I don't understand the fuss behind ARM

[wasmic]

Alright, I only now realized that the ARM engines were such a large community splitter as it is. I wish that people would just shut up about it until 0.24 comes out and cash becomes a balancing factor for the engines. Then we can discuss whether they're overpowered or not after that.

My personal opinion is that the engines should be nerfed, but not in thrust - high thrust allows people with low-end computers to build heavy lifters on par with people with high-end computers, due to fever parts being needed. Instead, I'd nerf the engines slightly in terms of Isp and weight, but the primary nerfing factor should be cost. The only part that I currently see as needing a large nerf, mostly in Isp but also in weight, is the LRB, which currently makes the Mainsail obsolete in all but a few cases - it's even unlocked at the same tech node as the Mainsail!

[Rakaydos]

My personal opinion is that the engines should be nerfed, but not in thrust - high thrust allows people with low-end computers to build heavy lifters on par with people with high-end computers, due to fever parts being needed. Instead, I'd nerf the engines slightly in terms of Isp and weight, but the primary nerfing factor should be cost.

Noone is saying to nerf their Absolute Thrust. Weight (and thus TWR) and ISP are the stickingpoints here.

[_Aramchek_]

Because it is a challange that would be effectively impossible in stock if I ignored the OP parts, like so many of you suggest.

You are therefore choosing to exclude yourself, this is not some action being perpetrated against you, that's the point.

I have to hold your claim that it would be "impossible without op engines" slightly suspect though, if you were planning on doing it with an engine rebalance mod that you feel fixes the problem...ostensibly by nerfing the perfectly fine engines you consider "op".

The ISP/TWR are fine the way they are too, no nerfing required.

[Guest]

Because it is a challange that would be effectively impossible in stock if I ignored the OP parts, like so many of you suggest.

That's a moot point; the OP of that thread specified stock only, what makes you so special that you can enter that challenge with modded parts, "balanced" or otherwise?

[Rakaydos]

I have to hold your claim that it would be "impossible without op engines" slightly suspect though, if you were planning on doing it with an engine rebalance mod that you feel fixes the problem...ostensibly by nerfing the perfectly fine engines you consider "op".

Because it's a question of Absolute Thrust, not ISP or TWR. I've already got a "nerfed" launcher that goes apollo style to Dres, that uses three stages of balanced 3m engines (two of which are clusters), and trying to build the same thing with 2m parts would almost certiantly require asparagus staging to he point of being wider than the VAB.

[_Aramchek_]

Because it's a question of

In your perspective it is, choices, etc.

[Rakaydos]

In your perspective it is, choices, etc.

Feel free to prove my assertation that a high absolute thrust engine is needed for that challange, by building an apollo style launcher (asparagus staging is specifically banned) with the delta V for a moho orbit and return carrying a lander WITHOUT using the SLS parts at all.

But the point I brought up with that anecdote, is that the imbalance in stock is affecting the challange community, and thus affecting the fun people can have with the game, even though the pre-arm parts are all still there.

[Guest]

But the point I brought up with that anecdote, is that the imbalance in stock is affecting the challange community, and thus affecting the fun people can have with the game, even though the pre-arm parts are all still there.

It's not affecting the "challenge community" at all, it's affecting you. Many of the challenges I see don't call for heavy lifting in the slightest and so far you're the first person to mention this "challenge community" that is having issues with these parts. The challenge you mention can benefit from the ARM parts by allowing users of slower machines, like me, to build those massive lifters required to complete the challenge. I could probably build a lifter out of 2.5m parts for the challenge, but I'm not at all interested in spending an hour babysitting a 500+ part lag fest launch and watching my laptop melt; 300 parts was plenty, thank you very much.

[Killerdude8]

Feel free to prove my assertation that a high absolute thrust engine is needed for that challange, by building an apollo style launcher (asparagus staging is specifically banned) with the delta V for a moho orbit and return carrying a lander WITHOUT using the SLS parts at all.

