I don't understand the fuss behind ARM

[_Aramchek_]

you need to build super efficient craft to do it.

That has never actually been true, I brute force my way everywhere and back with ships that would make many of you cringe, and have been since there have been places other than Kerbin/Mun to fly on or to.

[Skyler4856]

Each update would have two sets of bugs to fix...

[Dogoncrook]

"Mike (Mu): *I’ve completely rewritten the contracts systems! The new version gives much more flexibility, moddability and a wider variety of interesting contracts. Plus the various manufacturing agencies have much more of an influence in how contracts are generated."

I really don't think you can talk about balance without discussing career, but at any rate this whole debate seems wildly premature. Just my opinion but this discussion will probably be more productive after .24 drops. There was also talk of new animations, so who knows what's coming with .24 for all we know it could have new parts. If there is competition among manufacturers it's possible we will have many redundant parts added. I support this. Rock vs kerb. Yeah I want this.

[_Aramchek_]

Some of us don't even care about playing career mode, so that won't change a thing.

[Dogoncrook]

Some of us don't even care about playing career mode, so that won't change a thing.

What I'm saying is we may be misinterpreting the scope of the game, what if they add a dozen or so redundant engines, ie similar versions from each manufacturer.

[Jouni]

The craft have to be efficient though. Engine choice is critical, TWR has to be sufficient etc etc.

Landing on Eve without atmosphere would be an engineering challenge. Tylo, on the other hand, is only a relatively small moon, and building landers for it is not that different from building rockets to launch stuff to LKO. In fact, as long as you don't use serial staging, any reasonably efficient lifter could probably work as a Tylo lander for 1/3 the normal payload.

Let's try it. We have a big lander can, landing struts, and some science stuff, for a total of 4 tonnes. With 15% payload fraction, the total size of the LKO rocket should be around 80 tonnes. With Kerbin TWR 1.6 at liftoff, we'll need around 1250 kN of thrust, or 6 LV-T30 engines. This suggests using four asparagus boosters. If we leave some mass for structural elements, we have about 60 tonnes left for the fuel tanks. Let's put an X200-16 fuel tank and an X200-8 fuel tank in the core, and an X200-16 fuel tank and an FL-T400 fuel tank in each of the boosters. (We're building a lander, so we want the rocket to be short and wide.)

Now, let's look how the rocket we built behaves at Tylo with 4 tonnes of payload. The core has 20 tonnes of mass with the payload, 3326 m/s of delta-v, and initial TWR 2.74, making it suitable for the ascent. With one pair of boosters, the mass goes down from 45.1 tonnes to 25.1 tonnes, giving 2127 m/s of delta-v, with TWR ranging from 2.43 to 4.36. With both pairs of boosters, we are burning fuel from 70.2 tonnes to 50.2 tonnes, producing 1217 m/s of delta-v with TWR from 2.34 to 3.27. This means that we have over 3300 m/s of delta-v for the descent with TWR > 2, so we should be fine.

[maccollo]

6 LV-T30 engines

Wrong. The answer is 48-7S, and if you you don't have enough thrust add more 48-7S. When in doubt add another stage with more 48-7S. Never ever use anything except 48-7S

Except when you are in the atmosphere. Then use aerospikes... sometimes.

[Rakaydos]

What I'm saying is we may be misinterpreting the scope of the game, what if they add a dozen or so redundant engines, ie similar versions from each manufacturer.

Like the Lv30 vs Lv45? both engines have their uses...

[LaydeeDem]

I realize everyone is allowed their own opinion but let me ask this, the 'anti' crowd has provided charts, measurements and statistics to show why they think they are overpowered and should be changed. Heck, stupid_chris has done most the heavy lifting, even to go so far as to provide a basic module manager patch to demonstrate said changes.

The 'pro' crowd simply says, "We like them!" and uses strawman arguments to justify their position. And, Kashua, explain how making changes to align these engines somewhere along the linear progression curve the other engines tentatively follow would ruin your fun. Explain that. Describe in detail, like the anti crowd has, how making the variously proposed adjustments would ruin the game for you. These supposed changes are your boogeyman, and you use that as a defense against making changes. That is a strawman.

"My argument is better than yours."

You want stats, here's some stats. (From /u/toilet_crusher and /u/znode on reddit)

http://imgur.com/a/yDLg6

Launching stuff into space is not hard. It should not be hard for the sake of being hard. The hard part is the stuff one does with the stuff that they launch into space.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Nutt007

[Jouni]

Wrong. The answer is 48-7S, and if you you don't have enough thrust add more 48-7S. When in doubt add another stage with more 48-7S. Never ever use anything except 48-7S

Except when you are in the atmosphere. Then use aerospikes... sometimes.

