passinglurker

Members
  • Content count

    1970
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1265 Excellent

3 Followers

About passinglurker

  • Rank
    Salty
  1. This wouldn't be the case if they finally took the time for a polish pass. Another reason I refer to old parts as "place holders" is because thier stats have hardly changed since they were added in early access and its not because they got it right the first time. The Ion engine in particular suffers from inflated thrust because some one stated the xenon tanks with an arbitrary poor mass fraction that makes even the ant engine+fuel a better choice in all but the most impractical long burn scenarios. Make the tanks lighter and the ion engine's thrust and isp can be curbed to more reasonable levels while still maintaining usability.
  2. Another reason I push for development transparency is that given the controversies, desires, and expectations surrounding the "vamp" I think squad would have an easier time selling unrelated DLC while advertising that this pays for them implementing the vamp gradually as a series of free updates. Personally if I were to buy in I'd want these better assets to be for all not just dlc buyers. EDIT: Also I'd be less reflexively picky about the art that's included in a free update Personally I found this clarification deeply offensive as if players and @NovaSilisko can't recognize excrement when they see it. Most users certainly aren't as picky as me but with every art preview the common response is "This looks/sounds great! Can you please please please please please apply these same looks and ideas to the old rocket parts?" The developer created notion that the old parts are fine and aren't a priority only feeds the speculative frenzy because a unified production quality and aesthetic is such a fundamental and obvious step in development its hard to fathom what they could possibly consider a higher priority after 1.3
  3. Citation needed. I want hard statistics.
  4. I think you are underestimating the amount and value of work that would be involved in this. Then let no one say they are buying DLC to support development. Just like calling certain parts "placeholders" Its "misinformation". It gets people thinking Squad will make kerbal better with this money but in reality there is no hard commitment.
  5. That varies by community there are plenty of examples of communities that enjoy more open development without unmanageable drama, and considering this isn't some big money riding e-sport I think KSP would be safe.
  6. There will always be some degree of speculative "background noise" due to all communities haveing thier share of bright eyed newcomers that think they're the first ones to come up with some obvious unimplemented idea like multiplayer, or terraforming, but those who stay and become active in a community learn to do better sooner or later. The fact of the matter is that more information discourages speculation to a degree and the withholding and teasing of information encourages it. Personally I can't think of a happier time here than during the development of 1.2 before the developer exodus it was probably some of the most active and candid communication this community ever got from the devs, and emulating that would go a long way towards stopping speculations from turning into expectations. I'm confused I thought the last 3 weeks were arguments about art previews not the fundamentals of speculations, what causes them, how to to curb them, and whether they should be curbed?
  7. The pesticide of speculation is the truth. The greater the flow of information the more the growth of rumors can be mitigated and controlled. Through well communicated intentions and plans speculations can be nipped in the bud early and misunderstandings clarified. Then as people grow accustomed to receiving answers they will be less inclined to speculate in the first place.
  8. The speculation that actually tends to grow legs is rarely "wild" and "baseless" serious cases are the result of a long term culmination of clues and evidence. Anyway my point was people can't blame the lack of a roadmap on the behavior people have exhibited trying to fill the information void in an environment that lacks a roadmap. It's squads choice to adopt a stance of teasing its user base with piecemeal information. I'm sure they've talked it over and decided they were willing to put up with the speculations, uncertainties, and disappointments this would inevitably cause in exchange for the flexibility in direction this provides, but saying they close up because of salty users doesn't make sense because the teasing model makes salt too.
  9. I'd dispute that and argue that these "playground swing accidents" happened as a result of squad not providing a proper roadmap leading to people reading between the lines speculating and those speculations growing legs with squad doing nothing to curb peoples expectations until it was too late. Its all one big failure to communicate. People taking a line out of a recent weekly address to mean making history will have planet scaling is a prime example of the reading between the lines that happens when squad doesn't use a roadmap that people can refer to.
  10. You have no Idea how wrong you just thought
  11. Hm... Dithered paint detailing... Check Dithered edgewear applied consistently to the corners... Check A gradual darkening near the sides of a color stripe or panel with lighter softening in the center... Check Appreciable and consistent ambient occlusion... Check A normal map... Check Blink... Recheck... Blink again... I dare say I approve of this direction. If this trend can be maintained (and maybe retroactively applied) you may just pull this out of the fire yet.
  12. Public relations. Something squad is consistently bad at for a studio that spawned from a marketing company. Think of how many customers this port has burned how many that are fed up with squad and kerbal that won't come back, won't recommend the game, won't buy dlc, etc... all because not only did squad screw up but they didn't own up to their mistake.
  13. but they caaaaaan... Issue an apology Issue refunds Issue free PC copies of the game through their inhouse store to affected console users Issue free DLC vouchers to affected console users Pull thier product from the stores to prevent customer confusion When your product is a dumpster fire you can only say "hold tight be patient" up to like 3 months before you lose any shred of a moral high ground you had left against your enraged customers at which point concessions need to be made to save face. Instead Squad knuckles down and reinforces its policy of sticking its fingers in its ears and pretending everything is fine and has always been fine. You see it everywhere from thier art previews to thier development priorities, they aren't fixing the console port because they owe thier customers anything they are only doing it for the same reason they fixed all the bugs in 1.2. It's because sony europe caught them, and stopped them, and since they really really want to break into the european console market they had no choice but to stop and do half of a right thing to pass inspection. You can say some of this is speculation on my part but if I'm wrong how come we haven't seen any of these concessions yet after almost a year of these shenanigans?
  14. Porkjet doesn't work for squad any more (better job offer iirc) But his style and standards live on in our modding community even if squad wants to say "Ambient occlusion isn't kerbal"
  15. Of course the parts are KSP scale that isn't the problem the problem lies in that a real world rocket brought down to ksp scale proportionally (as in both height and diameter) and balanced to ksp's "balance" (to the bet of ones ability) will be capable of much greater feats than its real world equivalent because ksp's planet scale is much much smaller than its rocket scale. Plausible solutions though imo they seem a bit more hacky than an upscaled kerbin. Also keep in mind that it'll take more than short stacking or underfilling the saturn V it'll still be using 5 F-1's which would have some pretty out of control twr on a lightened saturn V. So at this point you need to add restraining weights or thrust limits to your rocket and at some point you're gonna ask yourself which is easier/cleaner... upscaling the solar system by 3.2 (roughly 1/4 the scale of our own) and using the parts as is?... or custom balancing the anchor weights of all the historical missions?