Sign in to follow this  
NASAFanboy

I don't understand the fuss behind ARM

Recommended Posts

The game loses the value of the feeling of accomplishment when things are made too easy.

Exactly.

In fact, that Singel-Stage-To-Laythe craft was thrown together and piloted there in a little under 30 minutes. I can't help but feel a little cheated by how easy that was.

I would also like to paraphrase the devs when they were asked about why the LV-N has significantly lower TWR than its real life counterpart (NERVA). The reason being that the devs didn't want that engine to be the best engine for all purposes, maintaining gameplay balance. I would like to ask, how is a rebalanceing of the the ARM engines any different?

Edited by SofusRud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're joking right?

We aren't allowed to use rhetorical statements in a lively debate for the betterment of a game?

Like... really?

Wow...

yeah, not joking. However, I can't discuss it further in the forums without violating other forum rules, specifically 3.4 "We do not allow open discussion of staff decisions".

I agree that things should not be too easy. The challenge is a primary part of the fun. Allowing players to individually tune their preference would be something that would be great to see in stock in a manner similar to the X-Com second wave options, but as the moderator pointed out above, it's up to game mods and their ongoing, unpaid support to make that happen.

Edited by LethalDose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just sick this whole issue. Sandbox is not supposed to be balanced, it's sandbox mode. Balancing it would be like saying Minecraft needs to balance creative mode.

All the balance will come in career, parts that are extremely powerful are going to be hard to unlock or incredibly expensive. I expect all the SLS parts to be at the end of the tree, and I expect the grabber to come sooner but cost so much that you would only use one if you absolutely needed to.

Share this post


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

For lifting mid sized payloads they're still the best. And when budget comes around for career then lifting a 250kg satellite with a 1000 ton launcher to LKO will no longer be an option. (Yes I have done this :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I just don't get it, this 'debate' had people on both sides of the question of the new parts. There was lively discussion about how you shouldn't have higher performance without some sort of cost, yet no one pointed out that these nice new big tanks that they have given us with these allegedly over-performing engines have a lower mass ratio (8.2 vs 9) than the standard tanks we had. I find that as significant a difference as a 15 to 20 second increase in ISP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, I just don't get it, this 'debate' had people on both sides of the question of the new parts. There was lively discussion about how you shouldn't have higher performance without some sort of cost, yet no one pointed out that these nice new big tanks that they have given us with these allegedly over-performing engines have a lower mass ratio (8.2 vs 9) than the standard tanks we had. I find that as significant a difference as a 15 to 20 second increase in ISP.

Taken from the theory vs practice thread (fuel tanks matching the engine sizes were used as much as possible):

Engine		TWR	Payload	Total	%	dV Remaining

Skipper 1.57 0.45 42.14 1.0679 896
Mainsail 1.57 1.1 97.1 1.1328 1064
KS-25x4 1.59 2.38 205.63 1.1574 1680
KR-1x2 1.58 1.5 129 1.1628 1899
KR-2L 1.58 1.9 160.9 1.1808 1969

The tank issue also doesn't apply to the KR-1x2 which is 2.5m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of fuss about the balance of the parts in ARM and I personally think that the engines are slightly OP. However in my own game I've simply changed the config of the parts to bring them to how I would like them.

Has anyone else done this as well and what have you changed things too?

Edit: Eh my thread got merged. :P

Edited by Comrade Jenkens
We have far too many ARM threads, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why one thing should or shouldn't be possible in Kerbal's universe ?

Is it really possible that such elongated brainy humanoids with tiny body and legs/arms can go to space either ?

KSP IS NOT a strict simulation after all, fortunately for us (I don't think having to plan carefully every tiny piece of detail of a mission, staying weeks behind the computer, in real time, without any saving features would be so fun !)

Sure, but the "KSP doesn't need to be realistic" can be applied so generally (let's remove orbits! little green men might not have them!) that it's not particularly useful.

snip

Why do the devs update the game then? After all, if there is no best way to play the game, then how could being able to retrieve asteroids or being able to use maneuver nodes be better than not?

