Would you like reducing the thrust of the new engines?

[manuelasa1999]

As you maybe know the new engines are TOO OP, now putting a 175 ton payload in space is too easy, for that, I think that in the next release 0.24 the new engines should be de-oped to make the game hard again or simply make putting things in orbit harder... What do you think?

[Kasuha]

I don't think the game should be made harder this way. If newly added parts allow players to get heavy payload to orbit easier and with less parts than before, it is a good thing.

[biohazard15]

No.

Sure, for some stock zealot who likes to build 300-part launcher (and about 25% of it are struts) these new engines are overpowered, cheaty, gamebreaking, younameit, yada yada yada.

For anyone who uses part packs like NovaPunch or KW Rocketry, or just like to have new powerful parts, these engines are great addition. We had to use a mod to build a good-looking heavy launcher instead of "stick X orange tanks under Y orange tanks, launch and pray" monstrosities - now we've got it in stock.

If you don't like new parts, don't use them. If you're too tempted to use them - just go into Gamedata\NASAmission and delete "MassiveSRB" and all "Size***" folders. And voila - you've got your stock 0.23 temple.

Seriously, folks, stop complaining about "too powerful" parts and asking devs to nerf it. Just don't use them or delete them, but don't ruin fun for others.

[AbhChallenger]

The engines are so OP that I no longer even use them. (SSTO to Laythe convinced me) However please don't use build difficulty as an excuse to nerf parts at this stage of the "game"

There is virtually no game in KSP right now. And won't be for quite some time. You know what that means? It means sandbox, sandbox, and more sandbox.

When it is time to put everything together in the true space program mode. THEN it is time to rebalance every part in the game.

[Seret]

No.

I don't build stuff that big, but lots of other players do. I don't see why they should have their fun ruined because of how I play the game. Once we have to start paying for parts I think they'll find the mega parts are prohibitively expensive in career anyway. Or at least, building small will be more profitable.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'd like to see them balanced against the existing engines, either through reduced thrust, added mass, or reduced Isp (or some combination thereof). They would still permit launching larger payloads with fewer parts more easily, they just wouldn't turn so many parts into efficiency losers.

As for the whole "if you don't like them, don't use them" bit, I think that's nonsense. Early access is partly about getting feedback from the community, and if someone feels rebalancing the new engines would improve the game they should give that feedback.

[Comrade Jenkens]

I'm going through the part configs and editing them to the values I prefer. e.g the 4 engine cluster I've reduced the thrust to 2600.

[pizzaoverhead]

There are excellent points on the topic made by stupid_chris here and Red Iron Crown here:

Let me see if I can clarify:

• In KSP, TWR is generally balanced against Isp for gameplay reasons.
  
• The new engines, particularly the KR-2L, break that balance. This is mathematically factual, not opinion.
  
• To balance them, a thrust reduction, Isp reduction, or mass increase is required (or some combination of those). Thrust need not be reduced if that is considered undesirable.
  
• There is no reason an engine with very high TWR cannot be balanced against the old engines by lowering its Isp to an appropriate level.
  
• If the new engines were balanced, they would still reduce the part count on large lifters. Larger fuel tanks and engines with greater thrust mean fewer parts whether they are balanced well or not.
  
• Because they are unbalanced, the new engines relegate almost all the old engines to niche-use status for lifters. Basically, there is no logical reason to use one of the old 2.5m lifter engines; once your payload is large enough to justify 2.5m parts the new engines simply outclass the old in every way.
  
• Other engines in KSP have been nerfed compared to their real world counterparts (i.e. the LV-N's ridiculously low TWR and atmo Isp compared to the real NERVA) for gameplay reasons, there is no reason that SLS parts should be any different.
  

[CaptRobau]

Thrust-wise only the LFB needs to be nerfed in my book. It's the only part that completely outclasses another (the Mainsail). It's possible to have one of the parts still give a niche use while the other is used for everything else. That's a more interesting solution than leaving it as it is only now, with the LFB being better for every situation.

Isp-wise I'd love it if we could have some consistency. In the real-world different types of engines (first stage engines, upper stage engines, vacuum engines) have different ranges of Isp. In KSP first stage engines sometimes have Isp ranges of upper stage engines, second stage engines those of first stage engines and every other combination.

[maccollo]

No, I would not reduce their thrust, and I think it's fine to be able to put a lot of mass into space with fewer parts.

What I would do is reduce the TWR, and by doing that, reducing the Delta V cap at TWR > 1, buff the total thrust a bit to compensate. What this means is that you would still be able to push a similar amount of mass to orbit with a single column + boosters.

