• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,738 Excellent

1 Follower

About Pthigrivi

  • Rank
    Space Cat

Recent Profile Visitors

4,305 profile views
  1. Thats a great and interesting question:
  2. OooOoooohh Iapetus reference Edit Wait goes giphy not work here? Just picture Tyra Banks saying she loves it.
  3. I want to agree to this but usually the reason you’re interacting with stations and bases is to add modules or to add or pull resources. Even if a vessel’s orbit doesn’t change those changes to its state will result in paradoxes unless all of them happen at the furthest forward point on the timeline. I don’t necessarily think this is would be a game killing restriction either. It would encourage players to stick together time-wise without locking them to the same warp and making the game essentially turn based. Its just that only the lead player or players can interact with communal projects. Everyone else can still build, launch, explore, and position their vessels before joining or requesting to take the lead as they move in to dock.
  4. Haha that is GRIM my dude. Yeah it doesn't seem from the alpha shots like you'd be able to see much internal activity from the outside, but I like what you're saying. It's made me wonder if designating areas for science collection or regolith mining might allow kerbals or rovers you've designed to autonomously perform actions. Even if it were cosmetic it would be nice to see them wandering around the exterior of colonies doin their kerbally thing so it looked more alive.
  5. Is this dumb or brilliant?
  6. A) Love "Dudes and dudesses" and hope this is what they're called, concision be damned. And I agree there should probably be a stock of general workers that are auto-selected to fill greenhouses and VABs and the like as they're built to cut down on staff-management time. You'll probably also need to be able to manually move crews around depending on your situation. B) I also like the idea of Kerblings, i: because they would be cute af and ii: because it sounds like there will be some form of non-punishing LS and I like the idea that after a "boom" you'd have a hot second to catch up on your LS volume before they mature. Otherwise you'd feel like you needed to overproduce LS before a achieving a goal and you wouldn't necessarily know how much to plan for. C) Recruitment to the major professions (scientists, engineers, pilots) is the last bit. Im cool pulling from the general pool mainly cause I like to pick the best sounding names. The first question is should recruitment come with a cost in terms of time, energy, and/or facilities? I think there needs to be be some limiting factor but I'd prefer if it was controllable. Again Im of the probably controversial mindset that we should ditch individual kerbal experience because it takes too much time to fuss over with that many crew members. From my experience you spend more time touring them around to level them up than doing almost anything else. It's fine if touring them around earns them cosmetic ranks but giving big bonuses creates grindy incentives. Just make perks and abilities purchasable and generalized. D) This also begs questions about what is the progression from first landing to ISRU to building a self-sufficient colony. Im guessing by now the devs have some specific ideas about this, but generally I imagine first it's about producing fuel and LS and then grows to allow for the building of new and more complex modules and new vessels from scratch. I think it's okay if a max-tech colony capable of producing and supporting interstellar vessels is a little complicated to orchestrate so long as that complexity builds slowly enough to not overwhelm or bog down gameplay. I'd also like if there was some flexibility and strategy to how you allocate resources, workers included. Like you could devote a colony more heavily toward fuel production or science collection or rocket manufacturing or buoying population depending on the resources available on site and how you combine them with supply routes. It be nice if it wasn't just a rote, linear, A leads to B leads to C build for every situation. To add flexibility it would also be nice if we could recycle and convert parts and resources in order to adapt over time, much like the way you can convert water and carbon to rocket fuel and back irl.
  7. Im also deeply skeptical that multiplayer can really work well with ksp. Following on the paradox problem discussion, it seems like the only way to do this would be if the player who is farthest in future sets the ‘present’ and other players can only interact with other craft while synched to that ‘present’. The biggest problem with that is if you’re coming in to dock with a station and another player time-warps ahead of you the station would become non-interactive and the rendezvous would be wasted. You’d have to zoom into the lead and put in a “don't warp ahead of me” request. This seems like the least annoying way to let players progress at their own pace and avoid paradoxes.
  8. I think this is right, and it closes the loop on the colony cycle of build rockets > explore > new kerbals born > build more rockets. I guess Im worried that filling all those positions could become cumbersome, though perhaps many or most are entry level and don't require experience. On a previous save I had 50 or 60 kerbals on various missions and it took pages and pages of notes to manage crew rotations and get them leveled up in KSOI before they shipped out interplanetary. Part of this was the clunkiness of the UI for crew management, looking down the tiny text on the roster in the Astronaut complex and figuring out who had and hadn't been in munar orbit and landed where. I have a pretty high threshold and it tested my patience. I like the idea that kerbals gain experience and increase their abilities in principal, but in practice it can be a tedious thing to manage, especially once we have hundreds of them. Even if we discount experience for most jobs do the 3 classifications of pilots, engineers, + scientists still make sense? I could see needing engineers to work foundries and shipyards and scientists for greenhouses and nurseries, but how many pilots would you really need? Maybe if there were some more automation and mech-jebby abilities I could see needing more. Are kerbals born with an occupation or does the player choose for them? I think having crews automatically filled when you build modules and some kind of streamlined UI to manage them would help, but it still seems like a lot of fuss for an omelette. Im sort of leaning toward the idea that we could ditch experience entirely in favor of a habitation mechanic. If properly engineering your colony or vessel with enough LS + hab space contributed to a vessel-wide happiness rating you could use that to determine mining efficiency and science outputs rather than individual kerbal stats. I think it takes something away from making hero 5 star kerbals, but in the end is time spent managing that really worth it? Maybe instead kerbal skills could be purchased like building upgrades and apply across your program so you weren't bogged down micromanaging each kerbal's career.
  9. So its been on my mind that with colonies we could be dealing with much bigger crews than we're used to. I've sent a few dozen kerbals to Jool and Duna on occasion but even on the most complex missions I really only needed 6-8 at most. Actually if I'm being honest I needed 1 engineer for mining and 1 scientist to run the science lab. So what will be the point of building colonies with dozens or hundreds of Kerbals? What will they do? To what degree can they behave autonomously? Should experience still be a thing? How do we not get bogged down in staffing decisions? Or are they just lemmings and we shouln't grow too attached? I feel like Shana Markham is right to focus on the core fun of KSP--building rockets and exploring space. The question for me is how do we understand the value of building big colonies and retain kerbals' individual personalities without pulling too much away from that core experience?
  10. Companies typically keep 3-6mo worth of expenses cash on hand for events like this. More than that (should you be so lucky) is a waste and should be reinvested in retaining staff and growth. Assuming the spigot turned off abruptly in Dec its not surprising star theory didn’t last long. They may have made it if they were able to quickly land new projects, but COVID closed off most hope of that. That said, we really have no idea what really happened so this is all conjecture.
  11. Interesting that Shadowzone was once an editor. Does anyone know where he’s from originally?
  12. Thanks for making me google this dope shot of Daphnis stirring up waves as it tumbles through the Keeler gap:
  13. The thing with all this is we aren't in a great position to judge what happened at the end of last year. Does it look shady? Sure, but none of us knows what was going on within Star Theory or in their negotiations with T2. It was nice at least to see Nate post and vouch for the process he's seeing. I think the fairest thing is to keep our eyes open and cross our fingers that the game turns out great.