Everything is overpowered

[BudgetHedgehog]

And I mean everything.

Every single thing should be nerfed to make it exactly like real life analogues because that's way more important than actually developing the game. Also, I happen to like babysitting my 0.005 N thrust ion engine on hour-long burns. I have a craft on the way to Jool right now that's using it - it doesn't matter that in 4x physical warp, I'll be thrusting for days, the point is it's realistic and I'm having fun.

EVA is overpowered, I should be severely limited in everything I do while outside the craft because I'm wearing a spacesuit.

The whole game is overpowered and if you use any of the parts, it's literally cheating. I'm running hardcore stock and not using any parts. So far, my progress is slow, but I expect by next week, I will have reached the mountains behind KSC. I'm not pausing because it's unrealistic and have disabled revert because they're OP too. The point is, it's now much closer to real life and therefore is inarguably better than the normal wimpy mode KSP.

I'm having a barrel of laughs here. You should try it sometime.

[chaos_forge]

While I appreciate the meta-commentary, this is borderline trolling.

[rtxoff]

Why only, why? Why are games not like real life? I want it, i need it. Stop playing games and shoot yourself into the orbit if u want the real thing.

[Vaporized Steel]

Quite a funny read.

But I don't know what was funnier.

The stuff I just read?

Or the fact that after reading finding out the OP has 1083 posts?

That makes it a super troll:sticktongue:

[BudgetHedgehog]

Sorry, I'm just fed up of seeing 'X is OP, it should be nerfed'.. I haven't seen any good reasons at all EVER why they should be nerfed. Apart from the NASA parts which actually ARE OP (compared to other parts - the LFB is more powerful and more efficient than a Mainsail when it should be one or the other), there is literally zero reason to be saying that something is OP. If you don't like it, either don't use it or change it. 'But I shouldn't have to!' - why shouldn't you have to? SQUAD have made a few poor decisions in the past, but overall, the balance of parts is pretty good and allows for fun gameplay. If you disagree, it's incredibly easy to change.

Jets are OP, EVA is OP, ion thrusters are OP.. who cares?! People are playing the game with the stats given and enjoying it! Just because that particular person thinks that particular engine is more fuel efficient than it possibly should be, what on earth do they want to happen? For the stats to be nerfed? Hooray, one person is happy! Forget about everyone else enjoying the game as it is, as long as that one person is content with the stats, everything is fine.

I appreciate this might be a contentious issue (and one that is, as I said, easily solvable, either by editing parts yourself or with the Stock Rebalance mod or whatever), but seriously... sometimes, people take this game too seriously and forget that gameplay will always always triumph over realism or believability. At the moment, yeah, some parts could be considered OP but again, who cares? I certainly don't - I will use what gets the job done, whether that's its intended use or realistic or not. It works and works great. What possible bearing does it have on someone else if I do things my way in a single player sandbox game?

I'll repeat: this is a game. It's not an analogue to realistic/earthlike spaceflight or anything like that. Sure, keep it in the realms of believability (as one of my earlier threads stated) - for all we know, the air on Kerbin might be incredibly oxygen rich so the engines don't need as much air and fuel to get the same thrust. Maybe their engines work in a different way. Maybe their world is, shock horror, completely different to ours!

Maybe, things just work differently in KSP than people expect. If that's the case, like I said - it's easily rectified.

EDIT: 1084 posts?! I live up to my name..

Edited June 3, 2014 by ObsessedWithKSP

[Bilfr3d]

Wait, are you contradicting yourself? And you joined in Feb this year with already 1086 posts... something tells me i'm not the only one that's thinking 'troll alert' right now.

[BudgetHedgehog]

And you joined in Feb this year with already 1086 posts...

No, I'm just.. obsessed with KSP, I guess. Call me a troll all you like, but A, that's not what a troll is and B, that's one hell of a long con.

[Bilfr3d]

Your not obsessed with KSP until you spend at last 10 hours a week on it.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Your not obsessed with KSP until you spend at last 10 hours a week on it.

Actually, to be fair, my username has more of a backstory to it than 'I really like KSP', but honestly, 10 hours a week.. that's not really a lot for me...

[Dodgey]

Hang on. How is that trolling. The op just full of sarcasm.

[Comrade Jenkens]

OP may be trolling but some players genuinely want this...

[Boomerang]

Did anyone -seriously- think that this was anything other than a parody of 'X, Y, and Z r overpowahed!1!' threads?

[Seret]

I'm running hardcore stock and not using any parts. So far, my progress is slow, but I expect by next week, I will have reached the mountains behind KSC.

Pah, you kids and your "mountains". Back in version -0.63 we had to throw a quilt over a horse and squint so it looked like a mountain.

[andrew123]

Pah. Youngsters and their fancy toys... Back in version -20.0, we had to dream about space travel, but the graphics have only gotten worse, especially the damned water.

[r4pt0r]

yeah im requesting backstory on your username OP

[BudgetHedgehog]

yeah im requesting backstory on your username OP

My fiancée left me at the beginning of April because she was convinced I was obsessed with KSP. 'You're always on that damn game instead of working hard for us!' etc etc.. bearing in mind this was a long distance relationship and we did talk and Skype and everything every day, I was working 35 hours a week and I was planning on moving countries to be with her in the middle of April.. But I would just occasionally have KSP on in the background for when she had to go make food and stuff. Loved her with all my heart and I truly miss her every day - it's been 2 months now but I still haven't come any closer to getting over her. I chose this username to remind me of her and the mistakes I made. It's like Bruce Wayne calling himself Batman because he's scared of bats.. well, not really, but the point is, I'm not really 'obsessed with KSP', I just miss my ex-fiancée and she thought I was.