The difference would be that you couldn't single stage a good fraction to orbit, because currently the size 3 engines can single stage the same fraction as other engines can if they ARE staged.

I mean... the KR-2L... what would the real world analog for this engine be? Like an kerosene engine with the ISP of a hydrolox engine? That'd be some pretty magical stuff.

Edited April 4, 2014 by maccollo

[The Error]

Okay, because I find these complaints pointless and annoying:

-If you think something is OP, you can 1) edit the .cfg file, 2) use the thrust limiter, or 3) not use the part.

-If you feel like posting your opinion? Fine. "I think part X is overpowered." But stating "I think X is overpowered so everyone else should too" is inconsiderate.

-If you feel everyone should have to use your edited / "non-OP" part, get out. Please. The idea of KSP's sandbox is "everyone plays the way they prefer", and if someone prefers massively OP engines, why spoil their fun?

-These threads all scream of "Guys? Why are you doing this? It's the wrong way to have fun! Stop!" and frankly, I feel that's just flat-out mean.

Apologies if I sound harsh, but there seems to be a number of threads every time a part is changed that want things to go back to their previous state.

tl;dr: OPness is a matter of personal opinion. There's no need to suggest a change for everyone when you can just change things for yourself.

[a2soup]

Much better than reducing the thrust would be increasing the mass.

The TWR is what is OP, not the thrust. High thrust is good because it makes larger payloads possible, which everyone wants. High TWR (without correspondingly reduced Isp) is why they are stupidly easy right now.

[Red Iron Crown]

If you feel like posting your opinion? Fine. "I think part X is overpowered." But stating "I think X is overpowered so everyone else should too" is inconsiderate.

When it can be mathematically demonstrated that a part is overpowered in comparison to its peers, it stops being opinion. "I think 2+2=4 is correct and so should everyone else" is not inconsiderate.

The desirability of overpowered parts is a matter of opinion, but whether the new engines are overpowered compared to the others is fact, not opinion.

[Themohawkninja]

Not really, no.

While they have a lot of thrust, they are also meant to lift heavier loads. I've already had to add engines to the engine cluster to get more thrust out of my rocket to lift itself up, and the amount I can lift with the new engines is the same that I can lift with the old engines with the same general rocket design.

It's all well balanced, with the added bonus that the rockets now look quite real IMO with the 3.75 m parts when you aren't actually trying to lift any cargo into orbit (that is to say, you can make a rocket that looks like it could work in reality, and gets into orbit in-game, but it doesn't actually get any real cargo into orbit).

[biohazard15]

When it can be mathematically demonstrated that a part is overpowered in comparison to its peers, it stops being opinion. "I think 2+2=4 is correct and so should everyone else" is not inconsiderate.

The desirability of overpowered parts is a matter of opinion, but whether the new engines are overpowered compared to the others is fact, not opinion.

Looks like that community does not agree with you.

As I stated earlier: stock-only people may think that they're overpowered. Mod users - not so much. They fall in-between NP and KW rather nicely, in my opinion. I could (and I did) change engines on 2nd stage on one of my 3.75m rockets, but I didn't get ridiculous amounts of dV - it was about 300m\s when I swapped Little Mother with KR-2L. And I've gained nothing when I've tried to swap KW Griffon XX on 1st stage with KS-25 block.

Mod users just got a nice stock set of parts that can rival their favourite mods. Stock users are either playing with that set and enjoying it (looks like it's the majority), or go and cry on forums. In Russia, we have a saying: "In the past, Sun was more bright and grass was more green" - it goes surprisingly well here.

Edited April 4, 2014 by biohazard15

[Whirligig Girl]

NO! The engines have a perfectly reasonable thrust value, and it's realistic too.

[Dodgey]

Okay, because I find these complaints pointless and annoying:

-If you feel like posting your opinion? Fine. "I think part X is overpowered." But stating "I think X is overpowered so everyone else should too" is inconsiderate.

tl;dr: OPness is a matter of personal opinion. There's no need to suggest a change for everyone when you can just change things for yourself.

So you are against someone constructing an argument using evidence and logic to support an idea that they think is correct? And with regards to your last statement, that is basically saying you shouldn't suggest it if you can mod the game to achieved the same result because you are forcing your own ideas onto other people.

No offense but it seems to like you are against the entire idea of the suggestions page because it is basically full of people suggesting their ideas. If I'm wrong correct me by all means.