But the point I brought up with that anecdote, is that the imbalance in stock is affecting the challange community, and thus affecting the fun people can have with the game, even though the pre-arm parts are all still there.

A singular challenge out of the possible thousands weekly, Does not represent the Challenge community.

As it was long before SLS, People will Ban certain parts from their Challenges, literally nothing has changed, You people need to stop over dramatizing the situation.

[_Aramchek_]

Feel free to prove my assertation that a high absolute thrust engine is needed for that challange, by building an apollo style launcher (asparagus staging is specifically banned) with the delta V for a moho orbit and return carrying a lander WITHOUT using the SLS parts at all.

But the point I brought up with that anecdote, is that the imbalance in stock is affecting the challange community, and thus affecting the fun people can have with the game, even though the pre-arm parts are all still there.

*sigh*

What I'm saying is that your assertion, as regex said, is a moot point.

You have a problem with it, not everyone does.

That is what I was trying to convey to you.

And your opinion that it is negatively affecting the challenge community is just that,an opinion, not an objective, set in stone fact.

[boxman]

No, there has always been the intention to have a career mode, KSP was released on Steam due to constant requests by the community for a Steam release.

And KSP was never supposed to be Orbiter, it was always supposed to tread a middle ground between realism and fun which it is continuing to do.

KSP still does not have arcade elements and the orbital mechanics that were in KSP from the early days are still here, but many players seem to be blinded by "efficiency", we have the option to build to excess, there is no need to always build the most efficient craft.

Squad continually add more content, features and parts and yet some still complain that Squad just want to "sell more copies", well for one thing this is the games industry, selling copies is a given, and for another, Squad does care about the player base, if they did not you would not see any of these improvements, Squad would just call KSP done.

As before, the only one making you use the new parts is yourself.

I never said that career mode was not planned since the beginning. It of course was which was suggested even by career mode being a greyed out option as well as the placeholder for costs.

What I am saying is that these new overpowered parts have a negative side effect on the sandbox mode and that it wasnt planned to be overpowered to make things easier.

I have nothing against career mode at all, but this game is also very much about sandbox.

I just think that they are "dumbing" it down a bit too much to make this game appeal more to the casual gamers. I of course see nothing wrong in wanting to sell more copies, but in last versions there have been very little added to keep the game challenging for those of us who have now become experienced with this game.

The asteroids themselves though was a good thing and that actually gives us some new challenges, but I just think that the new engines takes away from that since they are not balanced compared to the old parts. Again I have no issue either with bigger rockets with more thrust, but they should have added some kind of negative drawback like for example making them less efficient.

Is the same thing with ion engines.. I can understand them upping the thrust to make the long burns a bit less painful but they sadly also did not scale up the electricity and xenon consumption.

And no, I dont care at all about orbiter. I actually thought the balance between gameplay and realism was near perfect and find that the current trend is a big step backwards.

It cant even really be compared anyways since orbiter completely lacks the "lego" aspects of what makes KSP so fun for the likes of me.

[_Aramchek_]

What I am saying is that these new overpowered parts have a negative side effect on the sandbox mode

An opinion I, a fellow sandbox player, do not share at all, nor understand as, again, you literally do not have to use the parts should you think they are overkill.

There is no way past that.

[Jouni]

Feel free to prove my assertation that a high absolute thrust engine is needed for that challange, by building an apollo style launcher (asparagus staging is specifically banned) with the delta V for a moho orbit and return carrying a lander WITHOUT using the SLS parts at all.

Third Stage: X200-16 Fuel Tank and a Poodle

Second Stage: Jumbo-64 Fuel Tank and a Skipper

First Stage: Two Jumbo-64 Fuel Tanks and a Mainsail

Then take seven of these rockets, and attach six of them radially around the core. With this assembly, you'll get an encounter with Moho with about 50 tonnes of payload. If that's not enough payload, then just add more rockets.

As an added bonus, the explosions after staging are hilarious.