Edited by Holo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There has been a lot of fuss about the balance of the parts in ARM and I personally think that the engines are slightly OP. However in my own game I've simply changed the config of the parts to bring them to how I would like them.

Has anyone else done this as well and what have you changed things too?

Edit: Eh my thread got merged. :P

I use Stupidchris's mod. In addition to therevision of the SLS parts, it also buffs underperforming engines like the Poodle and the RM 55.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75272-0-23-x-Stock-Rebalance-Project-v1-1-6-04-14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...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)...

Tall, thin rockets are really ugly, hard to fly and inefficient. This must be true because I've seen one that is ugly, hard to fly and inefficient.

Apart from the amazing number of ARM threads, I find "asparagus is ugly" annoying (I note you don't, credit to you) because I have to keep going back to the VAB and reassuring all my launch vehicles that it's not about them, people are just not thinking when they say hateful and hurtful things. Yes, I use asparagus and, yes, I make sure they are 'pleasant', except when a particular design is there to make the opposite point.

[*Tongue in cheek*, please don't take this personally (or even terribly seriously)] I don't understand why some people can't build aesthetically pleasing asparagus-staged rockets. I think the solution is rather simple - don't use more than two or three stages of the same size.

Back on topic:

The performance improvements in 0.23.5 are outstanding. I'm hoping for a nerf on the parts but only for balance - they should still be the biggest, baddest, tools in the box (until the next ones come along). Having now spent some time re-designing with them in mind I've really started to **appreciate the reduction in building-time and part-count**, which is not what I originally said a week ago. OP as they are they have their place and it's not usually a place I go anyway (mainsails are too inefficient to have any place in my designs). Haven't nailed-down the numbers yet - grateful if someone does - but I'm finding they come into their own starting around 60t to LKO or 40t HKO. Since I almost never launch more than an orange tube with trimmings (c40t) in one chunk I'm only marginally affected by the new parts either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If something is too easy, then I'm all for nerfing the engines: you don't want to be saying:

"Look, I've landed on Eeloo!"

"Meh, it's not hard, you just need 2 engines and a fuel tank."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

128 ton payload delivered in orbit, now land back on KSC,

ABaHurW.png

(Payload is an spacedock for orbital construction, 128 ton is dry weight)

Test of an 7 man SSTO, not qualified for more than 3 until I done abort and splashdown testing of the hitchhiker, so in SpaceX style I combine actual missions with qualifications.

UizvqzJ.png

Landing, Found only Bob should go to the mothership so I landed again.

fSYRjyP.png

130 ton SSTO in background. I have an 20 ton one who is bacicaly one of the stacks in the 120 ton one, the crew version can also be used for 6-8 ton cargo.

An SSTO with yet an layer outside the 6 in the 130 ton SSTO, could put more than 200 ton in LKO, problem is the lack of missions.

Edited by magnemoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If something is too easy, then I'm all for nerfing the engines: you don't want to be saying:

"Look, I've landed on Eeloo!"

"Meh, it's not hard, you just need 2 engines and a fuel tank."

Landing on Eeloo is easy, thanks to nuclear engines, which still have more than twice the ISP of any of the new parts. Nuclear Engine lander won't have any trouble. While it takes crazy amount of time to get there, There is nothing hard about it.

Coming back from Eve now that's a challenge. Still if craft not too heavy - aerospike and wings will do better than any of the new parts.

Tylo is pretty tough nut as well. Lots of fuel to get there to begin with. Jool moon missions are pretty demanding in general.

Only thing the new parts make easier, is getting things to orbit, so less docking requred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do the devs update the game then? After all, if there is no best way to play the game, then how could being able to retrieve asteroids or being able to use maneuver nodes be better than not?

It is not your game. It is not our game. It is SQUADS game. Their vision of Kerbal Space Program vastly exceeds what we currently do with the game. When EVA's were implemented in 0.16 many people were excited to be able to rescue stranded Kerbals. However, a lot of people were angry because they had wanted docking instead. Docking was right around the corner, but docking without EVA's was pointless because you wouldn't have been able to transfer crews. EVA's and Docking are wonderful together now that both features are implemented.