[Red Iron Crown]

That's a tough break, sorry.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Thanks. I could say a load more on it, but some is personal and most is irrelevant. But yeah, I did love her very much. I thought she was my soulmate, then she fell out of love with me. Not the best thing to happen to me, that's for sure.

[Red Iron Crown]

Forgive me for asking this possibly insensitive question, but your join date is in February which is months before your breakup, how did you know to choose the username then?

[KerikBalm]

Women be crazy.... my girlfriend was ready to break up with me because I didn't order a desert for myself once...

But back to the thread: the rocket parts are actually underpowered relative to real life.

Its only:

* the Jets - which seems to have been an oversite with the ISP calculations, since they chose a realistic effective ISP, but then decided to act as if it was real ISP and then factor in the fuel:air ratio - which would already be factored into an effective ISP. Perhaps they realized this, which is why jet fuel tanks are so mass inefficient, and its also ameliorated by the soupy atmosphere model. Still, I think we'd have more fun if jets were a bit more challenging.

* the Ions - I'm "meh" on this. I'd rather have realistic thrust, and be able to thrust while time warping, a sort of super-light physics warp (no calculations of part stresses, maybe not even torque, just A= F/M... M they don't need to calculate continuously, since ∆M is so low for Ions, they can only calculate that every few in game hours with a realistic ion engine).

Intil we have an ion engine that works at 1000x time warp or something like that... I won't complain so much.

* EVA - get out and push is not realistic, and they do intend to fix it.. you better get ready for that. Or maybe you're talking about the 600 m/s delta v of the jet packs instead of something more like 25 m/s of delta-V.

I'm also meh about this.... until we can tether ourselves to our craft/ladders, we need some margin given the propensity of Kerbals to fall off ladders.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Forgive me for asking this possibly insensitive question, but your join date is in February which is months before your breakup, how did you know to choose the username then?

A fair question and one easily answered - I got KSP on January 1st and was immediately hooked. She started thinking I was obsessed after a month or two. Join here, choose username as a kind of personal joke, she leaves me and now I have no desire to change username. I don't deny that maybe I made a few mistakes, but honestly, I don't know what more I could've done - I was already working full time, skyping her every day and night, constantly in touch with her, helped figure out legalities of moving countries, was days away from ordering one-way plane tickets over.. evidently, giving up my life here for her was taking too long and wasn't enough. Woman be cray cray, yo.. love her to bits though.

But yeah, back to the topic at hand: the point is that this is a game and it operates under its own universal rules - you can't possibly compare things to real life because it isn't real life. Granted, it's very similar, but maybe the kerbals have developed high-efficiency, high-density EVA propellant. Apply handwavium to all things you think are wrong and you'll start enjoying the game more, rather than moaning about this and that everywhere. Not saying you are, KerikBalm, that was a more general 'you' and not directed at you. And 1000x speed thrusting is not going to work because you're screwed if you want to do anything else in the meantime. Got a ship approaching Jool for aerobrake? Nope, babysitting my ion engine is more important. Forget the soon-to-be-unloaded ship, as long as I can have realistic thrust, I'm happy.

[cantab]

You whine about game balance, then open admit to using the most imbalanced, least realistic thing of all: time warp. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[andrew123]

Time warp is only speeding up the universe. Just think of it as going at 99 percent the speed of light and having relativistic slowdown.

[KerikBalm]

And 1000x speed thrusting is not going to work because you're screwed if you want to do anything else in the meantime. Got a ship approaching Jool for aerobrake? Nope, babysitting my ion engine is more important. Forget the soon-to-be-unloaded ship, as long as I can have realistic thrust, I'm happy.

Not neccessarily... note I am not proposing a full physics modelling, ie not current "physics warp".

You can already switch to another vessel, and the game will continue to move other ships around "on rails" - and unless I'm mistaken, it also keeps track of their resources (like electric charge on probes). Thus what I'm really proposing is "on rails thrusting" - which if I understand correctly, the interstellar mod already does with solar sails.

"on rails" thrusting combined with xenon consumption while thrusting (update the accelerate in rather large increments based upon the reduced mass, the increments can be pretty large without introducing large inaccuracies because of the high ISP and low thrust)

This would allow you to start your capture burn for your ship, and then move to another vessel.

It does require changes to game mechanics, which is why, for now, I accept ion drives as ok (I still don't use them for long burns, but only for fine tuning trajectories and orbital rendevous, which is fine IMO, but also worked when they had 1/4 the thrust)

The jets.... the fuel is one issue, but I think the big issue is the relatively realistic speed they can acheive combined with the unrealistic size of kerbin, letting them get to basically orbital speed.

But the aero model also needs fixing... jets I think need fixing more than ions and certainly more than EVA

[Mike the Mechanic]

I personally think the Kerbals are overpowered - they survive more than 20 gee's, have no gender, live almost indefinitely in cramped environments, use the same technology as humans currently do, they ragdoll as soon as they hit something, they smile when their vehicle explodes, I don't like their haircut, their jetpacks don't have enough thrust and too much dV, they make probes useless and they are unrealistically green. As for the engines, I don't care.

Seriously, it's still in alpha. Just wait it out, the day of rebalancing (bible reference) will come soon. Until then, there is http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75272-0-23-x-Stock-Rebalance-Project-v1-3-19-04-14.

Should balancing be put on the "do not suggest"-list?

Edited June 4, 2014 by Mike the Mechanic