I'm sorry, I... I just don't like ARM... :(

[DaveofDefeat]

Delete new parts, edit joint strength, change ion thrust config file. Done.

[karolus10]

For me ARM update will not be remembered because of asteroids nor sls style parts, but as "wobble bane"... exagerated wobble of any 2.5m rocket without struts on every connection was a number 1 issue making use of ridiculus amounts of ductape a necesity for most of 2.5m rockets.

[Killerdude8]

I love the new parts.

Less of my CPU and RAM usage spent on a lifter, and more spent on a meaningful piece of machinery that improves my enjoyment of the game.

AND

Let's not forget, Tall Rockets won't wobble themselves apart, It's one of the Last Old KSP problems that they've finally eradicated, next up, Large ships killing FPS.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Killerdude8

[csiler2]

As I recall, Squad has said repeatedly that ARM is designed and intended as an 'official' mod rather than a standard update in the game. I feel this is supported by ARM's lack of full number designation as .23.5 rather than .24 and that the new parts/mechanics are not contained within the SQUAD folder, but within the NASAmission folder. I have inferred that ARM was released as an 'update' rather than put up on Spaceport or released via the KSP store for distribution reasons. Spaceport's interface is pretty bad (weren't we going to get a new version of that?), and the KSP site has enough trouble dealing with users updating through the Squad launcher let alone those of us that get our updates via Steam and other licensed distributors. Clearly releasing it as an update was the sensible choice to make it easy on us to get the new stuff. If you don't like the NASA parts or mechanics, just delete the folder as you would with any mod you don't have an interest in using. Squad created it as an add-on, not core addition, that helps NASA promote their new manned-space initiative in the hopes of generating interest.

Even if we aren't looking at ARM as a mod, the parts look to me as if they may be balanced with future updates in mind. The SLS S1 engine quad is well over twice the cost of the mainsail, but even according to Silly Chris's calculations, does not offer twice the performance, and it's at the top of the tech tree. That means that yes, you will have a very sexy and realistic engine at your disposal near the end of the game that makes the mainsail look like a bottle rocket, but it's also going to be prohibitively expensive compared to the per-launch costs of a mainsail-based rocket. With the stated goal of adding contracts and implied budgets in .24, which was in parallel development with ARM, it seems to me that SQUAD will make you pay dearly for parts that can turn anyone into Giggleplex or Whackjob.

As for the non-ARM parts that have experienced change, including joint reinforcement, I feel that the changes positive. I can't think of a single person that has expressed joy at sitting in front of their computer for hours waiting for their Ion probe to complete an obnoxiously long burns at x4 time acceleration. It's not realistic, but certainly this improves gameplay the same way as unrealistically allowing us to reset experiments repeatedly until we'e moved out of areas we've already drained of science and into the area we want to get new science from. Ant engines have been practically useless for their entire existence because of their low-thrust and even lower ISP performance. It's nice to think I might actually find them the most efficient choice for the job now rather than a pity choice for something that won't see use otherwise. Floppy joint has been a constant complaint of large-scale and linear stack rocket builders since the introduction of the size 2 parts ages ago, now they don't have to add massive amounts of struts to get an otherwise reasonable rocket to fly. Squad may have gone a bit overboard, but they can always scale it back, or make parts more fragile, depending on how much it affects the size 3 part performance.

There are already mods out there that offer seriously OP parts late in the tech tree, we don't flood the modders' threads with demands to balance their engines to Squads' performance envelope. Is Squad not allowed to similarly experiment with new ways of balancing parts beyond their raw performance specifications?

As public beta testers, we should definitely take a critical eye to every update Squad puts out to help them maintain the quality they've established with past updates, but we also need to have a little patience when they have not one, but two updates in the oven that may offer us new challenges we haven't had to deal with. It's hard to keep a budget in check, just ask NASA after the cancellation of the Constellation program and their current issues keeping Orion and SLS on track, and I have a feeling that Squad will balance out extra-powerful engines by making it hard for us to always fit them into our career budgets.