I was not trying to do something as efficiently as possible. I was demonstrating how easy it is to build a Tylo lander without thinking about it too much. That includes using 6 engines of the right size instead of over 40 smaller engines, even though the smaller engines could be marginally more efficient.

[Dogoncrook]

Like the Lv30 vs Lv45? both engines have their uses...

And they all may end up perfectly balanced and useful. Its pretty common during early accsess to put in a couple of representative options to flesh out the rest of the game and come back at the end to add the complete set of options. It isn't worth the trouble when the scope of the game and the mechanics are not decided upon, or implemented. Suggestions would still be relevant and useful, but passionate debate might be a bit premature is all I'm saying. I certainly underestimated the scope of the career mode judging by that comment, who knows what other pieces of the puzzle are missing. It's hard to say at this point what I would want. I'm ok with balancing, but I'm not sure at this point if I would rather have a nerf or a buff of the old engines. It's hard to tell when this could be all of them or if a dozen more are coming or if something like upgradable stats are in the works. It's possible the new engines reflect a design descision that has changed since the old ones were implemented. I mean.. alpha.

[LethalDose]

And they all may end up perfectly balanced and useful. Its pretty common during early accsess to put in a couple of representative options to flesh out the rest of the game and come back at the end to add the complete set of options. It isn't worth the trouble when the scope of the game and the mechanics are not decided upon, or implemented. Suggestions would still be relevant and useful, but passionate debate might be a bit premature is all I'm saying. I certainly underestimated the scope of the career mode judging by that comment, who knows what other pieces of the puzzle are missing. It's hard to say at this point what I would want. I'm ok with balancing, but I'm not sure at this point if I would rather have a nerf or a buff of the old engines. It's hard to tell when this could be all of them or if a dozen more are coming or if something like upgradable stats are in the works. It's possible the new engines reflect a design descision that has changed since the old ones were implemented. I mean.. alpha.

Well said: there's little use in balancing engine performance (or other parameters) before all the mechanics are in place.

[MKI]

And they all may end up perfectly balanced and useful. Its pretty common during early accsess to put in a couple of representative options to flesh out the rest of the game and come back at the end to add the complete set of options. It isn't worth the trouble when the scope of the game and the mechanics are not decided upon, or implemented. Suggestions would still be relevant and useful, but passionate debate might be a bit premature is all I'm saying. I certainly underestimated the scope of the career mode judging by that comment, who knows what other pieces of the puzzle are missing. It's hard to say at this point what I would want. I'm ok with balancing, but I'm not sure at this point if I would rather have a nerf or a buff of the old engines. It's hard to tell when this could be all of them or if a dozen more are coming or if something like upgradable stats are in the works. It's possible the new engines reflect a design descision that has changed since the old ones were implemented. I mean.. alpha.

What i have been and still say to this day. Well said.

I believe the decision for the new parts is to supplement larger launch systems for end game career play. The devs have mentioned a while back that the new parts are designed to keep asparagus down to a minimum. And hell they do!

[LethalDose]

What i have been and still say to this day. Well said.

I believe the decision for the new parts is to supplement larger launch systems for end game career play. The devs have mentioned a while back that the new parts are designed to keep asparagus down to a minimum. And hell they do!

Wait, what? Where was this stated? All I had heard was that the ARM parts were bigger and better because no parts in the current game were powerful enough to move asteroids.

I'm not a fan of asparagus and I don't disagree these parts will cut down on asparagus staging (though I think improving the aerodynamic/drag systems would have been a better solution), it's just that this seems kinda out of left field and it'd be nice to have a source.

[78stonewobble]

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 :-)

Ah yeh olde slippery slope argument.

"Remember how in 23,5 you could pick between balanced engines and some slightly op engines? Well now it's all balanced and crap and I can't even use slightly op engines. The lacking in self control realism gamers, that couldn't force themselves to make a mental choice between engines and point the mouse a few centimeters to pick the right engine will be happy and the rest of us can remember the solution... Personal responsibility and choice and/or mods. "

That goes both ways... and no matter which way it's still a sucky argument.

The fact of the matter is that post-ARM, you can play the game allmost exactly like you used to. Allthough maybe you don't have to use as many struts. Funnily enough I don't see people complaining page up and down about that, even though stronger connections also made the game easier.

