I don't understand the fuss behind ARM

[Red Iron Crown]

Fair enough. I can't unlearn what I know, so I would notice as well, but the question I have been asking myself is "if I had just bought this game would this alter my experience?" Honestly I don't know if I'd notice one way or the other. Can you honestly say you would? I guess if you always do the math you would, but I don't think most people do that. I've always assumed the math was withheld to encourage experimentation, and that in mind I think overpowered is far better than under.

I'm not throwing down the game in disgust over the new parts or anything, if that's what you mean. I've given my feedback, and debated it a bit with some of the other posters here, but that's the extent of it for me. I do think it changes the new player experience, as it is now much easier to get into orbit. Especially if you look at the typical new player design: Capsule, biggest tank, biggest engine.

As for withholding the calculated numbers for rocket design, I understand Squad's reasoning for it even if I don't agree with it, but that's for another thread.

That said I'm pretty particular about how I play, I'm not even sure I'd notice something being overpowered unless it was grossly so, because if my lifter has extra fuel when it stages or if I have to throttle below 25% it gets a redesign. I meet that criteria with reasonable looking rockets so arm doesn't really bother me.

As for challenges around here, I've never bothered, so I can't speak on that, but I have to ask, does arm actually effect those if everyone is on an even playing field? How does it change the nature of them? And since this is alpha, would you rather nerf these or have more options added to fill in the gaps?

Overpowered parts tend to crowd out their lesser brethren in challenges. It is exceedingly rare to see any small engine other than the 48-7S in challenges due to it being overpowered. I expect the new SLS engines to do the same in the heavy lift role for challenges.

I'd rather see the new engines have their Isp reduced or weight increased to bring them more in line with the rest of the lineup, to keep the other options viable in more situations.

[Technical Ben]

Experience in an Alpha? Is that what your suggesting? If that was so, saving and persistence would have been the first update. It was not. Calling the new rockets "overpowered" is deciding the result. It's begging the question.

How can it be rare to see smaller engines in challenges? If the challenge is "build the best/quickest/lowest fuel use Luna Lander" would the the new giant parts be "best"?

[Red Iron Crown]

Experience in an Alpha? Is that what your suggesting? If that was so, saving and persistence would have been the first update. It was not.

I have no idea what you mean by this, care to expand on it a bit?

Calling the new rockets "overpowered" is deciding the result. It's begging the question.

They are unbalanced, by the numbers and game mechanics we have now. One might argue that that is a good thing, but I don't think it can be argued that their stats aren't significantly better than other heavy lift engines.

How can it be rare to see smaller engines in challenges? If the challenge is "build the best/quickest/lowest fuel use Luna Lander" would the the new giant parts be "best"?

Please reread the sentence I wrote: "It is exceedingly rare to see any small engine other than the 48-7S in challenges due to it being overpowered." My point was that overpowered parts crowd out other parts in challenges, reducing diversity of design.

[Technical Ben]

How are they unbalanced? What gameplay are we talking about? Notice how gameplay is subjective here in sandbox. It is always going to be. Real life parts are also going to follow their own mechanics, and not those of gameplay balance (real life does not care for "balance" in rocket power ). Add to that, that this game is part sim and part game, where should Squad set the balance? They seem happy with it so far, with some parts tweaked, others left alone. Most players are too, as there is no "game" yet, without the career mode being fully implemented.

So how are the rockets, in a fictional universe, following unfinished implementation and still awaiting full mechanics of gameplay, currently unbalanced? What numbers should the game follow, and who suggests it should? These parts are not warp cores, and the other parts are not water pressure rockets (though the ion almost was ). They fall within the middle.

They have both size and fuel use limitations, that smaller and weaker parts do not have. Thus they have balance. They also are for launching off Kerbin, which so far has not had a NASA Apollo equivalent since the game was first made. Are we suggesting we ditch the possibility of Apollo launchers, because it's not "balanced" to gameplay?

