ARM Parts Poll

[FlightSimXManiac]

So far, there have been several threads discussing the performance of the new parts. It is obvious there is a chunk of the community that is displeased with how the new parts perform compared to the older parts. I figured its time to get some data on what the community thinks. If you want to post your opinion, do so in a constructive way.

By balance, I mean balancing the parts against other parts, not any real life analogues.

For sandbox, the balancing would mean only balancing the new parts to fit to a general curve of performance of the existing parts.

For career, the balance would include the budgetary value and performance. Since money isn't yet implemented, this would require reevaluation once money is introduced.

Balancing for both modes would be something in the realm of a mixture of the above two options. Feel free to explain how the blend should work. (Ex: Higher cost, slightly less efficient or Exorbitant cost, no change in efficiency)

I realize this may not the best way to word the poll.

Edited April 7, 2014 by FlightSimXManiac

[Xeldrak]

I, for one, am completely happy with the AMR parts.

[-RanZ-]

because the opinions in all the other threads are invalid?

[FlightSimXManiac]

I don't think that's what I said. This is more to get an idea of what people want, in one place instead of 30-something pages.

[KerbMav]

I voted balance for career and leave it to the number crunchers I paid to do so to decide what balance means in the game world they are creating.

[maccollo]

There was a poll like this earlier. If I remember right two thirds thought the engines were alright as they were and I think it will be similar this time.

[FlightSimXManiac]

Not sure how I missed that. Only goes to show I need more coffee (and less ignorance) I like to think this one is a bit more specific. Much of the discussion right now is career vs sandbox balance, since the parts in career could be balanced by their cost. The same isn't true for sandbox. However, balancing for both is a more difficult task.

[KerbMav]

Some very ambitious modder could take on the task to create a program that reads all gamedata files as KSP does and then offer graphically represented "tweak" options for every part. That way everyone could easily built himself his own grand unified modulemanager cfg file.

[Caelib]

How many rockets do you see NASA and SpaceX using that have fuel lines and 50 boosters strapped to the side? None. Two-stages to reach orbit ... complaining about how this affects career mode is pointless. If anything, they should remove the fuel lines from the game and then you'd see all the complainers cry about how the game is too hard (even with the new parts).

[maccollo]

How many rockets do you see NASA and SpaceX using that have fuel lines and 50 boosters strapped to the side? None. Two-stages to reach orbit

Exactly!

One of my big problems with the new engines is that they allow you to throw a descent mass fraction to orbit in a single stage, 12-13%, which is has high as what you could do with other engines in a 2 stage configuration.

[r4pt0r]

lol at the divided Kommunity in the poll. squad officially cannot change anything without upseting people.

[Caelib]

Exactly!

One of my big problems with the new engines is that they allow you to throw a descent mass fraction to orbit in a single stage, 12-13%, which is has high as what you could do with other engines in a 2 stage configuration.

Contracts and currency will solve this problem. Want to use that huge new 3.75m fuel tank and engine? Sure, but it's going to cost 15x that of 1.25m version.

[Kasuha]

Biased poll is biased.

[FlightSimXManiac]

What would be better then?

[r4pt0r]

really it should be on a part by part basis, but if you want to do it on the whole:

Should the parts be changed?

>No, they are fine as is

>balance them to match the current parts

>they are too weak and need a boost

>other (comment below)

[FlightSimXManiac]

That would have been the better way to do it. I'm not sure its possible to change a poll, that would be weird, but I'll add some stuff the original post. If someone would be kind enough to point out the bias, that would be greatly appreciated.

Edited April 7, 2014 by FlightSimXManiac

[zarakon]

How many rockets do you see NASA and SpaceX using that have fuel lines and 50 boosters strapped to the side? None. Two-stages to reach orbit ... complaining about how this affects career mode is pointless. If anything, they should remove the fuel lines from the game and then you'd see all the complainers cry about how the game is too hard (even with the new parts).

