I don't understand the fuss behind ARM

[Red Iron Crown]

Let's get rid of the whole suggestions subforum then. Who's with me?

You could just choose not to use the suggestions subforum. Why is that so hard?!

[Holo]

You could just choose not to use the suggestions subforum. Why is that so hard?!

I was saying it ironically. If it is wrong to say that the stock game could be better on the forums (as some people seem to be saying), then the suggestions subforum would be pointless. The continued existence of the suggestions subforum shows that it's not pointless, therefore it is not wrong to say that the stock game could be better.

Why do people even care? I mod the stock game. Make changes to the engines, batteries, etc. I modded the science lab to store 4000 electric charge. And I gave it has torque values of 60.

If the stock game is so broken that you need to mod already existing features, someone is doing something wrong.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Holo

[Red Iron Crown]

I was saying it ironically. If it is wrong to say that the stock game could be better on the forums (as some people seem to be saying), then the suggestions subforum would be pointless. The continued existence of the suggestions subforum shows that it's not pointless, therefore it is not wrong to say that the stock game could be better.

Ironically, I was responding to your ironic post with more irony. This forum desperately needs sarcasm tags.

And I agree with your point; expressing opinions about the game, even if negative, is not "whining" or "complaining". It's using the feedback channels to provide feedback, as intended.

[r4pt0r]

If the stock game is so broken that you need to mod already existing features, someone is doing something wrong.

i play only stock and love it.

[comham]

One solution would be to raise the power of the original engines. They ARE the underpowered engines compared to RL after all...

Also, to have this conversation without making a separation between sandbox balance and career balance is meaningless.

In total annihilation for example (build economy and fight with hordes of robots) for example there was a tech tree and the later robots were *much* more powerful than the earlier ones. In a skirmish (sandbox) game, they were all you would use as they could kill anything else.

In skirmish (sandbox) they were horribly overpowered.

In the ACTUAL game though there was an economy which made it harder to get the overpowered parts and so this balanced them due to their cost.

It would have been idiotic to `balance` the game for sandbox as that would paradoxically unbalance it for the actual game and would have made the game as a whole MUCH less fun to play. There would be no point in developing tech, everything would be so `balanced` that the benefit of expending the resources to get the higher powered parts would be eliminated.

Balancing the game for sandbox play would have ruined it.

We are in a similar position in KSP. We are moving from `sandbox balancing` to `gameplay and career balancing` and there are different ways to do both.

An attitude shift in the forum is now needed to allow SQUAD to make this a much better game. Stop thinking of balancing as something that can only be done in sandbox and realise the new economy will provide new ways to balance an engine that seems OP currently without nerfing it.

I know OP wanted to restrict the thread to exclude money and career but that would make the thread dissolve into an argument for which there is no solution unless you consider career and money.

I don't think that TA analogy holds up very well. One point TA is well regarded for (even after nearly 20 years!) is balancing T1 and T2 units so that teching up to T2 does not make T1 obsolete, both tiers are useful to the endgame in terms of the resources they cost. Skirmish is not a great analogy to sandbox. Skirmish with instabuild and unlimited resources would be a good analogy to sandbox but no mode like that existed.

There is still not much of a picture on what KSP career mode would look like. RTS campaigns tend to be seen as tutorials for the competitive multiplayer mode and KSP career mode right now is generally seen as a training mode for... something, right? Minus much of the story content that RTS campaigns have.

I know there was a pretty popular blog post a few years ago that made the point quite well that any KSP career mode should play down the economics of it, because wobbly kerbal disasters were fun and it would be counterproductive to make the player feel bad about them and distract from the trial-and-error (in the good sense) gameplay loop of KSP.

[Rakaydos]

On the D&D forums I go to we have something called the Stormwind Fallacy.

"If it's not broken because you can fix it with houserules (mods), it's still broken."

[SirusKing]

IMO, the new tanks/rockets are fine, they should just be a little further down the tech tree. Another node after "massive rockets" would be cool.

[Temeter]

The continued existence of the suggestions subforum shows that it's not pointless, therefore it is not wrong to say that the stock game could be better.

I think thats an interesting point. Many complaints about arm are in fact not constructive suggestions, but, well, complaints and criticism. We have a metric ton of posts here telling everyone just how wrong the arm-balance is. That its a mistake and damages the game as a whole. Calling it broken, allowing things which - out of some reason - arent supposed to be possible. Basically telling SQUAD they have no clue what theyre doing. I think thats more than a bit unfair considering they are the ones who made ksp.

And in the meantime we got a poll on our hands with ~75% of the votes being okay with ARM or hoping for a career-based balancing...

[_Aramchek_]

I don't think anyone is looking for balance for realism reasons, it's about the gameplay.

The "self-control" argument is not really relevant, we're discussing how we'd prefer the parts to be.

