Sign in to follow this  
NASAFanboy

I don't understand the fuss behind ARM

Recommended Posts

Notice that every engine over 11% on your list is being complained about, including the 48-7, which was complained about before arm even dropped. And your low % engines like the 909 and the Poodle are not meant as kerbin asent engines- they're normally space and lander engines.

Your LV30, Aerospike, and Mainsail are all very close together.

The reason why I have the poodle and skipper, are to compare to KR-2L which is OP for a vac engine, which supposedly occupies the same space, All those configs give you around vac 4500 - 4700dv. at 1.3 starting TWR, which is enough to get to orbit. And it's the only way I could think of somehow comparing them.

Vacuum engines are more difficult to compare. If we are talking landers - it depends where you land and your minimum TWR requirement, overall weight (you got to bring your lander there to begin with etc), fuel usage (more refuels, from 'mothership' more landings). I didn't use lander as example, as you definitely won't be going for max payload, neither you'll be going for max dv. In my experience poodle makes for pretty bad lander engine.

This is just one case. Max load for said engine. Matching your payload to the engine will give you different results, for example, if your payload is a single Mk1-2 pod, the skipper will outperform Mainsail, or any of the new engines. Using staging, multiple engines, etc you can do better.

You can use LVT30 and LV 909 as baselines, and look at the difference.

You can notice, Mainsail has bigger difference with the baseline than the S3 KS - 25x4.

LFB -KR 1x2: 20/152 over-performs 2.3%, while mainsail under performs 1.7%

KR-2L is obviously overpowered for a vac engine, and I'm not sure where to place 48-7s.

So as I said compound problem. Some over perform, some under-perform.

Mainsail needs a boost, so it falls between LV- T30 and S3 KS - 25x4.

LFB -KR 1x2: 20/152 needs to be toned down.

KR-2L: 28/199 - 14% - definitely needs work, especially it's ASL Isp.

That being said, for purely stock game (no automatic dv calculation), most of this is not an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I got from your response is that because fun is subjective (which it is) and because some people might have fun with some parts, who are we as individuals to say I don't like that part, we should change it. Because we can choose weather or not to use a part, we are not being forced to use that parts. So why can't we just let them have their fun if we don't have to use those parts which we deem OP. Your position on this is further backed up by your statement that we are able to modify the game to suit how we like it (effectively saying we shouldn't use the suggestion page because we can modify the game).

In your second to last point, you say you're not against the balancing of the game, but not enough to "hinder other people to play with unbalanced engines". That statement is just blatantly paradoxical. If the engines were balanced, they wouldn't be playing with unbalanced engines, and I don't know where you got the idea of removing the old engines from.

Dogoncrook, the amount of assumptions and pure assertions (I'm sure there was an ad homnen in there as well) in that statement is just.......um.. wow, I don't even know where to start.

I think you're misunderstanding me a bit. Yes, fun is subjective. That doesn't mean you cannot say what you like or dislike, just to bear in mind that your likes or dislikes is not an universal truth. As that other guy said... this is the politicking part or lets call it championing our own ideas. Thats ok too... but remember no universal truth.

But yes, I do mean that, if I can play in a way I like (with the still there other engines), just as I did before, then adding OP or UP parts does not change my experience in the slightest. Adding the new engines, as they are, does not detract from anyones experience, they are still able to play ksp exactly the way they did before.

It's not paradoxical. The engines are here and they are what they are, thus people can play with them. Sure if we could spool back time and unrelease them, then balance them, then re-release them, then it would fit the hypotheticals of what if people never had access to them and thus couldn't like or dislike them. Now that would be paradoxical since it would remove any dislike or like and thus ambition to travel back in time and change it.

No, it's not paradoxical to say that, in my humble oppinion I don't mind if they're tweaked, I might even prefer it, but if other people (they exist), enjoy them the way they are, then let them, because the matter isn't that important to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is totally related to this issue. Because the implication of all gameplay balancing being a "choice" of the player is that the game would be better if Squad didn't bother at all. In such case the engine stats might as well be assigned by throwing a dart at a wall covered in numbers.

My position is that Squad should balance the parts in the same way that they always have, up until now. Its not like that hasn't been restricting you until now, or do you still mourn the old aerospike?

No, that is not the same.

A RNG or throwing darts at a wall of numbers would and could produce ie. groupings of engines that have similar stats that could range from wildly underpowered to wildly overpowered.

That is not what happened, nor is it what I was arguing.