[Rakaydos]

Third Stage: X200-16 Fuel Tank and a Poodle

Second Stage: Jumbo-64 Fuel Tank and a Skipper

First Stage: Two Jumbo-64 Fuel Tanks and a Mainsail

Then take seven of these rockets, and attach six of them radially around the core. With this assembly, you'll get an encounter with Moho with about 50 tonnes of payload. If that's not enough payload, then just add more rockets.

As an added bonus, the explosions after staging are hilarious.

Eww. I conceed the point, but that makes most asparagus rockets look realistic. :/

[cantab]

Not really. It just wants a fairing wrapping round the whole thing and it'd look dead on. OK maybe having 7 third-stage engines is a bit iffy, but that's not the biggest deal.

[Pecan]

...You say there is now no "need" for anyone to put any thought into vehicle design, because there is one most "efficient" way to do things now. Well, there has allways been a most "efficient" way to do things and that hasn't stopped people from trying out a multitude of different designs and ways of doing things.

So what's really inarguable is that having an "easy option", as you so derogatorily call it, doesn't really matter much, as long as there is also options to do it another way.

Please just stop. You are arguing badly, on your own, against things I neither said nor meant.

Specifically, I did not say, nor mean, 'there is now no "need" for anyone to put any thought into vehicle design, because there is one most "efficient" way to do things now'.

I said, and meant, "the obvious, easy option is more-or-less the right one as well."

Nowhere have I been derogatory about the "easy option" - all I have said is that it is not only easy but, "more-or-less right". Hardly a term of condemnation.

NOW I will add that the most obvious, easy option is likely to be the first thing anyone learns/tries [do try to read and appreciate the qualifications in this statement]. Having found out that the obvious, easy option works they may, I hope will, assess other options as well. Having proved to their own satisfaction - one way or another - that the obvious, easy option is not substantially worse in any category than much more arcane options they will probably stick with easy.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that. You may care to notice that I have also said "a 'tycoon' game ... has a certain appeal." I have no horse in this race and really am not trying to argue one way or another.

I use MechJeb for routine operations as a matter of course. That gets me enough disapprobation for 'wanting it easy' without getting it for arguing against easy too ^^. Just as a stock autopilot would make KSP 'too easy' for some people the ARM parts do for others. Please re-read my post to which you originally responded; I was not saying "slippery slope", I was bemoaning the inevitable flood of "I don't want this" threads that will follow some putative stock autopilot. That inevitability is what I'm drawing from this thread, since the actual 'discussion' is going nowhere.

Final comment: I have more than got my money's worth from KSP already. I am happy for Squad to do with it what they will and look forward to enjoying whatever it may be. If I don't like it I have more than 400 other titles on my shelf already and, *gasp* books as well! [General gag, not aimed at anyone so no-one get touchy]/

Edited April 13, 2014 by Pecan

[_Aramchek_]

And back to the elitism, anyone who uses the parts you think are too powerful, well of course they only do it because it's easy.

......

Big, complicated rockets aren't really any easier than any other style of craft either, even with the new parts.

You can make complicated, well designed/engineered "op" rockets, many do, but again, you can't get past this.: If you do not like the parts, you are not forced to use them.

[Rakaydos]

And back to the elitism, anyone who uses the parts you think are too powerful, well of course they only do it because it's easy.

Can you use the phrase "too efficent" instead of "too powerful" when describing our perspective? "Too powerful" implies that the raw power is a problem, and it isnt.

[_Aramchek_]

Can you use the phrase "too efficent" instead of "too powerful" when describing our perspective? "Too powerful" implies that the raw power is a problem, and it isnt.

It doesn't change the point in any way, put whatever term you wish in there.

[Rakaydos]

It doesn't change the point in any way, put whatever term you wish in there.

If there were powerful parts that wernt too efficent, it would be much less of an issue. As it stands, the ONLY powerful engines in stock are too efficent. Like if the only 1m engine was the NERVA.