It is relevant when the discussion is "I won't have any reason to use the old parts because the new parts are so good.", this is 100% a self regulation issue.

[Ziff]

I'd be disappointed if sandbox mode is left to wither on the vine in favor of career mode. Sandbox play is what made KSP what it is today. Maybe career mode is what will attract new players who need more direction in what to be doing, but it would be better if both camps could be satisfied.

I am sure both camps will be satisfied after the game is feature complete and all the stock parts are implemented. It's really difficult to balance the game until everything is done.

[comham]

It is relevant when the discussion is "I won't have any reason to use the old parts because the new parts are so good.", this is 100% a self regulation issue.

Self control should not be an issue at all. Part choices should be logical based on mission requirements and how parts fulfill those requirements. If a part (eg, a hypothetical overpowered engine) becomes the logical engine choice in any situation, then it is overpowered and needs a nerf to fit in with everything else.

Or if a part is totally useless and it never makes practical sense to use it, it is underpowered. If you ever played the PS2 game Dark Chronicle, the magic character had an alternate mode where she could turn into a monster, like the mechanical character could ride a robot, but the way the experience point economy allocated damage points made her monster mode absurdly underpowered so it was never, ever used by players.

[_Aramchek_]

Self control should not be an issue at all. Part choices should be logical based on mission requirements and how parts fulfill those requirements. If a part (eg, a hypothetical overpowered engine) becomes the logical engine choice in any situation, then it is overpowered and needs a nerf to fit in with everything else.

The parts are logical based on mission choice, you would use larger rockets rather than asparagus staging to launch heavy payloads. Just like in the real world!

Or if a part is totally useless and it never makes practical sense to use it, it is underpowered.

You're assuming there will never be a need to use anything else, however this is, again a completely self regulated choice.

That said, I've been using all the parts I normally do, PLUS the new parts..so..again it's all a choice.

Your ability to make a functioning rocket using only parts you think are decently powered is still there, has not been taken away, etc.

[Joonatan1998]

The "Build most efficient x" (x is rocket/lander...) playstyle is a playstyle many players like.

This patch made that playstyle much more boring.

It is not self regulation issue, the whole point of that playstyle is to get the most efficient rocket trough any means possible, but within the limits of stock game.

Now the most efficient way is much more simple than it was before.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Joonatan1998

[_Aramchek_]

The "Build most efficient x" (x is rocket/lander...) playstyle is a playstyle many players like.

This patch made that playstyle much more boring.

It is not self regulation issue, the whole point of that playstyle is to get the most efficient rocket trough any means possible, but within the limits of stock game.

Now the most efficient way is much more simple than it was before.

It is a self regulation issue, you don't think the new parts are balanced, you don't really need to use them, it's a choice to use them or not.

And it really is that simple, the other parts are still there, still work exactly as they always have, you can use them instead.

I'm sure everyone has always had parts they do not use much, and we've had many threads on that in the past.

Nothing about the game balance has actually changed

, we just have larger, more difficult goals, and the appropriate tools to go with them.

[Joonatan1998]

The whole point of that playstyle is to get the best results possible in the stock game.

That means that you always use the mathematically best engine.

Before it was fun for many people

Now it is very boring because the new engines are almos always the best.

The point of that playstyle is to not use any self regulation. (no matter how stupid it will cause your craft look like)

(And what are those "larger, more difficult goals"?)

Edited April 12, 2014 by Joonatan1998

[_Aramchek_]

The whole point of that playstyle is to get the best results possible in the stock game.

That means that you always use the mathematically best engine.

No.

I often use engines that are not considered " the best" and have gotten everywhere anyone else has.

Again this is a choice, you are choosing to use the "mathematically best engines", there are definitely other approaches to designing craft, all equally valid and worth looking in to.

[TMS]

I think I've used the ARM pieces twice. They're just too damn big for the bulk of my operations and I'm perfectly happy with my mainsail-led designs.

I think it's a misdirection to assume that people are one-dimensional enough to only play in a particular way and, honestly, I'm amazed this is still being argued over.

They'll get nerfed soon enough.

[Joonatan1998]

I am not speaking about your playstyle.

I am speaking about people that do things like an 40t grand tour.

I never said that everyone is trying to build the most efficient crafts possible.

I only said that effciency is the playstyle of some people.

The new parts make that playstyle less fun.,, but at the same time they are very fun for people that don't try to build the most efficient crafts possible.

I don't care much if the game is hard or easy, but building super efficient crafts should be hard.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Joonatan1998

[Hodo]

Would you object if Squad added in an engine that had an ISP of 1000 and a thrust of 5000? Or would you just accept it and say, well that's how they ment it to be. Kasuha, doesn't your argument go against the point of the suggestions page?

I love answers like this.

Because they are answered with a simpler response.

Don't like it, don't use it.