The engines, as far as I know, are increasingly powerfull compaired to previous engines. Not hugely powerfull, not randomly powerfull, just more powerfull than expected if we had extrapolated engine performance linearly.

Regarding choice, randomness does not guarantee a wide selection of choice and thus the most fun to the most people. A wide range of engine performance, which by necessity cannot be random, is the best way to guarantee choice.

Regarding the aerospike, I don't really play with the planes, so I have no oppinion on that matter other than my basic oppinion towards it which is:

What I like/dislike, only matters to me. What is important is what most people think. If most people like balancing, then balance them. If most people like a little of both or don't care about balancing, then let the engines be. Basically I think they should make the best game for the most people.

To that end, my personal oppinion on engine balancing is that it's nice to have in the game, but it's not overly important to me, that all the engines need be balanced. As long that some are, thats good enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once currency is added to career you won't have the luxury of using any rocket part you like, you'll be restricted to how much money you have.

That's when comments like "the 3.75m engines are overpowered" and "they make the skipper and mainsail obsolete" will turn into moot point.

When you're playing sandbox you shouldn't even complain, because it's only limited to what you want to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is totally related to this issue. Because the implication of all gameplay balancing being a "choice" of the player is that the game would be better if Squad didn't bother at all. In such case the engine stats might as well be assigned by throwing a dart at a wall covered in numbers.

My position is that Squad should balance the parts in the same way that they always have, up until now. Its not like that hasn't been restricting you until now, or do you still mourn the old aerospike?

I think it depends what you mean by balancing. If you mean that the new engines should act like the mainsail and under - perform compared to their smaller counterparts...

Honestly if squad fixed Isp to work as it should, and vary thrust instead of fuel consumption, we wouldn't have most of these issues. We have engines with almost 100 difference between ASL and vac, lifting full load, which makes them better than engine with the similar weight, max thrust and ASL Isp, but lower vac Isp. If it worked is it should, the second one would provide far more initial trust, and it would make sense using it.

Edited by Aedile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, that is not the same.

A RNG or throwing darts at a wall of numbers would and could produce ie. groupings of engines that have similar stats that could range from wildly underpowered to wildly overpowered.

That is not what happened, nor is it what I was arguing.

The engines, as far as I know, are increasingly powerfull compaired to previous engines. Not hugely powerfull, not randomly powerfull, just more powerfull than expected if we had extrapolated engine performance linearly.

Regarding choice, randomness does not guarantee a wide selection of choice and thus the most fun to the most people. A wide range of engine performance, which by necessity cannot be random, is the best way to guarantee choice.

Regarding the aerospike, I don't really play with the planes, so I have no oppinion on that matter other than my basic oppinion towards it which is:

What I like/dislike, only matters to me. What is important is what most people think. If most people like balancing, then balance them. If most people like a little of both or don't care about balancing, then let the engines be. Basically I think they should make the best game for the most people.

To that end, my personal oppinion on engine balancing is that it's nice to have in the game, but it's not overly important to me, that all the engines need be balanced. As long that some are, thats good enough for me.

The 2.5 engines are underpowered, 2 of the new engines are overpowered (and this is mainly due the Isp mechanic KSP uses). In any case bigger engines should not be worse than smaller engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of things, correct me if I'm wrong but you would prefer if we had a thousand different engines all with different stats as it would allow you to choose the specific engine that you would like. Correct?

Now, with regards to what we were discussing:

Your point about the universal truth, yes that would be correct if all we had nothing to put forward apart from our own personal opinions. But we don't only have our opinions, there is mathematical proof that shows that the engines are overpowered. I am saying the engines are overpowered and should be balanced, and here's the reason why (they're a whole heap of threads about this, I'm not going to explain it here). The counter argument is a combination of the following statements; why are you trying to take my fun? You can just change the configuration files. Just don't use them, no one is forcing your to use the engines. They are not arguments based on anything apart from emotional defences and self victimisation.

You said yourself that you are not opposed to balancing of the engines, I'm presenting reasons why they should be balanced. If there're more and better reasons why it should be balanced then why shouldn't they.

In response to your paradoxical statement, you said this; "Personally, I'm not adverse to balancing of the engines in Kerbal space programme. I just don't need it enough, to hinder other people to play with unbalanced engines". That's a paradox because if the engines were balanced, then people wouldn't be hindered by playing with unbalanced engines. If the engines were UP what would your argument be then?