Edited April 4, 2014 by csiler2
clarity

[soldieroffilth]

I am just going to start by saying that there isn't anything in the new update that you can't already get in a mod from the Spaceport. Personnally I think it is nice to see some of the mod inspired parts coming into vanilla.

I love the fact that Ion engines are now significantly more practical than they were. As a prospective game designer myself I understand the whole, "realistic isn't always fun" thing and so developers do have to find a line between gameplay and realism. KSP is ultimately a game, not a simulator, if you want a simulator, go play Orbiter.

The new SLS is awesome, it will take some getting used to but now that we have the SLS I can pul KW rocketry off my computer as the SLS is easier on my CPU, RAM, and GPU than KW Rocketry was. If having the SLS make it too easy, then don't use it. In the end though, this game has yet to see completion and wont for some time yet. Lets give it some time before we start saying things like "KSP is broken".

[jmiki8]

I feel the poster's pain, but I personally like the new parts. It gives me a good feeling when I build a good rocket entirely myself, but it's more enjoyable when I play at more than 0,1 fps.

Personally I love the new parts, and I think the best way to avoid them is not to use them at all .

[Naten]

I find this kind of funny:

We ask, over and over, for newer, bigger, better parts.

We get said parts, and all you guy do is complain.

We ask for multi-engine clusters combined into one part.

We get said part, and all you do is complain about it.

We ask for the ion engine to get a thrust boost, we get it, and all you do is complain about it being OP.

We ask for joint reinforcement to reduce the amount of struts we use, for bigger parts to reduce part counts.

We get stronger joints, and you say it's over done.

We get bigger parts, and all you say is that they're op.

Harvester himself said that these parts were designed with idea that by the time you unlock them, the payload is more important than the rocket. That is, you'd much rather spend more time doing stuff in space rather than spending ages building a rocket to lift it.

Gah, I feel bad now.

Although, I've never wanted an ion thrust boost, unlike most people. But seriously, it's ions, not hot combusting rocket-fuely gases. I really don't like the fact it's at 2kN, as well as the Ant, oh dear.

[Monger]

I love the fact that Ion engines are now significantly more practical than they were. As a prospective game designer myself I understand the whole, "realistic isn't always fun" thing and so developers do have to find a line between gameplay and realism. KSP is ultimately a game, not a simulator, if you want a simulator, go play Orbiter.

True. Nonetheless: modern ion engines are actually quite powerful. They made some interesting steps forward in the last few years. However, newer ion engines need a lot of electricity, so you need big, heavy solar arrays. Maybe Squad decided that newer technology is not only more powerful, but also more fun to play with.

[ScottyDoesKnow]

That got me thinking- since some joints are weaker than others, is it possible to make a mod that weakens joints?

I remember someone saying the strength is directly related to the surface area. And I've definitely noticed it: if I make a rocket with a test payload (which usually uses the largest decoupler and the payload also has a large tank as a base) I can launch at 4x physics warp with no issues. If I adapter down to a 2.5m decoupler, it becomes much more fragile.

[Naten]

What I'm hearing is, "You kids and yer fancy new parts don't play like I did back in the day when men were men!" Pardon me while I land this asteroid on your lawn.

Ye whippersnapper! Get of mah lawn! Geeyit! GEEYIT! Yer gunna have to clean up that tharr asteroid once I call the cops! Geeeeeyit!

[Felsmak]

Gah, I feel bad now.

Although, I've never wanted an ion thrust boost, unlike most people. But seriously, it's ions, not hot combusting rocket-fuely gases. I really don't like the fact it's at 2kN, as well as the Ant, oh dear.

I actually find it a bit sad that it got buffed. In a way it was almost charming when you could barely use it at all.

Back then I could proudly announce that "LOL! I made it to Moho with an ion engine!", but now it's just not the same anymore.

[Lizard771]

Also, the gameplay has changed. It really seems like if you make a big rocket out of like 6 SLS parts, up you go into orbit with a 90 ton payload. Giggleplex did it. It's just too easy. Nerf stuff, pleeeees...