Ah, I did not realise the 48-7s was the small one, or that it was considered "unbalanced". But it's true to real life too. We could put JP fuel in every rocket, and it would have amazing power. But costs prevent us. That is the part of the game currently *missing*, thus it will be unbalanced. Real life does not allow "spamming" of rockets due to cost, though some designs do move to it as costs are reduced. If people spam an engine, I'm not sure you CAN balance against that. Every rocket will have a DV/TWR/ISP it's perfect for, so it would be spammed for that challenge. The 48 though is very small, try doing the same with the new parts, without invoking "clipping".

To change it now will make it more messy to rebalance for career/money later. This is not a unbalanced part, it's just it's missing the gameplay elements it's intended for.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Technical Ben

[Rakaydos]

To change it now will make it more messy to rebalance for career/money later.

Why? Why not change it now, and price it appropriate for the new stats when money appears?

[78stonewobble]

I play with only stock parts. I like keeping all my parts unmodded for ease of trying challenges and stealing testing other players' designs from the Spacecraft Exchange. Fairly sure I'm not the only one who plays this way, either. I wouldn't go so far as to say the new engines ruined the game, but they have rendered some parts obsolete and I would've preferred they were better balanced.

I do use informational mods, but I don't see a significant difference between them and doing all the calculations manually or in a spreadsheet, except that doing them in game is way more convenient and quick. I have a finite time to play KSP, I'd rather have the computer do the calculations for me so I can spend more time playing.

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.

[Red Iron Crown]

How are they unbalanced? What gameplay are we talking about? Notice how gameplay is subjective here in sandbox. It is always going to be. Real life parts are also going to follow their own mechanics, and not those of gameplay balance (real life does not care for "balance" in rocket power ). Add to that, that this game is part sim and part game, where should Squad set the balance? They seem happy with it so far, with some parts tweaked, others left alone. Most players are too, as there is no "game" yet, without the career mode being fully implemented.

I think I see where our difference in perspective is coming from. You consider career to be the "real" game, and without career there is no "game". I don't agree, and I think we'll have a hard time reaching common ground if that's how you don't consider sandbox a valid game mode that can be balanced.

So how are the rockets, in a fictional universe, following unfinished implementation and still awaiting full mechanics of gameplay, currently unbalanced? What numbers should the game follow, and who suggests it should? These parts are not warp cores, and the other parts are not water pressure rockets (though the ion almost was ). They fall within the middle.

They are unbalanced with regards to the balancing used for engines previously, in that TWR is generally traded off against Isp for all the other engines. Those other engines that will be affected by the as-yet undisclosed future mechanics just as much as the new parts.

They have both size and fuel use limitations, that smaller and weaker parts do not have. Thus they have balance. They also are for launching off Kerbin, which so far has not had a NASA Apollo equivalent since the game was first made. Are we suggesting we ditch the possibility of Apollo launchers, because it's not "balanced" to gameplay?

That's a strawman if ever I saw one. I would welcome Apollo (or any other) parts, as long as they were balanced against the other parts. I don't like the situation of having parts be strictly better than others in the same role, because it makes the game less interesting for me to play, with fewer valid design compromises. It directly opposes the point of adding new parts, which is to give the player more choices for parts.

Ah, I did not realise the 48-7s was the small one, or that it was considered "unbalanced". But it's true to real life too. We could put JP fuel in every rocket, and it would have amazing power. But costs prevent us. That is the part of the game currently *missing*, thus is will be unbalanced. Real life does not allow "spamming" of rockets due to cost, though some designs do. If people spam an engine, I'm not sure you CAN balance against that. Every rocket will have a DV/TWR/ISP it's perfect for, so it would be spammed for that challenge. The 48 though is very small, try doing the same with the new parts, without invoking "clipping".

The thing you seem to be missing is that the parts were generally well balanced against each other up until this update, with few exceptions. If the SLS parts had fallen on the same TWR/Isp curve as the rest, there would have been far fewer complaints.

To change it now will make it more messy to rebalance for career/money later. This is not a unbalanced part, it's just it's missing the gameplay elements it's intended for.

I'm not sure. The parts are going to need a balance run through before economics are released, I think it would have been possible to have the new parts be balanced for the game as it is now and include them in that balance run.

I can only evaluate balance in the game as it is, I cannot say for certain whether they'll be better balanced or not when economics arrive.