With regards to your final statement to SofusRud, in your opinion, should every suggestion in the suggestions and development page require a poll to indicate weather or not the majority of the community wants that feature in the game.

Albert VDS

Just because in sandbox the player is not restricted by the same aspects as career mode (economics, progression ext) doesn't mean that they are not restricted by other aspects of the game (physics, engine balancing ect). Because career mode has more aspects that could be used for balancing it makes no sense that you wouldn't balance sandbox along side of career. This has been discussed at length here.

Edited by Dodgey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once currency is added to career you won't have the luxury of using any rocket part you like, you'll be restricted to how much money you have.

That's when comments like "the 3.75m engines are overpowered" and "they make the skipper and mainsail obsolete" will turn into moot point.

When you're playing sandbox you shouldn't even complain, because it's only limited to what you want to use.

This is just untrue. People use Sandbox for challenges etc. Why would you use an inferior engine in Sandbox? The new parts basically restrict what is available in sandbox by making other parts obsolete.

Currency is moot in Sandbox.

You are just dismissing the concerns of a minor but still sizable group of players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you use an inferior engine in Sandbox?

You answered your own question.

People use Sandbox for challenges etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 2.5 engines are underpowered, 2 of the new engines are overpowered (and this is mainly due the Isp mechanic KSP uses). In any case bigger engines should not be worse than smaller engines.

Which is only an issue, if you value engine balance. Whether the majority of players want that I don't know. As I've said... it's not an issue for me as long as some of the engines fit my definition of balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You answered your own question.

That's getting very nit picky... Most challenges don't specify engines, and if they do, its usually to NOT include overpowered ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What DirtyBob said. In a "quick race" in a race car game, why choose anything BUT the Veyron or similar? They make the Mini or the Focus obsolete... right? No, the "better" car is stupidly expensive and a last "unlock" of the game. But some do drive the German touring cars (one of THE most popular in the race games I've played, put the Ferrari and Lamborghini in the back for the slow but "skilled" driving of the other cars).

So yes, in sandbox we can all use half million dollar cars. If that's a problem, you don't know how "sandbox" works... it's challenges you set. Thus don't complain if the game mechanics meant for career don't provide a challenge for sandbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Couple of things, correct me if I'm wrong but you would prefer if we had a thousand different engines all with different stats as it would allow you to choose the specific engine that you would like. Correct?

Now, with regards to what we were discussing:

Your point about the universal truth, yes that would be correct if all we had nothing to put forward apart from our own personal opinions. But we don't only have our opinions, there is mathematical proof that shows that the engines are overpowered. I am saying the engines are overpowered and should be balanced, and here's the reason why (they're a whole heap of threads about this, I'm not going to explain it here). The counter argument is a combination of the following statements; why are you trying to take my fun? You can just change the configuration files. Just don't use them, no one is forcing your to use the engines. They are not arguments based on anything apart from emotional defences and self victimisation.

You said yourself that you are not opposed to balancing of the engines, I'm presenting reasons why they should be balanced. If there're more and better reasons why it should be balanced then why shouldn't they.

In response to your paradoxical statement, you said this; "Personally, I'm not adverse to balancing of the engines in Kerbal space programme. I just don't need it enough, to hinder other people to play with unbalanced engines". That's a paradox because if the engines were balanced, then people wouldn't be hindered by playing with unbalanced engines. If the engines were UP what would your argument be then?

With regards to your final statement to SofusRud, in your opinion, should every suggestion in the suggestions and development page require a poll to indicate weather or not the majority of the community wants that feature in the game.

Albert VDS

Just because in sandbox the player is not restricted by the same aspects as career mode (economics, progression ext) doesn't mean that they are not restricted by other aspects of the game (physics, engine balancing ect). Because career mode has more aspects that could be used for balancing it makes no sense that you wouldn't balance sandbox along side of career. This has been discussed at length here.

You are wrong. I never said 1000 engines or engines picked by throwing arrows at numbers on a wall. Which is not the case here... Since we are not talking about 990 new engines or arbitrarily selected performance numbers.

The most I've said is something akin to: A broad selection of engines in regards to performance. With margins about so wide that it allows for the engines as they currently are or nerfed.

The mathematical proofs applicability hinges on the subjective intrinsical value a person places on "engine balance". That value ultimately stems from a persons ... "emotional defences and self victimisation" too...

Thus I place little to no value on the mathematical proof.

It's just about as relevant as the nutritional values of different food stuff, when I ask a person what they like to eat and mean tastewise.

