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

[Jouni]

I generally don't worry too much about what happens when you deliberately try to abuse the system. If you spend too much effort on fighting abuse, you often end up making things worse for the rest.

The joints within stages work well now. Rocket stages are generally built as single components, and they certainly feel like that in the game now.

Decouplers and radial structures should be the weak points of a rocket. When I launched my asteroid interceptor, I had almost 100 tonnes of payload attached to a single 2.5-meter decoupler, with no struts to hold the payload steady. As TWR increased during the ascent, the game made it clear that I had overloaded the decoupler. So far so good. What went wrong was that the joint started flexing instead of breaking, which didn't make much sense.

In the same launch, I had 115-tonne boosters attached with one radial decoupler at the bottom and one strut at the top. Those tiny parts held the huge boosters steady, which felt rather ridiculous. I would prefer having different sizes of radial decouplers in the same way as we have different sizes of stack decouplers. If you used too small decoupler to hold a booster, the decoupler would eventually break, unless you had a lot of struts.

[Tank Buddy]

Quite simply, if you don't like the new parts you can just not use them, edit the part configs, or delete them.

[Tiberion]

Quite simply, if you don't like the new parts you can just not use them, edit the part configs, or delete them.

Can people stop saying this please? It's rude. You would not like it if people told you that your opinion did not matter and to just deal with it, and you have no right to treat other people in that way either.

Squad is a developer that listens to its community, usually to its benefit and sometimes not. So telling people to stop giving feedback is not the solution.

Oh and its juts terrible logic to boot. If that were the case, they could just properly balance the parts and then you could edit them back to be overpowered yourself. Game too hard for you? Deal with it.

Sucks, huh?

Edited April 5, 2014 by Tiberion

[Giggleplex777]

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.

Just because they're " pre-built" doesn't mean you can't be creative with them.

Check out this thread to see some examples: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43086-Open-Source-Construction-Techniques-for-Craft-Aesthetics?p=1066932#post1066932

Personally, I love the LFB; it's the only engine from the ARM pack that I use. I NEED its high thrust, efficiency, and low part count. If When they nerf the ARM engines, I hope they don't touch the LFB.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Giggleplex777

[StevenRS11]

It does necessarily take some of the creativity out of using them- for every part that is 'pre built', that removes one degree of freedom which the player could have used in a different way.

Though I don't think its the pre built nature of the parts that is the issue- its that they become first order optimal solutions to a disproportionally large amount of problems because they are so good.

[Dooz]

Well you can remove the ARM by removing the folder in the gamedata folder. Or tracking station and hide all unknown objects.

[Taleric]

This is all quickly fixed by implementing a career economy, nerfing reaction wheels and completing the aerodynamic forces in the game.

Creative artistic types will continue with sandbox while the challenge players get their fix.

I look forward to contracts to see where that goes. We can have tons of OP equipment in game but if the cost is so great that a disaster or frivolous use brings a space program to its' knees intelligent economic design will prevail.

[FacticiusVir]

Personally, my bugbear is that the parts feel like there's one "correct" rocket to build (which isn't surprising, as they're based off real designs). The four-rocket cluster is underpowered as a first stage engine (given the weight of the 3m fuel tanks, and certainly in comparison to the new single-nozzle, second-stage engine) and you /have/ to use the liquid booster engines to make up the TWR; plus the clusters can't be stacked, so you /have/ to use them as a first stage (in a stack, anyway).

Okay, my other bugbear - where's my 3m docking port, battery & SAS?

That said, I'm enjoying the new parts, because they let me simplify the weird multi-stack mainsail monsters I had before, and build something that actually scales like a proper Saturn V.

[DJEN]

I too, agree with the most. Further modifications would be necessary.

[FlowerChild]

This is all quickly fixed by implementing a career economy, nerfing reaction wheels and completing the aerodynamic forces in the game.

We seem to vastly differ on the definition of "quickly"

I'm honestly not even certain if Squad plans to do anything with aero or not. I'd absolutely love them to and would be performing a little dance of joy if they announced .25 was the "aero update", but at this point I suspect that wouldn't have enough mass appeal to actually happen.

Asteroids are sexy. Aero is not, even if it has a far more significant impact on the quality of the game. I also worry that they may have fallen into that dangerous design space of fearing their own community so much that the only direction they're willing to balance in is that of giving the player more power, and aero would most certainly not fit into that.