[Dogoncrook]

@red

Well if you leave these forums the opinion on kerbal seems entirely different. It's a too hard game that you should buy anyway because lol random, and a glorification of crazy slap some rockets on it and send it to the moon, hopefully it's chaos. That pretty much sums up the reviews as well. I guess at the end of the day I feel the game was designed in such a way that if your chasing numbers you are playing it in a way it's core isn't designed around. It's a different philosophy if you will. It's cool that you can do that, but I don't see the devs ever catering to that play style, and they have been vocal about that, so why not just mod to taste and be done with it? I mean we can all have our cake and eat it to here. If the challenges lack variety, that's a lack of imagination I've never seen displayed around here, so I think those fears are unfounded.

[Red Iron Crown]

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.

That is commonly done in challenges, the command seat seems to be excluded from many as it is dreadfully overpowered.

Still, it means fewer parts that are balanced for challenges, and I think balancing them against the other parts would have pleased both challenge/sandbox players and career players. We all want more stock parts, it would be a shame if most new parts from now on were only balanced for career mode and weren't as usable for the players who play differently.

[Technical Ben]

Why? Why not change it now, and price it appropriate for the new stats when money appears?

Extra work and cost for Squad, for a somewhat pointless endeavour (doubles up the work for no reason, when they can do it once and do it right). Like wings/aerodynamics. They are not rebalancing them until they decide on the final aerodynamics.

I think I see where our difference in perspective is coming from. You consider career to be the "real" game, and without career there is no "game". I don't agree, and I think we'll have a hard time reaching common ground if that's how you don't consider sandbox a valid game mode that can be balanced.

No. Career is the Squad/Game based "balanced" gameplay mechanism. Sandbox, by definition, is not. Sandbox by definition is "player balanced/player gameplay mechanics". It is down to the player, and thus will always be subjective to them when it comes to balance. Sandbox is very much the "real game", and I personally will spend a little time in career, but mostly in sandbox. However, the challenges and gameplay are from what I, as a player, make it. Career is what Squad makes it.

That's a strawman if ever I saw one. I would welcome Apollo (or any other) parts, as long as they were balanced against the other parts.

That is not how Apollo worked. It was not "balanced" against previous attempts. It was what it was. Now the game, launching 3 kerbal pods, or launching rockets the size equivalent of a Kerbal Apollo, require a Kerbal Apollo power equivalent rocket. Else it would never get off the ground. (Besides the points already raised that would in the future rebalance the engines)

I don't like the situation of having parts be strictly better than others in the same role, because it makes the game less interesting for me to play, with fewer valid design compromises.

(Emphases mine)

I agree that we like to meet as many players play styles as possible. But this just is not going to happen here. Note it's down to how you approach the game, not a problem with the game. It's also problematic if Squad ever decide to add tier 1 and tier 2 etc to the tech tree (with DIRECT rocket replacements over the "junk" we first start with). Or do you never play a game with upgrades to equipment? Say the racing game example I gave?

I can only evaluate balance in the game as it is, I cannot say for certain whether they'll be better balanced or not when economics arrive.

Hence the problem. The game as is, is not really "balanced". It's close I guess, but it's far from feature complete, and very far from final stats.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Technical Ben

[Rakaydos]

No. Career is the Squad/Game based "balanced" gameplay mechanism. Sandbox, by definition, is not. Sandbox by definition is "player balanced/player gameplay mechanics". It is down to the player, and thus will always be subjective to them when it comes to balance. Sandbox is very much the "real game", and I personally will spend a little time in career, but mostly in sandbox. However, the challenges and gameplay are from what I, as a player, make it. Career is what Squad makes it.

November 13, 2013 12:16:04 PM MST

The tech tree was always meant to work as an introduction tool to KSP. A more 'conventional' tutorial would have probably worked too, but it would be exceedingly long and pretty boring. Plus, I think a game should always give players means to discover it by simply playing, and this is what we set out to do with R&D.

I don't think any player, veteran or first-timer, would enjoy sitting through an overly long 'lesson' on what each part does. And more importantly, they wouldn't get to experience first hand the problems that some parts exist to solve. If you've never experienced the problem of tall ships falling over on the pad, then you won't fully appreciate the fact that launch clamps exist.