You are presenting an oppinion, that is your right and it might even be a truth from a certain subjective perspective, however that is only applicable to one self. A basic lesson in life is that there are other people in it and that these people are different from oneself.

It's still not paradoxical. The engines are there and some people like them. It becomes paradoxical, if we discuss hypotheticals what if's. Then we might as well ask, what if no engines were balanced, then there wouldn't be a problem either, because people would never have played balanced engines.

But I can easily answer your question about what if the engines had been up. Then it would have been the same. If people enjoy them, they should have right to play with them, as long as I have engines that suit me.

To the last bit... No, I don't regard forum polls as statistically significant and representative surveys. It would have to be an ingame poll of as many players as possible.

Whether it's needed depend on the developer. Do they develop solely according to their own vision or do they tradeoff with trying to make as many players as happy as possible.

Edited by 78stonewobble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's getting very nit picky... Most challenges don't specify engines, and if they do, its usually to NOT include overpowered ones.

It IS possible to create your own challenges. Kinda like how, just because the bike and the car was invented, people still run sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just remembered. SRBs are useless in sandbox. I never ever use them. Liquid offer so many more benefits, I actually avoid SRBS. But in career they are needed (IRL it's down to costs again mostly).

So, should SRBs be changed from their intended use? Have stats changed? Why pick on ions or the new giant lifters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

They are, the way some are under-performing.

So the question remains - overpowered compared to what? If you take 2.5 parts as baseline, everything is.

Overpowered in doing what? The new engines are not 'all you'll ever need'.

For example,

Planet/moon landings are still best done with the smallest lander that would do, especially, true for multiple landing missions (you can easily land and liftoff from Mun with some 140 fuel units, so the x200x32 is 10 landings (more if you 'bunny hop'). If you go for 3 man mission, easily done with 360 units. Would you argue, that LV909 is so OP because it let's you do that? Come tho think of it, docking port and fuel line are the most OP parts around.

Bigger engines should have slightly better performance (unlike 2.5m parts), because smaller engines get benefit from staging (can't really drop half engine now can you), and more closely matching your payload.

What's the sense in researching that new engine, if the old one can do the same job better? Mainsail and jumbo tank have always been the parts which unlock last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So yes, in sandbox we can all use half million dollar cars. If that's a problem, you don't know how "sandbox" works... it's challenges you set. Thus don't complain if the game mechanics meant for career don't provide a challenge for sandbox.

You don't use a half million dollar car for fuel efficiency or a massive truck to carry your shopping home in. Sure you could, but its kind of insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It IS possible to create your own challenges. Kinda like how, just because the bike and the car was invented, people still run sometimes.

Sure it is, and I do.

Seriously, if you couldn't get a decent load into orbit prior to 0.23.5... The stronger joints alone in 0.23.5 made it tons easier.

I use SRBs sometimes in Sandbox for a quick and dirty extra oomph if required.

We are not saying the new engines shouldn't give more thrust, that's fine, its the combination of thrust, weight and ISP together.

Edited by SSSPutnik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure it is, and I do.

Seriously, if you couldn't get a decent load into orbit prior to 0.23.5... The stronger joints alone in 0.23.5 made it tons easier.

I use SRBs sometimes in Sandbox for a quick and dirty extra oomph if required.

We are not saying the new engines shouldn't give more thrust, that's fine, its the combination of thrust, weight and ISP together.

I'm not saying they cannot be balanced, I'm questioning whether they should be, if people can still choose to challenge themselves or choose a "balanced playthrough" with other parts / older parts.

Basically because I don't see any difference of merit in either "I want balanced", "I don't want balanced" or a combination thereoff and in that case it comes down to a question of how many people wants what.

An analogy:

I don't like fish, others do. Does that mean fish restaurants should be nerfed out of existence for everyone or forced upon everyone? Or do we leave that up til supply and demand and thus people's own choice?

Given those 3 choices I'm inclined to pick the third option, where I can choose what I want and others can choose what they want. Then whether any particular restaurant wants to offer fish, no fish or a combination... Well that I'd leave up to customer demand as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once currency is added to career you won't have the luxury of using any rocket part you like, you'll be restricted to how much money you have.

That's when comments like "the 3.75m engines are overpowered" and "they make the skipper and mainsail obsolete" will turn into moot point.

When you're playing sandbox you shouldn't even complain, because it's only limited to what you want to use.