Have fun when currency and reputation is added. Generally the new "SLS" parts are nowhere OP, they're strong, yes, really strong. The problem for me always was that I really never liked the 4 stage asparagus staged rockets for lifting heavy things. It seemed unrealistic and just...not fun. Now with the SLS parts we can do slimmer, better looking rockets which may cost more than a "4 stage asparagus staged rockets for lifting heavy things", but it is more stable and just...more fun.

If you don't like the parts, don't use them. The old ones are still in the game, so where's the problem?

We all want stuff like currency, more advanced science-y stuff (to make space stations useful - instead of just having a floating fuel station in space), but the game is in Alpha and we will have to wait for that stuff.

[WafflesToo]

I love this- the community goes ERMAGAD TOO SLOW IONS! And so Devs buff them up, while reducing ISP- essentially making them the same, just faster. Then they go Too much! Then its rebaleced to 1kn. Then...

No, you're just hearing from the people who didn't want them buffed in the first place.

[Superfluous J]

No, you're just hearing from the people who didn't want them buffed in the first place.

I know it's crazy. Who would have thought thousands of people from all over the world of vastly different backgrounds and ages would NOT all want exactly the same thing?

[Oksbad]

I really wish people would stop trotting out "It's a game!" and "Go play orbiter" every time somebody makes a realism complaint. Part of KSP's appeal comes from the fact that the mechanics of spaceflight are somewhat accurately represented if simplified and made easier.

If realism is worthless, why don't we quadruple the delta-V for all rockets and add regenerating fuel? It's just a game after all! It would make the game more accessible as well. I think moving too far from realism removes the fun from KSP.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Oksbad

[soldieroffilth]

If realism is worthless, why don't we quadruple the delta-V for all rockets and add regenerating fuel? It's just a game after all! It would make the game more accessible as well. I thing moving too far from realism removes the fun from KSP.

Because that would take the fun out of it being a game. That is where the realism can be used as a game mechanic. However, realism that requires a player to get out of bed, make breakfast, eat the breakfast, put clothes on while juggling a cup of coffee, and then execute an hour long commute to the office does not make for a fun game but rather a simulator. It is like the difference between Call Of Duty and Arma or Operation Flashpoint. One is a military shooter and the other is a military simulator, and both play types play immensely different despite their similiarities.

[FlowerChild]

If realism is worthless, why don't we quadruple the delta-V for all rockets and add regenerating fuel? It's just a game after all! It would make the game more accessible as well. I thing moving too far from realism removes the fun from KSP.

That's just bad game design whether you're making a realistic game or not. As such, it has nothing to do with realism, but rather with balance.

I often get people that misinterpret what I do with my own mod as being realistic. It's not. It's about hardcore gameplay and balance, which will occasionally coincide with realism, but is not at all the same thing. Same with what you're saying above. Realism or no, what you're describing just makes for a poor game.

And really, that's what I would argue about many features in this new update in having effectively removed a lot of what previously made KSP fun. IMO overpowered parts that become the only effective choice and joints that simply refuse to break under even the most extreme of circumstances (even if allowing for my new found love of extreme rocket-tricking) serve to make the game less interesting, and thus fun.

Edited April 4, 2014 by FlowerChild

[GusTurbo]

I like the increased joint strength because I got really sick of heavy lifters randomly failing on physics load, regardless of the number of struts. That kind of thing just isn't fun, even if wobbly rockets can be sometimes.

[FlowerChild]

I like the increased joint strength because I got really sick of heavy lifters randomly failing on physics load, regardless of the number of struts. That kind of thing just isn't fun, even if wobbly rockets can be sometimes.

It's not a binary situation. I don't think anyone, even people complaining about it now (myself included), didn't want an increase to joint stability for certain things (like batteries acting as springs).

It's a question of degree. Squad themselves said they didn't want to go overboard with it prerelease, yet that seems to be exactly what we got. If you scroll back to some of the screenshots I've posted in this thread of crazy designs that simply refuse to break, I really doubt you'd say they didn't go too far.