In the end, the R&D system works to let everyone experience the process of gradually developing your space program, learning as you go how to overcome the problems you encounter. For new players, this allows them to get into the game without having to sit through an introduction, and for veterans, the restrictions are also a good thing, as they set them (or rather 'us') up with new challenges that require us to come up with new ways to tackle old problems.

I'm not seeing anything here about having parts that render other parts obsolite if you can afford them.

[Technical Ben]

Depends on what you mean by "introduction". Should an introduction NEVER replace what you were trained on? I'd assume Squad will not based on that comment, but it does not exclude it. The first parts could be underpowered for introducing rocket mechanics slowly (else you'd fly straight to Duna like Scott! ).

Look at the larger picture, rather than a single giant purpose built launching stage, with the stats that it calls for.

[Jouni]

Old quotes like that may no longer be valid. The About Kerbal Space Program page, on the other hand, states the following:

Currently the game is an open sandbox. There are no objectives yet. You're free to build anything you can think of, and explore the Kerbal Solar System. A tycoon-style Career mode is in the works however.

That definitely gives the impression that the career mode is going to be more than just a tutorial.

[Dogoncrook]

Are you suggesting they accidentally overpowered the new engines?

[Rakaydos]

Depends on what you mean by "introduction". Should an introduction NEVER replace what you were trained on? I'd assume Squad will not based on that comment, but it does not exclude it. The first parts could be underpowered for introducing rocket mechanics slowly (else you'd fly straight to Duna like Scott! ).

Dont need to underpower the Lv series if budgets prevent you from making an SRB tower. Actually, I'd prefer if it was ~slightly~ the other way around- The Lv30 being the best engine (combinaion of TWR, ISP, and cost-for-scale) in the game, but without cluster adaptors (or cubic struts) it's utility is limited to 1m rockets, and once you get the ability to cluster them you have to deal with lack of gimbal on large rockets.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Rakaydos

[Technical Ben]

I agree, I was not arguing for them to be changed, others were complaining they were "unbalanced".

As I mentioned. No one has answered my question about the elephant in the room. SRBs. I'm not up on the maths/stats, but everyone says their redundant to liquids in the game. Always have been, always will be. So, if you allow for this, why complain about another? SRBs are underpowered, liquid "overpowered", but no one asks for "balance" do they?

[Rakaydos]

SRBs have a lot of drawbacks. They can only be used once, and burn completely. They also have no gimbal, and dont scale up the way liquid engines do. (Where are the 2m space shuttle solids?)

This makes them a niche engine. They're good at one thing- improving the TWR of launch stages. Saying they're underpowered is like saying the Aerospike is underpowered because it only gets used for Eve return vehicals.

[Jouni]

The problem with SRBs is that they burn out too soon. By the time you detach the boosters, the rocket should already be flying closer to horizontal than vertical. That allows you to use a less powerful but more efficient engine in the core, improving the overall efficiency of the rocket.

[Technical Ben]

SRBs have a lot of drawbacks. They can only be used once, and burn completely. They also have no gimbal, and dont scale up the way liquid engines do. (Where are the 2m space shuttle solids?)

This makes them a niche engine. They're good at one thing- improving the TWR of launch stages. Saying they're underpowered is like saying the Aerospike is underpowered because it only gets used for Eve return vehicals.

Liquid always improves my TWR better than solids. What are they good for again? They are (IMO) totally replaced on the tech tree/game parts list. So why are SRBs ok, but the new liquids not? Or should both be rebalanced?

They imitates Real Life in this manner too. AFAIK the only reason for the solid boosters was cost and simplicity. It was not "power" or "better". So, should we change them in game because it's not "balanced"?

[Rakaydos]

But is that because solids are weak, or because the liquids are bigger? I'm pretty sure Solids have a higher Thrust to Cross section ratio- how powerful they are compared to the cross section they displace. (in other words, the highest thrust of the 1m parts, since all SRBs are 1m)

EDIT: long SRB is 650 thrust, vs Lv30's 215 thrust

SRBs are SRBs. There's a limit to how much you can fix them while still maintaining the distinction between solids and liquids. A Solid will never be a primary orbital maneuver engine. They have their niche as a liftoff assist, but they dont compete with liquids.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Rakaydos

[Red Iron Crown]

No. Career is the Squad/Game based "balanced" gameplay mechanism. Sandbox, by definition, is not. Sandbox by definition is "player balanced/player gameplay mechanics". It is down to the player, and thus will always be subjective to them when it comes to balance. Sandbox is very much the "real game", and I personally will spend a little time in career, but mostly in sandbox. However, the challenges and gameplay are from what I, as a player, make it. Career is what Squad makes it.