Biohazzard15, it's not a matter of opinion if it can be proven mathematically as Red Iron Crown said. That poll only collected results from 201 people, not exactually a decent representation of the community seeing as there are over 1200 people online right now.

Gregroxmun, realism has nothing to do with it, it's a matter of gameplay, nothing more. If you want to argue for realism then shouldn't you be arguing for the just stupidly overpowered ion engine, a real one has as much thrust as the weight of a piece of paper.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Dodgey

[Red Iron Crown]

Looks like that community does not agree with you.

Yeah, that agrees with me fine. As I said, the desirability of overpowered parts is a matter of opinion, which is what that poll is measuring. That the parts are unbalanced is not.

[Jouni]

When it can be mathematically demonstrated that a part is overpowered in comparison to its peers, it stops being opinion. "I think 2+2=4 is correct and so should everyone else" is not inconsiderate.

The desirability of overpowered parts is a matter of opinion, but whether the new engines are overpowered compared to the others is fact, not opinion.

Technically, it's only been demonstrated that the new engines are more powerful than the old ones. Whether that means that they are overpowered is still a matter of opinion, as "overpowered" implies that the engines are too powerful.

[hawk_za]

NO.

The new engines are balanced as they come at late game on the tech tree and by that stage i am sick and tired of building 60 part rockets to get anywhere that is useful.

The reason the other parts were balanced against each-other is because there was only sandbox mode up until .23

how boring is it to work your way up the tech tree and gain nothing better might as well not bother having a tech tree then.

Sand box is just that and career is were the new game is now.

Just my opinion as you called for it.

yours in service

hawk_za

[Francesco]

No.

NO.

In other words, no.

Jesus Christ, stop asking this question and making polls about it.

The new engines are meant to be more powerful.

As you maybe know the new engines are TOO OP, now putting a 175 ton payload in space is too easy, for that, I think that in the next release 0.24 the new engines should be de-oped to make the game hard again or simply make putting things in orbit harder... What do you think?

It never was hard for you, the player, to put massive payloads to orbit:

IT WAS ONLY HARD FOR YOUR COMPUTER.

Anybody can use the orange tanks + Mainsails + struts asparagus combination, ad infinitum:

stage and repeat, until you have enough delta-v.

It's not exactly rocket science.

Meanwhile, your PC may not be so happy of having to burn in hell to show your 1000+ parts launcher on screen.

Also, have you tried capturing a 1400+ tons asteroid so far?

I guess not, otherwise you would know how many tons of fuel you need for that.

[Red Iron Crown]

Technically, it's only been demonstrated that the new engines are more powerful than the old ones. Whether that means that they are overpowered is still a matter of opinion, as "overpowered" implies that the engines are too powerful.

When comparing the TWR and Isp, the new engines are outliers on the positive side of the curve that applies to almost all of the old engines, which makes them overpowered in the sense that they are unbalanced against the old. There is literally no quantitative reason to use a Mainsail when a LFB-KR2 is available, it is better in every regard.

I'm not saying they have too much thrust, if that's what you mean.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Red Iron Crown
Posted wrong engine name.

[Kasuha]

When it can be mathematically demonstrated that a part is overpowered in comparison to its peers, it stops being opinion.

Selection of metric to demonstrate it is also matter of opinion. Even experts may not agree on what metric is correct.

In my opinion, an engine is undisputably OP if and only if you would use it for any purpose because it is better than any other engine in any situation. That would mean mass of LV-1, thrust they have, and ISP of LV-N. If such an engine was added to the game, yes, I would think it is OP.

[Dodgey]

Technically, it's only been demonstrated that the new engines are more powerful than the old ones. Whether that means that they are overpowered is still a matter of opinion, as "overpowered" implies that the engines are too powerful.

Have you seen Silly_Chris's graph go the TWR compared to ISP? It clearly shows a line of balance where the majority of the stock engines are situated around as well as the new engines sitting well above the line. They can be balanced as well as more powerful. They can be more powerful, make the most powerful engine you want, as long as it still is balanced. Silly_Chris has provided very good evidence as to why the engines are OP, show me the evidence that they are not OP.

EDIT:

What is this mainsail, orange tank era people keep talking about? I mean are you saying that they are completly redundant now? What is the era? Just because new parts are added doesn't mean that old ones should be made redundant.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Dodgey

[Wahgineer]

I know how to balance the engines: high science cost, high money cost.

We get to keep the parts, and they're (kind of) balanced.

Seriously, stop bashing on the new parts; especially if the only reason you have to bash them is that your butthurt over the end of the mainsail/jumbo 64 era.