ARM engines.

[LaydeeDem]

I say keep them the way they are, and also boost the power of the old engines. KSP's engines look pathetic next to their real life counterparts.

[NASAFanboy]

It is not that the ARM engines are OP, it is that the SLS itself is OP.

Carrying 130 tons to orbit? Well, that's what it's supposed to do!

Capable of sending a spacestation to the Moon in one go? Well, that's what it's supposed to do!

However, the SLS is costly with only one or two or three launches a year if you're lucky. Inside of buffing them, why not you limit yourself to how much you can launch it? I limit myself to launching a total of three per year from Kerbin (I mean, those that are capable of carrying 100 tons in one go - otherwise, I launch the other ones freely), which has led to some issues with supplying stations and bases, but works fine. It adds alot more challenge and realism.

[Naten]

It is not that the ARM engines are OP, it is that the SLS itself is OP.

Carrying 130 tons to orbit? Well, that's what it's supposed to do!

Capable of sending a spacestation to the Moon in one go? Well, that's what it's supposed to do!

However, the SLS is costly with only one or two or three launches a year if you're lucky. Inside of buffing them, why not you limit yourself to how much you can launch it? I limit myself to launching a total of three per year from Kerbin (I mean, those that are capable of carrying 100 tons in one go - otherwise, I launch the other ones freely), which has led to some issues with supplying stations and bases, but works fine. It adds alot more challenge and realism.

Exactly! THAT'S WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO! I don't want an SLS in the game... it's like a Skylon being stock. Woot, free orbit for meh! Woot, free crew transporter for meh! Woot, free spaceplane for meh!

Now we need a Falcon XX! Woot, free orbit around Eeloo for meh!

Now we need the Enterprise!

Woot, free Star Trek Reference oppurtunity for meh!

[Hyomoto]

I don't think the budget will be quite as important as most people think. On the note of balance, I don't think 'balance' is quite as important as people are making it out to be either. I do believe it is in Squad's interest to maintain the main appeal of the gameâ€â€design. Not because people like or dislike part X, but simply because people CAN like or dislike part X. Obsoleting parts would suck the very soul out of the game. We play to build, not to min-max like some MMO. Our successes have been because of our ingenuity and perseverance, not because we 'leveled up' until it was easy. In some ways, it's basically the MechJeb argument. I have absolutely no interest in anything done with MechJeb, period. Once I know MechJeb was involved, I cannot tune out fast enough. Some people feel differently. At its core, MechJeb handles makes KSP considerably easier. I think a lot of people would be happy, and roughly the same number completely disappointed if it were included in the base game. We'd even get the same arguments, "The cost of unlocking it makes, blah." "It's overpowered blah." But I will throw my cards in the 'overpowered' hat simply because any part that reduces decision making at least has the potential to threaten the core of what made KSP interesting in the first place.

However, because of this I feel obligated to speak on the sandbox issue as well. I hate you people. You ruin games. It's fun to prototype, it's especially nice when you are trying to do something mod related (like maintain one), and I'm not against it existing. Sometimes I just want to build something. What drives me to arms is your steadfast belief the game should revolve around you. You get access to everything for free, there are no obstacles or requirements, and yet you are the first ones to complain when ANYTHING gets added to ANY game with a sandbox mode. "Hazards that might damage my creations? NOOOOOOO!" You side with people who say absolutely inane, insane baloney like, "I don't want to play survival, but I want survival features." Developers waste so much time trying to make the sandbox players happy and you NEVER ARE. So next time you ask for your precious sandbox be balanced, keep this in mind:

Sandbox has no balance. You get infinite everything for free. You have no limitations, the game doesn't force you to do anything. Therefore it is feasibly impossible to balance sandbox mode. Don't like the new engines? Don't use them. Don't like the balance? Change it. That's the point of sandbox, to craft your own experience. Stop trying to ruin career mode. Your version of the game is finished, and as a bonus you get everything career mode players get without restrictions or limits.

As an aside, text doesn't really allow me the full use of tone, body language and expression to marry sarcasm, humor and playful anger. So all I can do is assure you that was how the above was meant to come off, it is not meant to be insulting or mean and hopefully having said this no one will take it as such.

[Varses]

I say keep them the way they are, and also boost the power of the old engines. KSP's engines look pathetic next to their real life counterparts.

This argument makes no sense to me. Making the entire game easier because one part is unbalanced is silly. In games, challenge (or more specifically 'overcoming challenges') is the core of the fun. You have to strike a balance between too easy (boring) and too hard (frustrating). I don't think I've heard anyone complain that the game is too hard aside from newbies who haven't mastered the basics yet. But those are the same newbies who will post extremely excited threads about their first docking or their first mission to Duna. The challenge made those things very rewarding to them.