The new engines let a Kerbal reach Jool in a single stage without jet engines

[Temeter]

Exactly!

One of my big problems with the new engines is that they allow you to throw a descent mass fraction to orbit in a single stage, 12-13%, which is has high as what you could do with other engines in a 2 stage configuration.

Thats a bit more complex, though. Engines in KSP are unrealistic because e.g. thrust is always the same. Engine- and muzzle-configuration is far more dependant on height in reality, which means wen need more specialised early and late stages. And SSTOs still need a comparatively big rocket to get something into space, while you could start something much lighter and cheaper when using 2 stages. Budget concerns are a prime factor for real space agencies. Not to mention physical and material-limits.

[Kasuha]

What would be better then?

What is your opinion on rocket engines added to KSP with latest patch?

- I think they're unbalanced and make the game less fun

- I don't think they changed much

- I think they're great and make the game more fun

[Temeter]

What is your opinion on rocket engines added to KSP with latest patch?

- I think they're unbalanced and make the game less fun

- I don't think they changed much

- I think they're great and make the game more fun

Now this is actually biased. Because it is lacking the differentiation between sandbox and career. The latter might have additional balancing mechanisms. Atm its not that hard to argue, that they are kinda imbalanced in sandbox, so your poll leaves only the option of having less fun. Its more important how you feel about them also being in sandbox mode, so feelings and objective standpoint can be different at the same time.

I think the poll is ok. Although 'No, or very little, change' and 'Balance for career' might be the same. Most of the criticism comes from being more powerful than stock stuff being less efficient in sandbox, doesnt it?

Edited April 7, 2014 by Temeter

[Comwarrior]

I vote for no change...

The parts should be identical in career V sandbox modes.

What i really want is more parts for the 3M stuff... Bigger radial separators... Nuclear engines for the 3M parts. and those stack splitter things for the 3M...

:edit

Also, xenon tanks for 3M... as well as bigger ion engines...

But their is one bug/limitation I would really really love to see fixed.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Comwarrior

[Kasuha]

Now this is actually biased. Because it is lacking the differentiation between sandbox and career.

I am afraid you might have problems understanding what 'bias' is.

Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective and a refusal to even consider the possible merits of alternative points of view.

Differentiation is only relevant if there is a problem. And giving one option more choices than the other is a sign of bias.

[Xeldrak]

Also, you do realize that there will be no balance of a single aspect of the game? Just imagine - posting a rocket that will only work in career or sandbox. Everybody that likes to design rockets would have to cosider if the craft should be viable in career or in sandbox. Just because some people don't like certain parts? That would be absurd.

[Temeter]

I am afraid you might have problems understanding what 'bias' is.

Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective and a refusal to even consider the possible merits of alternative points of view.

Differentiation is only relevant if there is a problem. And giving one option more choices than the other is a sign of bias.

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you (sorry if its the case), but isn't connecting imbalance and less fun fitting this interpretation? Because it's also ignoring the possibilities of being more balanced in career.

Imo balancing in a sandbox is generally not completely possible and therefore not as meaningful as balancing in career. Even more so in KSP, which is physics-based and doesnt stop you from doing the most absurd constructions in sandbox, not to mention methods like asparagus staging. The real limit are physics and hardware.

Therefore i wouldnt have a fitting answer in your poll.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Temeter

[cantab]

None of the above.

All the parts warrant a rebalancing at some point. It should not be limited to "make the new parts balanced with the old ones". Plenty of parts were unbalanced in .23: the 48-7S was always overpowered, the non-steerable winglet is naff, the Mark 55 is pants even with the convenient form factor, the fuel lines are massless and dragless so have no penalty at all for their huge benefit, I could go on.

There needs to be a good think about what should be easy, what should be challenging, and what should be nigh impossible, and the parts tuned with that in mind. And, for that matter, the environment too: while I predict major uproar if it happened, changing the sizes and distances of celestials should not be out of the question.