Why dont you take the Money discussion to the appropriate thread? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76001-How-will-budgets-work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah why should the devs bother to balance their game, it's not like it's their job or anything. neither is bug fixing or making content apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why dont you take the Money discussion to the appropriate thread? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76001-How-will-budgets-work[/quote

Really? Money is relevant to a balance conversation. Because you don't agree, it should be shunted to another corner of the forums? Seriously?

I personally don't care one way or the other, I challenge myself by other means in kerbal, and I suppose I've never really cared about the rocket building in kerbal that much compared to how some other people play. I've moded since I bought it for more challenge and I've never had the desire to play stock, and I never will. Which is why I don't really care whether or not they nerf it. I mean you know what's OP in kerbal? Kerbal engineer or mechjeb, it spits crazy maths at you and makes anything you do trivial in comparison. Now I just use rpm, still makes the rocket flying stupid easy. Way overpowered in a game context. I mean usisng any of those tools honestly buys me some serious dv in comparison to how I fly without them. I use them though because the challenges I set for myself have nothing to do with basic rocketry. This game in fact is a pretty **** poor rocket simulator when you think about it. Nit picking numbers here just seems a little silly to me. As I said suggestions are fine, and I kinda agree with ssputnik that not nerfing it does ignore a lot of players too, but I really haven't seen one person complaign that their stock experience has been ruined by it, because as far as I can tell no one here plays stock. The arm stuff really only becomes an issue with people who play with engineer or mechjeb, so why don't people that already mod make the tweaks they need themselves? Personally I feel if you don't play bone stock, then your opinion on balance is kinda irrelevant mine included. Does anyone here play that way? How did arm effect the way you play?

Edit: grammer/spelling apology, I'm on my phone.

Edited by Dogoncrook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said suggestions are fine, and I kinda agree with ssputnik that not nerfing it does ignore a lot of players too, but I really haven't seen one person complaign that their stock experience has been ruined by it, because as far as I can tell no one here plays stock. The arm stuff really only becomes an issue with people who play with engineer or mechjeb, so why don't people that already mod make the tweaks they need themselves?

I play with only stock parts. I like keeping all my parts unmodded for ease of trying challenges and stealing testing other players' designs from the Spacecraft Exchange. Fairly sure I'm not the only one who plays this way, either. I wouldn't go so far as to say the new engines ruined the game, but they have rendered some parts obsolete and I would've preferred they were better balanced.

I do use informational mods, but I don't see a significant difference between them and doing all the calculations manually or in a spreadsheet, except that doing them in game is way more convenient and quick. I have a finite time to play KSP, I'd rather have the computer do the calculations for me so I can spend more time playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Money is relevant to a balance conversation. Because you don't agree, it should be shunted to another corner of the forums? Seriously?

Ampsterman had previously stated that the conversation be kept to the parts themselves. Speculation on budgets and its effect on the game can appropriately be taken to that thread.

Now is it hot in here or is it just me? It'd be nice if you could turn down the heat a bit, but all things considered, you all have done a great job with keeping on point and not going too far with your words. Consider this a friendly reminder to keep it that way. Thanks.

Edited by Rowsdower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I play with only stock parts. I like keeping all my parts unmodded for ease of trying challenges and stealing testing other players' designs from the Spacecraft Exchange. Fairly sure I'm not the only one who plays this way, either. I wouldn't go so far as to say the new engines ruined the game, but they have rendered some parts obsolete and I would've preferred they were better balanced.

I do use informational mods, but I don't see a significant difference between them and doing all the calculations manually or in a spreadsheet, except that doing them in game is way more convenient and quick. I have a finite time to play KSP, I'd rather have the computer do the calculations for me so I can spend more time playing.

Fair enough. I can't unlearn what I know, so I would notice as well, but the question I have been asking myself is "if I had just bought this game would this alter my experience?" Honestly I don't know if I'd notice one way or the other. Can you honestly say you would? I guess if you always do the math you would, but I don't think most people do that. I've always assumed the math was withheld to encourage experimentation, and that in mind I think overpowered is far better than under.

That said I'm pretty particular about how I play, I'm not even sure I'd notice something being overpowered unless it was grossly so, because if my lifter has extra fuel when it stages or if I have to throttle below 25% it gets a redesign. I meet that criteria with reasonable looking rockets so arm doesn't really bother me.

As for challenges around here, I've never bothered, so I can't speak on that, but I have to ask, does arm actually effect those if everyone is on an even playing field? How does it change the nature of them? And since this is alpha, would you rather nerf these or have more options added to fill in the gaps?

Share this post


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