change isn't explicit. That we're trying to force players is a strawman and a cheap argument, because ANY change in the game, no matter how, is going to affect somebody play style one way or another, with that line of thought then there's nothing you can suggest that won't be forced to somebody.

Besides balancing the engines is not reducing their lifting capability, people is going to be able to do the same things as before.

Edited by KasperVld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't OP relative to any goal, it's OP compared to the other engines that exist in the game. They aren't only superior in TWR, but also ISP. There isn't any balance with them, take the LV-N, high ISP, but low TWR. Main sail, high TWR, low ISP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this