Braker

"Where you lose me is when you want squad to make this the mandatory playstyle for everyone. That smells of "telling others how they should enjoy the game" and I don't like it one bit." I dont want to force everyone to play the game that I want... If is that I said by inadvertence, know that it's not that I wanted to mean. I just ask the community for opinion about that. If you are against, it is your right... But if you agree with me, just say it. Dou you want a rebalance ? The question is simple: YES or NO. If you are against, you can argue your point of view, just like I did in these four pages of thread...

Totally agree. Worrying about the remaining RCS fuel is totally in the KSP soul and add an interesting challenge branch. Is not a bug which need to be fixed... It is just a rebalancing in order to make the RCS more interesting/fun to use...

Where you see that I don't believe the results?

65% of 60 players is not the majority...

65% is not 100%... Is just 15% more than 50%. So your sentence "No one has a problem with the reaction wheels the way they are." is false... 35% of peopole have a "problem" with the reaction wheels the way they are. And only 60 members voted this poll (about 0.01% of the KSP players).

So you will for an implementation of the reaction wheels saturation in the stock game?

Too much fun killing fun.

If you don't want to wait 20 seconds to rotate your 20 km length ship, use RCS...

If you have read the entire thread, you have a point of view about adding an item in the difficulty options...

They can...

No reason that your awsome shuttle don't work in hard mode... It will just be hardest to control the attitude without RCS... EDIT: hardest, but possible... More challenge.

The point of realism that you given as examplesare off-topic. The reaction wheels causes problem on RCS utility. The cargo bay opening/closing speed is just no factor... More RCS needs == monoproplant needs == heaviers rockets == more challenge... So modify the ractions wheels torque according to the difficulty level is totally adequate or me. "but you have to readjust a lot of the game's balance to fix it." Is just the task of the devs'... Readjust, balance, and fix...

/|\ | An option in the difficulty settings for example...

Happy to learn that I am not alone... "The problem is that if you relied on "realistic" reaction wheels, you'd need to keep your finger on the ASWD keys for several minutes to get an attitude adjustment up to a couple degree's a minute. It's not a "FUN" way. Even RCS is ridiculously OP relative to IRL counterparts, and maneuvers would not be enjoyable or playable as a game when setting for a single maneuver would take 30 minutes or more of constant attention for small attitude adjustments." You can use RCS no ? And what do you think about this (written in another post): change the reaction wheels torque according to the game dificulty ?

For me, the reaction wheels should be an help to control and stabilize your vessel, but not the main way to do that... I think that the RCS should be the main system to control the attitude. There is no "punishment" to the player when he's out of monoproplant. I ask for more balance, not a full realistic game.

There is a difference between "full realistic", "stupidly OP" and 'balanced"... I just want to make the reaction wheels "balanced"... In order to make the RCS more useful.

Just put two ADV SAS modules... No need to use RCS, and the SAS modules are more light than monoproplant tanks...

I'm just defending my point of view... I don't force anyone to vote "YES"...

You can use the RCS and vectoring thrust for VTOL... (Like in reality... :p) I not agree with that : "I don't think they need adjustment in the stock game. Players can choose to use them or not as they see fit." In this case, you can add what ever cheating parts in the game and the users are free to not use them... What do you think about that: adjusting the reaction wheels torque according to the difficulty level... SQUAD already did that for the reantry heat.

So you agree with me? You think they need a balance review?

Yeah, I already know that... And yes, I ask for a balance in the stock game...

The succes of KSP is the correct balance between realism and fun... I think the reaction wheels are too funny and should be more realistic. (Not fully realistic, just more...) Best the game is balanced, best is it... EDIT: the peopole who say: "They are fine as they are.", Have they correctly studied the question?

There is only 5 votes at this time... There is more than 1 000 000 KSP players. I respect your point of view, so respect the mine also... That is not a problem, I just ask for a game adjustment.

Read my post above. The RCS are useless in attitude ajustement... + the battery of a Mk1-2 Command pod with one solar panel is suffcient to use the reaction wheels and to take 999°/s of angular speed...

So, if you build a Jool capable ship (for example), and there is no docking planned in the mission, you don't need RCS to control the ship attitude... Even if the ship's mass is about 10 tons... This is, I think, a lack in the gameplay, because it is just very strange/awkward/weird to go to Jool without RCS and RCS fuel... The RCS is just "eye candy" in this case and not realy useful.