Edited April 5, 2014 by FlowerChild

[User Unrelated]

Apparently in ARM world, this is an SSTO.

As soon as some of the bugs get ironed out, I will be constructing a custom stable of rockets with a mix of Squad and KW... probably mostly KW, with Squad 3.5M tanks, I like the aesthetics better.

Not a single SLS engine will be left in my gamedata folder, that is just ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure there's MAYBE KW engine that could do that, too, but I've never thought to do this before with KW parts, so there must be a reason...

I LOVE the asteroids (just... MUCH LESS OF THEM PLEASE, it's like a war-zone out there right now)

but the new parts are sort of meh.

Edited April 5, 2014 by User Unrelated

[ArmchairGravy]

Apparently in ARM world, this is an SSTO.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s59/KSPbox/screenshot5_zps04a1141f.png

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s59/KSPbox/screenshot9_zpsdce51d29.png

As soon as some of the bugs get ironed out, I will be constructing a custom stable of rockets with a mix of Squad and KW... probably mostly KW, with Squad 3.5M tanks, I like the aesthetics better.

Not a single SLS engine will be left in my gamedata folder, that is just ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure there's MAYBE KW engine that could do that, too, but I've never thought to do this before with KW parts, so there must be a reason...

I LOVE the asteroids (just... MUCH LESS OF THEM PLEASE, it's like a war-zone out there right now)

but the new parts are sort of meh.

178k of fuel?! Ay carumba!

[User Unrelated]

178k of fuel?! Ay carumba!

The second stage had almost 10K dV when it hit a stable orbit... it was just silly.

That's with no nukes, and a mainsail as the core engine...

EDIT:

too many asteroids for my taste.

Edited April 5, 2014 by User Unrelated

[Taleric]

We seem to vastly differ on the definition of "quickly"

Ok you got me on "quick aero", that will be a bit. Also I checked the planned features and there is no citation for the cited aero improvements

That is upsetting because it would indeed be easy to shelve.

Honestly prior to the rediculous stability brought on by the joint change I had no desire for further aero. Ships were fine beyond the crazy "swimming" that could happen in space.

If they plan to leave any challenge they should empower mod devs with some hooks to revert questionable "improvements".

I hope none of this is tied to the enhanced performance, my PC is very appreciative.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Taleric

[FlowerChild]

Ok you got me on "quick aero", that will be a bit. Also I checked the planned features and there is no citation for the cited aero improvements

No, there's not. I think the only mention of it anywhere as "planned" is on the wiki, and that's community maintained.

I think the point I made about fearing the community is particularly relevant too. I can't remember the last time a "balance" change meant a significant reduction in player power, and that would tend to indicate that "balancing" is only occurring in one direction. This is obviously not a good thing in terms of the long term viability of the game, and would put something like aero on the chopping block given players are bound to complain about the reduction to their ever increasing big bag of power.

Also, not sure how many people noticed this title as one of their GDC talks:

Thursday, March 20 - 11:30 AM - Calisker - You Own the Game, but the Community Owns You - Room 2020, West Hall

But man, to me that title reads like it could easily be a support group for game designers suffering from community abuse

[internerd]

Like the new parts. But then again I always appreciate the more realistic rocket design. Each to his own.

[Taleric]

Also, not sure how many people noticed this title as one of their GDC talks:

Thursday, March 20 - 11:30 AM - Calisker - You Own the Game, but the Community Owns You - Room 2020, West Hall

But man, to me that title reads like it could easily be a support group for game designers suffering from community abuse

Lol! I am sure it was a support group and not guidance to appease the masses maximizing profits at the expense of actual game design. I picture all the recent Indy devs sobbing openly, "Hi my name is Notch and I allowed my creation to be perverted." "Hi Notch!"

[ComradeGoat]

After reading all of this, it sounds like ARM is basically unbalanced. I haven't downloaded it yet. Perhaps I'll stick with 0.23 for a while.

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

I believe 0.24 will introduce currency, so hopefully that will fix the 'BIGGER IS BETTER' issue.

[Creature]

I LOVE the asteroids (just... MUCH LESS OF THEM PLEASE, it's like a war-zone out there right now)

Yeah, I'm hoping in career mode I'd rather get a "Awesome! An asteroid I can capture and get that sweet science!" rather than "Oh my god! It's full of asteroids not worth capturing."

[Mischief]

Honestly? I don't find it unbalanced.

