Jump to content

Kerbart

Members
  • Posts

    4,485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

6,474 Excellent

7 Followers

Profile Information

  • About me
    Mun Marketeer
  • Location
    The Meadowlands, NJ
  • Interests
    Rockit sience

Recent Profile Visitors

13,947 profile views
  1. I'm confused. Artillery would do the job where missiles won't?
  2. You make a good point, and I did not think my words through enough. It's not bad that the game forces the player to explore. There's a lot to explore that players are simply unaware of if all they do is land on the Mun equator. That part I'm very happy about. What's bad—is the very "in yer face" mechanics that are applied. "Land near the monument and get a boatload of science points as a reward." It's contracts, with a different sauce poured on top. Maybe it's just that with only one roadmap milestone unlocked (we're a mere 13 months in the EA release after all) the building blocks are missing to do something more elaborate. But I was hoping for things that require more action from the player. And maybe that'll be done in the future. The monument could have been a "regular" arc with some cracks and the player has to fly into it to uncover it. Or there's a buried artifact, TMA-1 style, that needs a nearby colony to get uncovered, and once exposed to sunlight, it will fire off a signal to the outer planets we have to follow. We wanted story, we got story. And that part is great. What bugs me is that the level of interaction feels like the Seinfeld guy, sitting in his car, honking at women, because he ran out of ideas on how else to get their attention. Learning clues about Kerbal Lore through 12 page mission reports is better than no lore, but is it truly a journey of discovery? Not as much as I think it can be.
  3. Intentionally? Not really. Is it harder? Well, when you're used to things working they way they are supposed to, then most definitely. Exploration mode is harder in the sense that it really forces you to leave the Kerbin system. If a trip to Jool is your daily KSP1 routine then it's not that much harder. Sadly, the improvement over Career is mainly cutting down the reward points. Yes, we need go and on land on Duna. Not because the game makes you want to go there, but simply because it forces you to do so. Basically it's a two-circle Venn Diagram. Reasons it's harder Bugs Missions with further destinations required to progress tech tree Reasons it could be harder but it's not Inclined orbits Axial tilt Persistent rotation Life support Complex resources The latter is of course something the community looks forward to. "To build part X you need resource Y, only available on planet Z." But the community has done a lot of projecting on what they want the game to be, and what's been delivered so far has been streamlined (the word "dumbed down" sounds so negative), so I'm not going to expect too much out of it.
  4. I see this at work all the time. "We will reveal feature X once it's finished." After reveal, feature X shows some fatal flaws. "That's important to know, unfortunately we can't change it because feature X has now gone in production, you'll just have to deal with it."
  5. I hate to break this to you but predicting this right doesn't make you exactly gifted ya'know. More like Capt'n Obvious
  6. Only going up, weirdly enough. Not that big of a deal though, going down is never an issue.
  7. You have to press F for each segment. On the other hand, I haven't encountered a situation yet where you can't make it all the way into a capsule doing that. In that sense it's a step forward from KSP1 where, if the game decided the ladders were not aligned under specific gravity (testing at the launchpad wouldn't always reveal the issue) you weren't able to make it back in. Even I prefer it over KSP1.
  8. If we consider "you can macgyver something instead of needing this part" we can probably get rid of half the parts list. Angled launches do exist. Maybe I want to see if I can get something to orbit with zero input. Maybe I want to launch some ballistic missile. Maybe I want to replicate a real life nission where it's done. The "challenge" was that there were zero reasons to use launch clamps. I merely pointed out that this is not the case.
  9. Hold down a vehicle with atmospheric engines while they spool up before launch (yes a single T400 tank is all you need to get into orbit) Stabilize sketchy (aka "Kerbal") rockets that would otherwise topple over before launch Keep more boosters pointed up instead of dangling diagonally before launch If you want to launch a rocket at an angle instead of 90° upward they're very essential Opinions vary. It looks cool. I dare say more than zero.
  10. Attitude is also what's not written and can be read in between the lines. When looking at the videos released the message was, for a long time, "the game is great, we love playing it, and we're working hard to fix the bugs." It's kind of impossible to deny the existence of bugs, and selling the game you really don't want to say "right now it sucks" but Nate speaking at that German space convention was at a considerable different tone than the one at the launch of the game. If you feel they were admitting the game wasn't great when it was released, good for you. Personally I don't feel that way, and I'm happy they do now. It's easier to take them serious when they're not displaying a state of denial regarding the quality of the game.
  11. Maybe... looking back, the main problem—and releasing the game after the first patch would not have changed that—was the wide gap between the expectations that were raised and the game that was delivered, combined with an attitude of "we delivered everything we promised and we're not aware of any bugs that need urgent fixing" It took IG about six months to develop the humbleness to admit that there are significant issues to fix, while the community came to grips with the reality of the state the game is in, and that gap has now closed significantly. I'm not sure the timelines match precisely. In KSP1 a lot of emphasis was put on getting the mechanics right before game play development took place. KSP2 doesn't follow that route. Which can be frustrating because we're used to a lot of things that "should work" right now and are not. In fairness, because there was no vision, game play in KSP1 was never a thoroughly developed feature and only now are we starting to see how IG takes a more integrated approach on that. You're absolutely right that it might take a couple of years before the physics part of the game is as good and stable as is in KSP1. But by then it should be a fantastic game.
  12. Rushing? It took them three years, that's hardly rushing. Yes, it launched in an unfinished state, but if T2 had said "take all the time you need" we'd probably be another 3 years away from launch. Nobody is happy with the state the game is in right now, but I don't blame them for forcing a release; otherwise it would have been kept pushed over the horizon forever.
  13. In the tracking station. I thought it was in the map as well, my bad https://imgur.com/X8kDituhttps://imgur.com/a/nVYdSr9
  14. Yes, I did. Well, that is disappointing. Surely the KERB that comes out on the 23rd will have nothing but good news, all open bugs are fixed and a call for more so they can keep fixing.
  15. As The Aziz points out, zoom in. It's incredibly hard for the devs to write code that basically goes like "when selecting an object from outside the SOI it's in, just pick the object that rendered the icon rendered on top, and not the body that defines the SOI" so we're stuck with that. You can try a trick though: in the map view, use to filter button, click on "clear all" and then only select "celestial bodies." If that filter would actually filter what you see in the map, that would work.
×
×
  • Create New...