[Superfluous J]

It's a question of degree. Squad themselves said they didn't want to go overboard with it prerelease, yet that seems to be exactly what we got. If you scroll back to some of the screenshots I've posted in this thread of crazy designs that simply refuse to break, I really doubt you'd say they didn't go too far.

I've seen your screenshots and they look pretty fun and cool. If the ability to go out of your way to make crazy spaghettilike contraptions that have no actual purpose is the "cost" of cutting strut use by 90% or more... I'm cool with that.

[FlowerChild]

I've seen your screenshots and they look pretty fun and cool. If the ability to go out of your way to make crazy spaghettilike contraptions that have no actual purpose is the "cost" of cutting strut use by 90% or more... I'm cool with that.

Well, the issue I have with it is not the crazy contraptions I'm intentionally building to test the bounds of this. The issue I have with it is that it makes rocket construction (and flight) overall less compelling if you don't have to worry about things falling apart under hard gravity turns or what have you.

I agree, the strut situation was out of control previously. But I'd say the stability situation is out of control now. Personally, I find the latter to be way less fun, as at least previously I had to think about stability in my designs, perhaps to an unreasonable extent, but I vastly prefer that to not having to think at all.

[Superfluous J]

The issue I have with it is that it makes rocket construction (and flight) overall less compelling if you don't have to worry about things falling apart under hard gravity turns or what have you.

I understand your reasoning but we're going to have to agree to disagree (unless you're willing to change your mind ) on this one. I'm perfectly content assuming that my guys know how to weld parts together, and I'm also very happy to put my efforts into making space stations instead of figuring out where to add a strut so a random tank won't fall off of my booster on the launch pad.

[Hyomoto]

No Pikachu! I love you just the way you are, I don't want you to evolve into Raichu!

[tygoo7]

I actually really enjoy this update. This made the game a lot more fun for me and is personally one of my favorite updates. If you don't like the SLS parts there is a folder in GameData that is named NASAmission and you can delete that.

[FlowerChild]

I understand your reasoning but we're going to have to agree to disagree (unless you're willing to change your mind ) on this one. I'm perfectly content assuming that my guys know how to weld parts together, and I'm also very happy to put my efforts into making space stations instead of figuring out where to add a strut so a random tank won't fall off of my booster on the launch pad.

Well, I think if I clarify my line of reasoning here you might get a better idea of why I'm concerned about all this (and no, I am unlikely to change my mind ):

What I fear this represents is an overall design trend on Squad's part to simplify rocket design to the point of triviality in pursuit of a mass market audience. I think if you look at the new easy to assemble kit-rocket parts in combination with stuff like the excessive joint reinforcement, as well as Squad's own statements about wanting to make KSP easier for new players to wrap their head around, you'll understand why I'm thinking that way.

So yeah, what I'm worried about is not that this is simply a feature that needs more tweaking or what have you to get just right, but is basically an intentional effort to dumb the game down to make it easier.

I think that would be a shame, as IMO rocket design and the sense of accomplishment that comes along with pulling off stuff like getting crazy payloads into orbit is a fundamental aspect of what makes KSP fun. If anything, I think the game really needs more such considerations to heighten that sense of accomplishment (such as a more interesting aero model), not less, as many of the rocket design constraints previously in place were largely artificial (such as the need for crazy strutting and a computer capable of handling it).

What I feel we're kinda heading towards is the equivalent of Bridge Builder where there's no chance your bridges will ever collapse anyways, because that would be "too hard".

Of course most players will love more powerful parts. Of course they will love easier to construct rockets...at least initially. However, they may also find themselves growing quickly bored of a game that provides no meaningful challenge in the long term if things go too far.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents. Given that we're in alpha I think that a large part of the value Squad gets out of having so many people playing their game is that it opens up the potential that people will spot problems with it while they still have time to correct them. To me, this represents a big potential problem that I feel compelled to point out, and if it is an overall design trend as I fear it might be, I think it also stands a good chance of alienating the core audience that has made KSP such a success to begin with.