Then again I have never played sandbox, only career and getting the higher end rockets unlocked takes a decent amount of science - by which time I already have the resources to put 120t or even 200t payloads up anyway - just in the form of a slideshow.

The only thing at all that's changed is that when I've unlocked what use to be the 'peak' equipment (orange tanks, mainsail - or more to the point 2x silver tanks and mainsail and skipper in stages) I can build the exact same lifting assembly. I used to make, only with less parts and less lag. I've only got 1 asteroid on anything close to a collision course; it's an 'A' and it's 90 days out. The others will all miss me by a ways, so I quit tracking them - thus they will disappear.

The big challenges have always been things like SSTO ships, return landers for Eve, a colony on Laythe, putting a flag on Moho. The new equipment does absolutely nothing at all to affect any of those.

All the new equipment has done is give my rockets a more polished look and let me do so without my choice of slideshow or 1 second being equal to 1 minute of time. I uninstalled MechJeb because I can enjoy taking my own ships to orbit again now.

I enjoy the ARM update. It's made the game significantly better. I had to start my Career mode over, which stings, I had a 16 ship fleet getting ready for a departure to Duna to set up a 40 Kerbal science and mining colony. Now I've got to start all over and I'll do it better this time. I'm still finding 90-120t payloads to be my upper limit before I start running into construction issues but I can make the assembler to get me there with less parts.

All that's changed is the lag I get. Not the challenge of any of these goals. For me anyway; if the challenge for you was always making 1000+ part vessels.... well, fair enough. You just don't need to anymore, if you're cunning about it.

Wasn't that always the case though?

[Red Iron Crown]

Honestly? I don't find it unbalanced.

Then again I have never played sandbox, only career and getting the higher end rockets unlocked takes a decent amount of science - by which time I already have the resources to put 120t or even 200t payloads up anyway - just in the form of a slideshow.

The only thing at all that's changed is that when I've unlocked what use to be the 'peak' equipment (orange tanks, mainsail - or more to the point 2x silver tanks and mainsail and skipper in stages) I can build the exact same lifting assembly. I used to make, only with less parts and less lag. I've only got 1 asteroid on anything close to a collision course; it's an 'A' and it's 90 days out. The others will all miss me by a ways, so I quit tracking them - thus they will disappear.

The big challenges have always been things like SSTO ships, return landers for Eve, a colony on Laythe, putting a flag on Moho. The new equipment does absolutely nothing at all to affect any of those.

All the new equipment has done is give my rockets a more polished look and let me do so without my choice of slideshow or 1 second being equal to 1 minute of time. I uninstalled MechJeb because I can enjoy taking my own ships to orbit again now.

I enjoy the ARM update. It's made the game significantly better. I had to start my Career mode over, which stings, I had a 16 ship fleet getting ready for a departure to Duna to set up a 40 Kerbal science and mining colony. Now I've got to start all over and I'll do it better this time. I'm still finding 90-120t payloads to be my upper limit before I start running into construction issues but I can make the assembler to get me there with less parts.

All that's changed is the lag I get. Not the challenge of any of these goals. For me anyway; if the challenge for you was always making 1000+ part vessels.... well, fair enough. You just don't need to anymore, if you're cunning about it.

Wasn't that always the case though?

None of your points are relevant to the balance of the new parts.

All that was needed to reduce part count for large lifters was bigger engines, bigger tanks, and a reduction in the number of struts required. If the SLS engines were balanced all those things would still be there.

[r4pt0r]

I saw what stupid_chris posted in the other thread and i think that would help with balance, and i also think a re-texture to make them match the current parts better would help.

EDIT: found it again http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74448

Edited April 6, 2014 by Vanamonde
Reference to off-topic post removed.

[Naten]

Ermagherd, guise. Look at these SSTO's... T_T

Yep, yep yep yep yep yep yep yep.

[Superfluous J]

I agree with you on most everything, but this one:

...return landers for Eve... The new equipment does absolutely nothing at all to affect any of those.

The new parts have absolutely helped in this regard. Eve landers have to be either HUGELY MASSIVE or tiny little apollo-style landers that don't actually accomplish anything. And still they're hard to do. I haven't tried it yet, but I cannot see how reducing the fuel tank and engine part count by about 1/10 will NOT help in this endeavor. Not to mention building the craft that will get THAT craft from the surface of Kerbin to Eve.