I mean, maybe this is just me but I know that I spent hours first trying to get to orbit. I was terrible at it (although getting to orbit was a lot harder in 0.13). But the fact that I'd put so much effort into it and that I could see each of my rocket designs improving was what hooked me. If the game had been easier, I know I wouldn't have had as much fun.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Varses

[m4v]

I fail to see the point of arguing sandbox vs career since they are basically the same once you unlock everything.

[LaydeeDem]

This argument makes no sense to me. Making the entire game easier because one part is unbalanced is silly. In games, challenge (or more specifically 'overcoming challenges') is the core of the fun. You have to strike a balance between too easy (boring) and too hard (frustrating). I don't think I've heard anyone complain that the game is too hard aside from newbies who haven't mastered the basics yet. But those are the same newbies who will post extremely excited threads about their first docking or their first mission to Duna. The challenge made those things very rewarding to them.

I mean, maybe this is just me but I know that I spent hours first trying to get to orbit. I was terrible at it (although getting to orbit was a lot harder in 0.13). But the fact that I'd put so much effort into it and that I could see each of my rocket designs improving was what hooked me. If the game had been easier, I know I wouldn't have had as much fun.

Here's a solution: dont play sandbox.

[maccollo]

It is not that the ARM engines are OP, it is that the SLS itself is OP.

Carrying 130 tons to orbit? Well, that's what it's supposed to do!

Having parts that allow us to lift a lot of stuff to orbit without having to create 800 part monstrosities is great, and being able to lift a lot of mass to orbit with less parts is NOT what makes them OP, it's their delta V cap at TWR > 1.

The new engines are capable of single staging over 12% to low Kerbin orbit. That's on par with what you can get with other engines when you use staging. They can launch payloads straight to the surface of the Mun, Duna and Even Jool.

These new engines are supposed to be an analog to the SLS... Right?

Last time I checked the SLS had to actually stage to even make it to orbit, and it certainly can't single stage to Mars.

[NASAFanboy]

Having parts that allow us to lift a lot of stuff to orbit without having to create 800 part monstrosities is great, and being able to lift a lot of mass to orbit with less parts is NOT what makes them OP, it's their delta V cap at TWR > 1.

The new engines are capable of single staging over 12% to low Kerbin orbit. That's on par with what you can get with other engines when you use staging. They can launch payloads straight to the surface of the Mun, Duna and Even Jool.

These new engines are supposed to be an analog to the SLS... Right?

Last time I checked the SLS had to actually stage to even make it to orbit, and it certainly can't single stage to Mars.

If you use it correctly, you will have to stage to orbit.

For example, all my payloads require staging to orbit, because they are just that big (100 tons range). Even with my version of Orion, the rocket needs to be staged to enter orbit.

Blame the players for putting inappropriately tiny payloads on it.

I use it to launch two or three space station modules at a time or just the whole station, or use it to do "one-shot" lunar rendezvous expeditions, like the Saturn V

Not to launch little satellites.

Use it correctly and in its intended role and it will be realistic. If NASA really used the SLS to launch its satellites then it wouldn't need to stage either.

[TheDarkStar]

Having parts that allow us to lift a lot of stuff to orbit without having to create 800 part monstrosities is great, and being able to lift a lot of mass to orbit with less parts is NOT what makes them OP, it's their delta V cap at TWR > 1.

The new engines are capable of single staging over 12% to low Kerbin orbit. That's on par with what you can get with other engines when you use staging. They can launch payloads straight to the surface of the Mun, Duna and Even Jool.

These new engines are supposed to be an analog to the SLS... Right?

Last time I checked the SLS had to actually stage to even make it to orbit, and it certainly can't single stage to Mars.

It costs MUCH less delta-v to do things in KSP than in real life (11 km/s for Earth orbit vs 4.5 km/s for Kerbin).

[Varses]

Here's a solution: dont play sandbox.

Here's a problem: I never play sandbox. But the horrendously overpowered 3.75m engines unlock at the same general levels as the 2.5m engines. Playing career mode does not alleviate their OPness.

[JedTech]

Here's a problem: I never play sandbox. But the horrendously overpowered 3.75m engines unlock at the same general levels as the 2.5m engines. Playing career mode does not alleviate their OPness.

I like the new parts, but I agree that they need to be at a higher unlock level and cost a lot of science points. This release didn't really touch the career mode features very much, I bet Squad will look into that more in .24

[NASAFanboy]

Kerbal technology is late 1970-ish early 1980-ish at best with their computers and rockets. Their SAS is similar to the old Saturn V, their engines are not as efficient as modern rockets.