Sandbox has been fairly well balanced until now. There is no "definition" that says sandbox cannot or should not be balanced, sandbox just means very few clearly defined goals and a great amount of player freedom. Before career mode existed and there was only sandbox, we still debated the balance of parts as they were added. So obviously sandbox balance is a real thing that some players care about.

That is not how Apollo worked. It was not "balanced" against previous attempts. It was what it was. Now the game, launching 3 kerbal pods, or launching rockets the size equivalent of a Kerbal Apollo, require a Kerbal Apollo power equivalent rocket. Else it would never get off the ground. (Besides the points already raised that would in the future rebalance the engines)

Again, strawman. Apollo style missions can and have been done with the previous, better balanced parts, and would continue to be possible or even easier than before if the new parts were better balanced. It is more important for the game to be fun than for it to make accurate replicas of real world rockets. This game hasn't been about accurate replicas of real world rockets, just look at the LV-N and its pathetic TWR and atmo Isp compared to the real world NERVA. As I understand it, Squad did this so that the NERVA wasn't overpowered compared to the other engines.

(Emphases mine)

I agree that we like to meet as many players play styles as possible. But this just is not going to happen here. Note it's down to how you approach the game, not a problem with the game. It's also problematic if Squad ever decide to add tier 1 and tier 2 etc to the tech tree (with DIRECT rocket replacements over the "junk" we first start with). Or do you never play a game with upgrades to equipment? Say the racing game example I gave?

I can only report on how changes to the game affect my enjoyment of it. So of course I have to describe it from my perspective, I would never presume to know what other people find fun. Anyone who claims their perspective is somehow more important than someone else's (who isn't part of the dev team) is deluding themselves.

Hence the problem. The game as is, is not really "balanced". It's close I guess, but it's far from feature complete, and very far from final stats.

On this, I think we are in agreement.

[Dogoncrook]

Aren't the new engines balanced by the fact they are a pain to maneuver? I mean before it wasn't like people were slapping mainsails on probes or satellites. Or put another way, with the rebalance mod do you now use them in orbit, or do you now use them as ssto's and such? Do you push their limits? It seems like putting a limit on something to prevent you from doing something you never were going to do in the first place. That said I might try the rebalance mod, but if it's as some of the people said a difference you won't even notice, should I bother if I'm using everything realistically anyways? That's a serious question, I like the idea of it but in practice if it's just correcting math in the background that I don't care about or look at, and if it's just making sure I don't exploit, well what's the point? I don't play that way anyways.

[Technical Ben]

"There is no "definition" that says sandbox cannot or should not be balanced". It's sandbox, "balanced" against what? It has no mission or point or stat limits. It's entirely down to player based limits.

Take the SRBs, they are only 1m parts. So the excuse is "as 1m parts they are not unbalanced". Well, guess what the excuse is for the new, larger, parts?

"Again, strawman. Apollo style missions can and have been done with the previous, better balanced parts", really? I thought the size meant we can do mini-apollos. But full size with the 3 man capsule?

[Rakaydos]

I'm currently playing using Stupchris's rebalance mod (which is exactly what people are arguing should be stock) and I just returned from an Apollo style mission using the new parts... to Dres. Without a single fuel line, entirely serial staged.

This was the "saturn 5" with this mod.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited April 11, 2014 by Rakaydos

[78stonewobble]

That is commonly done in challenges, the command seat seems to be excluded from many as it is dreadfully overpowered.

Still, it means fewer parts that are balanced for challenges, and I think balancing them against the other parts would have pleased both challenge/sandbox players and career players. We all want more stock parts, it would be a shame if most new parts from now on were only balanced for career mode and weren't as usable for the players who play differently.

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.