We don't know exactly what is coming next, Squad does. While the new engines and fuel tanks may somehow seem OP right now (I don't believe they are OP, I just think they represent the Kerbals advancement in rocketry.) there are other features and updates that will balance these out in accordance with what Squad wants. Right now this is how they want it. As always, you are free to mod the game to your liking. You can make it easier for yourself, or more difficult. That is the beauty of a single player game where you decide how to entertain yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Docking was right around the corner, but docking without EVA's was pointless because you wouldn't have been able to transfer crews. EVA's and Docking are wonderful together now that both features are implemented.

To be fair, just about everyone expected to be able to transfer crew without EVA when docked. And docking is still highly useful without EVA for orbital construction, refueling, Apollo-style missions, etc. Given the choice between the two I would take docking every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, just about everyone expected to be able to transfer crew without EVA when docked. And docking is still highly useful without EVA for orbital construction, refueling, Apollo-style missions, etc. Given the choice between the two I would take docking every time.

That's true, I forgot that we were frustrated we couldn't transfer crews without EVA'ing when it came out. Man, hindsight goggles suck. I too would choose docking just for station creation but you can't really argue against the fact that it's the combined features that make things tremendously wonderful. Try to imagine surface exploration of the Mun without EVA's, docking, and rovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try to imagine surface exploration of the Mun without EVA's, docking, and rovers.

I had an extremely capable stock Mun rover before there was docking or actual rover parts. I'd say it was better than anything I could even build in stock now, since the avionics SAS is gone

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?

No, I would not object, If the engine was "warp drive" or similar and had an astronomical energy cost and research tree and needed unobtainable. I trust them so far not to go completely insane though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I would not object, If the engine was "warp drive" or similar and had an astronomical energy cost and research tree and needed unobtainable. I trust them so far not to go completely insane though.

If you try interstellar mod (which you probably have), you'll find out that using warp drive, isn't exactly what one might think. Warping is the least of your problems, once you arrive you still need to do a big burn to match speeds.

There is also a engine with trust 1500 and ISP of 15500, and you can have engine with 900isp and thousands of thrust.

If you ask me, I'd rather see that than the asparagus monstrosities we see around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only thing the new parts make easier, is getting things to orbit, so less docking requred

Do i have to start waving pictures of my Single Stage to Laythe craft around again? How easy was that to do before ARM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do i have to start waving pictures of my Single Stage to Laythe craft around again? How easy was that to do before ARM?

Before that we just built a simple rocket to launch a simple ship to Laythe. That was probably easier, as we didn't have to worry so much about fuel usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you ask me, I'd rather see that than the asparagus monstrosities we see around.

BAIU. The only things it would seem worth asking are:

2. Is asparagus the only way to make a monstrosity of a rocket?

3. Have you really never seen an asparagus-staged rocket that looks good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asparagus is just the most efficient way to make a monstrosity, it's certainly not the only way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am on a campaign to spot all the people who post BAIU (Because Asparagus Is Ugly) without any context or justification. It's a lazy and self-evidently false cliche that is unfortunately common. My point being that if you can make ugly rockets other ways and not all asparagus rockets are ugly then people should find another excuse for bad design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yFi8HiW.png

5 (empty) tanks single staged to kerbin orbit, using Stupidchris's Rebalance mod and just 2 SRBs "stage and a half'd."

A stock lifter couldnt even get off the ground with that much payload. This mod does... but prevents singe-stage-to-jool abuses.

My Saturn 5 Replica, using the same mod:

8s4h9Dm.png

Same engine with a tank and a half lifts everything else to just over 20km, at a 1.5(x) TWR. Then the large bell kicks in with a tank and a 3/2 adaptor (which in this mod has fuel as well), easilly lifting the LEM, Service and Command stages to mun orbit.

Share this post


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