The only thing that's changed is that people have a bit more choice... If that ruins the experience for people... I think there are deeper issues at work. Just imagine a person saying that mcdonalds is completely ruined because they added a salad to the menu and he's a meat person. He's not forced to eat it, the other people with it seems happy with it and they haven't removed anything he liked, just added something, but the place is ruined anyway. I don't even know where to begin with that.

Edited April 13, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[Rakaydos]

Ah yeh olde slippery slope argument.

"Remember how in 23,5 you could pick between balanced engines and some slightly op engines? Well now it's all balanced and crap and I can't even use slightly op engines. The lacking in self control realism gamers, that couldn't force themselves to make a mental choice between engines and point the mouse a few centimeters to pick the right engine will be happy and the rest of us can remember the solution... Personal responsibility and choice and/or mods. "

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy

[wasmic]

I think the new parts are overpowered, relative to the old parts, as it is currently. For example the new F-1 alike engine only weighs .5 tons more than the Mainsail, but has much better Isp and almost twice the thrust. However, I think that can be balanced by a combination of TechTree positioning and a high cost. The only part that I think is way overpowered is the LRB, which makes the Mainsail completely obsolete as it is currently, maybe other than a few specific uses. Since it makes the Mainsail completely useless, I think it should be nerfed.

Oh, and to all you "it allows us to launch large payloads with ease" people, I don't actually think they were designed to allow people to launch 500 to 600 tons payloads in one go, which is what they are used for currently. Before ARM, launching that large payloads was a real challenge, especially if you wanted aesthetics at the same time, so most people ended up not launching that big payloads - people made their payloads smaller, or did orbital construction, as would be done IRL.

[Jouni]

Oh, and to all you "it allows us to launch large payloads with ease" people, I don't actually think they were designed to allow people to launch 500 to 600 tons payloads in one go, which is what they are used for currently.

They were designed to be powerful enough to allow relatively inexperienced players to play the ARM. If you work with NASA and spend a lot of effort to make an expansion pack, it would be quite stupid to make it so hard that only a small minority of players can enjoy it. That small minority can now build bigger things more easily, but it's just collateral damage.

[Justin Kerbice]

They were designed to be powerful enough to allow relatively inexperienced players to play the ARM. If you work with NASA and spend a lot of effort to make an expansion pack, it would be quite stupid to make it so hard that only a small minority of players can enjoy it. That small minority can now build bigger things more easily, but it's just collateral damage.

Maybe a better move would have been to teach majority of people how to build efficient rocket to achieve such goal, but nothing can be done with people who don't want to learn.

[sal_vager]

They were designed to be powerful enough to allow relatively inexperienced players to play the ARM. If you work with NASA and spend a lot of effort to make an expansion pack, it would be quite stupid to make it so hard that only a small minority of players can enjoy it. That small minority can now build bigger things more easily, but it's just collateral damage.

Citation please.

They are big parts, big powerful parts that are meant to be the pinnacle of Kerbal rocket tech, able to loft massive payloads much like what we hope the Human SLS will be like.

If you use the new parts in a wider than tall asparagus monstrosity then yes, going to space today will be easy

[Jouni]

Maybe a better move would have been to teach majority of people how to build efficient rocket to achieve such goal, but nothing can be done with people who don't want to learn.

People want to learn things they are interested in. Most of the players who buy KSP try it for a while, but eventually lose their interested in it. As there is no monthly fee for playing KSP, those players are the ones who pay for developing the game.

[Jouni]

Citation please.

Isn't that just common sense? If you are making high-profile stuff, you want to make it accessible enough that people who buy it can actually use it.

[78stonewobble]

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy

The "Oberoni Fallacy" is not entirely true...

Whether there is a problem is subjective. The problem is hypothetical from one point of view and real from another point of view. Obviously you can construe a solution to a hypothetical problem just as you would with a "real" problem.

Besides it was an ironic comment on another posters similar argument and the point was entirely different.

[Fleb]

No matter what they did, someone somewhere would find fault with the decision.

[78stonewobble]

Maybe a better move would have been to teach majority of people how to build efficient rocket to achieve such goal, but nothing can be done with people who don't want to learn.

Assuming that is desirable for players, ie. that they think efficient rockts is fun, you don't need to balance the new parts to do that.

You could use a combination of better and/or expanded tutorials and add motivation to strive for increased difficulty via ie. bonus science from use of simpler parts or rocket efficiency.

Personally I think it's better to let people be able to make it as hard or easy as they want it to. That way people can start out easy and, if it's for them, get into challenging themselves. If not, they can still have fun with it.

Edited April 13, 2014 by 78stonewobble