78stonewobble

Ah yeh olde slippery slope argument. "Remember how in 23,5 you could pick between balanced engines and some slightly op engines? Well now it's all balanced and crap and I can't even use slightly op engines. The lacking in self control realism gamers, that couldn't force themselves to make a mental choice between engines and point the mouse a few centimeters to pick the right engine will be happy and the rest of us can remember the solution... Personal responsibility and choice and/or mods. " That goes both ways... and no matter which way it's still a sucky argument. The fact of the matter is that post-ARM, you can play the game allmost exactly like you used to. Allthough maybe you don't have to use as many struts. Funnily enough I don't see people complaining page up and down about that, even though stronger connections also made the game easier. The only thing that's changed is that people have a bit more choice... If that ruins the experience for people... I think there are deeper issues at work. Just imagine a person saying that mcdonalds is completely ruined because they added a salad to the menu and he's a meat person. He's not forced to eat it, the other people with it seems happy with it and they haven't removed anything he liked, just added something, but the place is ruined anyway. I don't even know where to begin with that.

I was rewatching that documentary the NASA missions yesterday and watching some of scott manly's (spelling?) videos after playing doing some 3 different mun landings in kerbal spaceprogram. Got me thinking exactly about this... Should we go back to the moon... I actually think the answer is yes... Not with 10 (?) or so originally planned apollo lunar landings, but fewer and somewhat more long stays at interesting places. I imagined 2-3 landings with week to months long stays. Meaning we are able to resupply the landings from earth, if necessary. The hardware we put down on the moon, should be made in such a way that it guarantees a relatively long lifetime, in the case we find it necessary to go back. They can be used as those polar, antarctic shelters the first explorers built, that the next expedition used. The point of these landings would be moon research at those interesting places, gather experience with establishing bases on the surface of another stellar body that is not zero G, gather experience with in-situ ressource utilisation, space food farming and whatever we can think of, that we need experience with. Experience that will be needed should we ever wish to establish permanent presense on the moon or go to mars. A sort of gemini precursor of a mars programme, but this time designed in a way that we can, potentially get use of the hardware used in years to come. Personally though, I find the asteroid capture thing equally interesting and it should be done too, to the point of maybe cutting some lunar expeditions, but I think atleast one will still be needed. Which could then have additional crews staying for longer. EDIT and PS: Yes... I know that the moon and mars are quite different, but the fact of the matter is that we have zero practical experience in constructing a surface base, protect it against cosmic radiation, grow enough food on the surface or make ressources available from the processing of local materials. I think the basic principles of this should be explored before we launch people on multi year missions to mars, where it's insanely expensive to emergency resupply, if it is at all.

Which is a valid point only if a majority of players care for challenges and futhermore that they are balanced between engines. However it takes even less work to create challenges that doesn't involve the new engines or are specific to certain parts. So by the workload argument they shouldn't be changed. - - - Updated - - - Which takes what? 10 to 15 seconds to type down? Oh the horror.

Except if the parts get nerfed or balanced a person that want's to play with an op part or unbalanced part (dependent on point of view), cannot do it without modding. Whereas people who wants to play with non-op parts or balanced parts, can do so, no matter how the new parts are balanced, since the old ones are still there. Design/game balance can be completely irrelevant itself, somewhat irrelevant or highly relevant or only partially applicable to certain things.

Which, if that's what you want and the way you want to do it... Is great...

No, the game does not "need" to be consistent. Some people subjectively want the game to be consistent or balanced or something else. Some people subjectively want the game to be inconsistent or unbalanced or something else. Some people subjectively want the game to be any combination of it or something else. The game itself doesn't technically need anything...

I'd never call myself an expert at kerbal spaceprogram, but I do love mjeb for allowing even naturally born clumsy people like me with crappy keyboards and stuck "ddddd" buttons to enjoy the game alot more than we'd be able to without it and people with greater skills to concentrate on what they enjoy.

Can I still choose not to do that, if I don't want to? Yes... Then the answer is no...

True, but one guys wishes aren't necessarily worth more than another guys. Except for needs, which allways beat wishes. I NEED a new liver, beats I want an icecream anyday. *lol* But with us humans the way we are, it wouldn't surprise me if there were examples of: "I want a new liver, the old one looks fat on cat scans and I need icecream!." In the absense of any realistic numbers on who wants what, motivations for it and so on, I'm inclined to go with who came first, or in this case, what came first.