Simple as that.

It applies to the whole ARM patch, if you don't like something DON'T use it! I personally don't like the stock KSP, so I don't use the stock KSP, I have more mods than some of you have hairs on your chin.

Arguing and crying about updates is like screaming at the clouds because they are blocking the sun when you are at the beach or crying because it is raining outside on your day off. It is pointless and a waist of everyones energy listening to it. So suck it up, drive on, and cowboy the f* up!

[_Aramchek_]

I am not speaking about your playstyle.

I am speaking about people that do things like an 40t grand tour.

I never said that everyone is trying to build the most efficient crafts possible.

I know what you are speaking of, it simply does not change the point.

You can use other parts, still there, still working parts.

If you choose not to because you want the best efficiency , that is still all just a choice.

[cantab]

The whole point of that playstyle is to get the best results possible in the stock game.

That means that you always use the mathematically best engine.

Before it was fun for many people

Now it is very boring because the new engines are almos always the best.

Was it really much better before ARM? We already had the 48-7S on everything small and a lot of things not small, the Mainsail as the heavy lift engine, the LV-N streets ahead for big interplanetary ships (unless you have the patience of a saint in which case you use the ion engine), asparagus as the One True Staging, I could probably go on.

[Technical Ben]

Let's turn this on its head, would it seriously cripple peoples play if the parts were balanced? I don't think so.

That begs the question. It already decides they are unbalanced. No one is arguing against balancing them. The fact is, there is nothing to balance them against currently in the Alpha.

I feel like I'm repeating myself here.

Does it not worry you that the new engines have made Rocket Singe Stage To Laythe craft not just possible, but really easy to throw together, using only one engine (x7)? Could you do that in the demo?

The game has a scaled solar system, extra think atmospheres, humongous gravity wells for tiny planets... and your suggesting the fact real life stat based rockets can fly to laythe (pre and post ARM!) has balance issues? Sit back, consider that thought process for a moment.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Technical Ben

[Pecan]

I think I am very bored of the circularity of this argument now.

KSP used to be a game where you could put time into learning to design spacecraft, fly them and navigate the system. To all intents there is no point in the first of these any more because once someone has learnt to put a few parts together in the VAB that's the only design they'll ever need. Fine - it makes it easy for all the people who aren't interested in designing ships. Flying and navigating will be trivial too once MJ or similar autopiloting is stock and we'll probably have hundreds of "but I don't want this, it makes it too easy" threads.

Then KSP will be a career game where you don't need to know much in order to build, fly and navigate spaceships. The instant-gratification-gamers will be happy and the rest of us can remember the solution - self-control and/or mods. Let's just hope for everyone's sake that Squad is happy with the worldwide fame, acclaim and success of KSP :-)

Edited April 12, 2014 by Pecan
Removed inappropriate and offensive reference

[Rakaydos]

Was it really much better before ARM? We already had the 48-7S on everything small and a lot of things not small, the Mainsail as the heavy lift engine, the LV-N streets ahead for big interplanetary ships (unless you have the patience of a saint in which case you use the ion engine), asparagus as the One True Staging, I could probably go on.

And each of those (bar the mainsail, which had its own problems) were complained about before ARM was even announced. Giving us complainers all something even worse to complain about is not the way to stop complaints.

By the same token, several underperforming engines were deservitively buffed, like the Ant and Ion, but the Mk 55 is just as underperforming as the 48-7s is overpowered, and neither was fixed.

The Lv-N is in a class of it's own because there are only 2 high efficency space engines- but with the buff to the ion's power, I expect the Ion to start being a realistic choice in comparison- less thrust certiantly, but even more efficient, with other engineering problems like power management. Another engine covering the area between the Nerva and the other LV series, something with 600 ISP but a better TWR than the nerva (heck, you could rework the Ant engine into this! so it isnt competing with RCS ports anymore) would round out the curve and make LV-N engines a real choice.

The mainsail's problem was the same one the nerva has- it was on the curve, but so far from it's neibors that there was no choices to be made- If you needed more thrust than a skipper, either you stacked a dozen or so LV30s together to get the thrust you needed, or you got a mainsail. With the addition of the LFB, the Stock Rebalance proect has actually reduced the power of the mainsail, giving you a more efficient engine than the (nerfed) LFB, that has more power than a skipper, to give people more choices.

Asparagus is the tricky one, because on paper, it IS the "one true staging." The Shuttle External Tank was the first crude appproximation of this, but the idea has been around for over 50 years. The best we can hope for in KSP is to mimic the drawbacks as well as the advantages- fuel flow momentum, and heavy and expensive pumps- but even in real life, SpaceX is attempting to overcome these difficulties with it's heavy lift designs.

[Technical Ben]

So just putting a rocket together makes everything happen? So the entire game is DV and TWR limited? I never knew...