Then the ARM uses technology that takes a sixty year jump to 2020.

It's going to be OP, all right.

Squad should give two options.

A "Normal ARM" for those who want it like it is now.

A "Nerfed ARM" for those who wanted it nerfed.

And update the two using .cfg edits, something that someone in the community will do for free voluntarily.

[maccollo]

Blame the players for putting inappropriately tiny payloads on it.

single staging over 12% to low Kerbin orbit

[Red Iron Crown]

It costs MUCH less delta-v to do things in KSP than in real life (11 km/s for Earth orbit vs 4.5 km/s for Kerbin).

Which is exactly why SLS parts for KSP should be balanced with KSP's parts. KSP's stock parts are horrendously bad by Earth rocket standards in terms of TWR and Isp, but it doesn't matter because they are (generally) internally consistent.

If the SLS parts don't need to be balanced, then why was the NERVA?

[syfyguy64]

Hey, I hear you, I got the game at 19.1, but played the old 13.3 demo for a few years, and always had something new to do with 13.3 novapunch rockets and the mun.

Now I build planes. All I do is build planes. I only make rockets to play with them, put them orbit, ask why I did this if I'm not going to land on the Mun, and realize I forgot parachutes.

But the game is still plenty fun. I can abuse aerodynamics, make really large and unrealistic planes fly, or make old WWII replicas, or just make some stuff that can go through the R&D center w/o issues.

So if you get bored with rockets, planes are your future. And start with Farrem. It helped me learn how to distiguish realistic vs unrealistic designs.

[AbhChallenger]

Alright... I now admit they are overpowered. (Single stage to Laythe convinced me) However, I still do not greatly support pushing my view on what is OP onto other players. Especially this early in development.

However, It is plainly obvious that the whole kit n kabootle needs a major balance pass before Version 1. With all parts (Hopefully they add 5M parts as well) having their strengths and weaknesses for use in the space program game.

[Hyomoto]

I like the new parts, but I agree that they need to be at a higher unlock level and cost a lot of science points. This release didn't really touch the career mode features very much, I bet Squad will look into that more in .24

Which is sort of odd considering they added a new node for the grabber. As others have noted, this is likely to change regardless (maybe as soon as 24?) so I think its good people are having the discussion, Squad will at least be aware the dialogue is taking place.

[NecroBones]

I like the new parts, but I agree that they need to be at a higher unlock level and cost a lot of science points. This release didn't really touch the career mode features very much, I bet Squad will look into that more in .24

I was hoping they'd unlock at a 1000-point tier. It's possible they'll change it, of course.

[magnemoe]

I was hoping they'd unlock at a 1000-point tier. It's possible they'll change it, of course.

yes, I was sure they would put it at 1000, perhaps even an higher level for the largest tank and the 4 engine cluster.

Its not as its very hard to fill out the tree anyway,

[ProGamerGov]

With these new engines, I can just barely lift my large payloads into LEO. Then I have to send up another engine and tank to move them out of LEO.

I was was thinking that we needed more powerful engines after this update. Why do people want to force users to use hyper edit to have stable spacecraft?

[R0cketC0der]

With these new engines, I can just barely lift my large payloads into LEO. Then I have to send up another engine and tank to move them out of LEO.

I was was thinking that we needed more powerful engines after this update. Why do people want to force users to use hyper edit to have stable spacecraft?

What the HECK are you launching? With the new engines I can put over 100 tons into LKO with a vertical design with only one main stack and two boosters.

[The Space]

The new engines are fine. They will be balanced by high cost and maybe moved further in the tech tree.

[magnemoe]

What the HECK are you launching? With the new engines I can put over 100 tons into LKO with a vertical design with only one main stack and two boosters.

Yes, ssto who returns to pad using the 4 engine cluster lift 18 ton, longer version with 4 of the new SRB lift 40 and returns too pad.

Get wilder, an 6 booster asparagus can lift +200 ton, however an 7 engine cluster ssto can lift 120 ton

[Pthigrivi]

So, if I were to suggest marginal changes, maybe it would be reducing ISP for S3 and LFB engines to maybe 300 atm/ 340 vac, reducing thrust from the LR-2L to 2200 and some and providing multi-couplers for the 3.75m tanks for more customization. Also I'd love a low-profile 3.75m to 2.5m adaptor. I also might make a 300 level rocketry tech node with Mainsails, LFBs and Jumbo 64s. I think that would alleviate some of the concerns.