And we can build flying cars... They just really wouldn't be enviromentally friendly or especially safe, but possible it is. We've got that narrowed down to questions of morality, practicality and engineering. Warpdrive on the other hand? I'm gonna go with it's most likely impossible or atleast so practically impossible, it would be foolish to attempt to build it. Yet, the rewards from even a remote possibility of it working cannot be ignored and I think the theoretical work should continue, in the hope of discovering a way to make it practically possible. Until then, I find it foolish if we bet on it's possibility and delay "conventional" space exploration.

Except for that undefinable amount of players, who like the parts just as they are. I really still don't get the problem in just making the decision to not use X, if it's not to ones liking. In either career, challenge or sandbox. Physically we're talking what ever electrical energy the brain uses to make a decision and moving the mouse a few centimeters to pick a part you like instead. Heck if it were any easier it would be a reflex.

A little side note regarding challenges and the new parts. Why not just create challenges, specific to old parts, or excluding the new parts? Or again, deliberately choose to use older parts for a challenge? That choice is in peoples own hands.

I think I've forgotten everything that's possible to forget in this game. Taking samples, transmitting, saving, parachutes... heck last one was ladders so poor jebediah could reenter the spacecraft from EVA on the mun.

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.

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

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.

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.

I'm mosing along with an old core2 duo e8700, 4gb memory and a gtx 260. *lol* Can and does get laggy at times.

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.

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.

I numbered to address each of the points appropriately, sorry if this is against some rule. 1. Yes, there is. More options puts the choice of playing how anyone wants to and everyones taste of balancing in the hands of the player. Ie. if I think the new parts are too easy. I can choose not use them and challenge myself in other ways. It's allready possible, if not encouraged even, for people to make modifications to the game. For the sake of creating options for people. Personally I don't have the need to tweak precise stats of each and every engine. It's enough for me with a nice range of mostly stock parts to choose from. I also don't see a problem that some of these options come from the vanilla game rather than mods. 2. No, it doesn't. It makes perfect sense. If I or anyone else enjoys making a rocket with part Y (no matter how op or under powered it is), then the game is better, for that person, with that part in it, than it would be without it. Ie. If I love chocolate an icecream with chocolate is better than an icecream without chocolate. 3. Which is absolutely true... Which is the reason all of us has games that we do not like and don't want to play. They're are simply not our cup of tea, eventhough they might be someone elses. The best we can hope for is that a game somehow matches some or, if we're really lucky, most of what we enjoy. 4. Which is, again, absolutely true. Fun is subjective. For some balancing adds fun and for others it can detract from fun. Since there is no universal truth when it comes to subjectivity, neither has the high ground from that perspective. The fact of the matter is that if a game offers balanced and overpowered, a player can choose balance or overpowered or both. If the game only picks one of the 2 to offer players, then players who like the opposite will either be forced to play the other or not to play at all. 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, as long as I can choose what I want. Ie. I can use the new engines or not, the new engines did not remove the old engines afterall. In my humble oppinion it should be up to either a democratic ingame poll or we should let it rest with the autho... uhm creators vision for the game.

That is not what I said nor was it related to the question. If there is 10 engines I can choose to not use 2 of them. If there is only 8 engines I cannot choose to use 2 I don't have.

When you block out the navball and numbers and navigate by the background stars and does the calculations in the head with no pen and paper.

If all other engines are deleted and replaced with this? Then I'd be against that. Because it means less choice and less options for many others and myself to have fun with the game. Being shoehorned into someone somewheres idea of "fun". If the engine is an addition to everything else, no matter how overpowered, then I'd like to have it. Not because I necessarily have to use it or want to, but because it gives everyone and myself more choice and more options to have fun with the game. However we want to have that fun. It's better to have a game that allows you to make it as hard or as easy as you want it, than a game that only lets you enjoy it in a narrow spectrum of difficulty.

They have artificial gravity in the mass effect universe. If you can manipulate that, then theres really no problem anywhere (except for giant robotic octupus invaders).