[_Aramchek_]

If there were powerful parts that wernt too efficent, it would be much less of an issue. As it stands, the ONLY powerful engines in stock are too efficent. Like if the only 1m engine was the NERVA.

And?

Play with the rocket building style you are comfortable with.

[m4v]

This thread has run its course. People already said what had to be said, Squad surely got that feedback, now all left is wait for .24, meanwhile there's a balance mod.

[78stonewobble]

Please just stop. You are arguing badly, on your own, against things I neither said nor meant.

Specifically, I did not say, nor mean, 'there is now no "need" for anyone to put any thought into vehicle design, because there is one most "efficient" way to do things now'.

I said, and meant, "the obvious, easy option is more-or-less the right one as well."

Nowhere have I been derogatory about the "easy option" - all I have said is that it is not only easy but, "more-or-less right". Hardly a term of condemnation.

NOW I will add that the most obvious, easy option is likely to be the first thing anyone learns/tries [do try to read and appreciate the qualifications in this statement]. Having found out that the obvious, easy option works they may, I hope will, assess other options as well. Having proved to their own satisfaction - one way or another - that the obvious, easy option is not substantially worse in any category than much more arcane options they will probably stick with easy.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that. You may care to notice that I have also said "a 'tycoon' game ... has a certain appeal." I have no horse in this race and really am not trying to argue one way or another.

I use MechJeb for routine operations as a matter of course. That gets me enough disapprobation for 'wanting it easy' without getting it for arguing against easy too ^^. Just as a stock autopilot would make KSP 'too easy' for some people the ARM parts do for others. Please re-read my post to which you originally responded; I was not saying "slippery slope", I was bemoaning the inevitable flood of "I don't want this" threads that will follow some putative stock autopilot. That inevitability is what I'm drawing from this thread, since the actual 'discussion' is going nowhere.

Final comment: I have more than got my money's worth from KSP already. I am happy for Squad to do with it what they will and look forward to enjoying whatever it may be. If I don't like it I have more than 400 other titles on my shelf already and, *gasp* books as well! [General gag, not aimed at anyone so no-one get touchy]/

I am sorry if I in anyway misunderstood your post. It happens...

I jumped on the statements that means that the new parts limits people's "variety of playstyles" or "creativity" or what you want to call it... due to their higher efficiency and/or power.

It might do so, however, as I said, there has allways been one hyperoptimised solution to anything in the game and that has seemingly not limited creativity noticeable.

So no, it isn't obvious and it certainly isn't proven that having an easy way of doing things mean it will get picked an unproportional number of times or significantly curtail people's wishes and ability to be creative.

This next part is not so much at you, but a more general extension of the above.

Nonetheless, even if it was true, that some undefinable amount of people picked an easy option. It still haven't been established that this is a problem. Especially as long as there is a choice so that people who want to make it a bit easier can do so and those that want it harder can make it arbitrarily much harder on themselves.

Edited April 14, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[78stonewobble]

I was recently barred from participating in a "apollo to moho" challange because I was using a rebalanced engine mod- the challange creator wanted it stock only.

Suppose the engines do get nerfed and a player then mods the engines to get back to his subjectively preferred efficiency/power/realism level, the original one. He would then get barred from a challenge... And enter this thread .... and we'd have the exact same argument to change them back.

If it's unfair you get barred from challenges from choosing the way you want to play, then it is equally unfair that guy gets barred from challengs from choosing the way he wants to play. Then it would be unfair to nerf the engines.

These 2 cancel each other out.

There have been many great arguments as to how the engines should be balanced and why, if one wishes them to be balanced.

I've yet to see a good argument as to why they should be balanced for everyone, that isn't ultimately just based on: Because I prefer it that way. So much so, that other people should be forced to play my way.

Again cancelling eachother out.

IMHO, there is more choice in leaving the engines be for now and thus less forcing people to play a particular style, since all the original engines are still there. Anything you could do before is still possible.

[Starwaster]

WOW 38 pages of this? Come on, time to close this thread.