Pthigrivi

Members
  • Content count

    1233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

884 Excellent

About Pthigrivi

  • Rank
    Space Cat

Recent Profile Visitors

2596 profile views
  1. One small bit of feedback: the ptd-c observation window is available for rescue contracts but doesnt have a hatch. Im not sure how the contracts select rescue capsules but it might be good to take it off the list or give it a hatch in the back.
  2. You're going to absolutely hate me for saying this but *I kinda like Roverdude's crop texture as a convention * Its simple, pretty, the colors look great.
  3. Frustrating Launch

    Do you know what your TWR is off the pad? It may be that the Mainsail is more engine than you need and you're just going so fast that drag is getting away from you.
  4. Let's Rebalance the Tech Tree

    Absolutely, and Im serious this could be awesome and Id totally play it.
  5. Let's Rebalance the Tech Tree

    While this is absolutely my favorite suggestion on this board, it does come with pitfalls. When parts are linked to specific mission types, it forces players to execute those specific mission types to proceed. Some of those, (sending a probe to space, for example) most people might like. Others, (Testing parts in different environments or rescuing a stranded kerbal for instance) might be more polarizing (see the contract system). A series of overprosciptive missions that everyone must do to progress if they want to or not is as as bad as a series of entirely random ones. Science points may be more abstract, more bland even, but they have the advantage of being interchangeable. That means if Mark just likes sending probes everywhere first and Cindy likes tooling around with high performance planes they can both--in theory--basically do their thing and can both unlock everything and progress. I do love the sound of this game, it may even be something you can construct with making history. It will, however, be an entirely different game with an entirely new set of limitations. I cant imagine thats within the scope of career mode's current development.
  6. Let's Rebalance the Tech Tree

    Haha don't worry this thread went off the rails ages ago. I mean, I'm sure the Devs don't ignore this section completely, but I have to have a certain humility about how seriously our scattershot suggestions can possibly be taken. Who knows. Maybe some good comes of talking about it. At any rate they know their schedule and have a much clearer understanding of the feasibility on this stuff.
  7. @Pulsar and @Domfluff Yall are my heroes right now for doing this.
  8. KSP Weekly: An Interstellar Visitor

    So, since these fancy new parts are looking so good, any chance we'll see new art for some of the older parts sometime? I will say also the making history stuff sounds really brilliant.
  9. Let's Rebalance the Tech Tree

    Absolutely. There are a lot of parts so taking a fine-tooth comb to all this stuff isn't a trivial task either, but it would go a long way to smoothing things out. I also agree on simplifying the transmission and science payout system. I'd actually like to see different biomes produce different bonuses, so landing in a specific canyon might yield more science than landing any old place in the 'Midlands'. You should really also be able to produce a biome overlay in map mode with the survey scanner. Then we get into the slightly deeper stuff like anomaly contracts and life support. I'd like to see all that (and a graphics and art assets pass too), but those get into some deep investments in development time. There are a couple of other threads on the anomalies right now. I'll be honest the existing anomalies are cute as easter eggs but don't do much for me as a real considered part of the game. I'd rather see them as part of a larger system of geological landscape features players could explore, and if that were the case receiving contracts to visit specific places would be totally great. You'd want to think carefully about how this played out though. You don't want them just linearly connected, nor would it mean much if they were totally random. Maybe the contract pops up after you've scouted it in Kerbnet? Something like that. Life support too is a bit of a doozy. Im using USI-LS and its really great, Id recommend it to anyone who's interested in LS. It's also about as simple as it can get and still be a challenge, and even at that you really have to carefully think things through. Many players don't want it, which would be fine, obviously it would be on a difficulty toggle, but stockifying USI is a bit lower on my priority list.
  10. Let's Rebalance the Tech Tree

    The scale is certainly a factor for the hardcore re-enactor types and if you're being really tight on efficiency, but it also makes things a lot more manageable for new players. Who knows how much more work we'll realistically see on KSP in the next few years, Im still optimistic, but I don't think a rescale is likely. There's always RSS for the players who are really dogged about that. The kind of define-your-own-mission style seems to be pretty close to what Making History is about, so you may be in luck there. The question for me is, if they are going to keep developing career mode, what are the biggest bang for the buck changes to improve things. Stuff we could reasonably see tweaked up for 1.4 that wouldn't involve totally rewriting the code. For that I'd love to see: - Balance and gameplay pass on the tech tree. - Adjustments to building perks and difficulty settings (Like setting tighter size requirements on the VAB and scrapping the part count limit etc.) - Contract type promotion in the Admin Building (strategies that directly effect the probability of tourism, base building, satellite etc. contracts appearing at Mission Control) - Adding a transfer orbit calculator and alarm clock, improving the maneuver node widget, and (pwettypweeze) stock delta-v so players can go interplanetary more easily in stock.
  11. Let's Rebalance the Tech Tree

    In some ways, consciously or not, the scope of the game isn't really designed for big interplanetary missions. Most people mod-in the flight planning tools and life-support systems you really need to make that a compelling experience. So in some ways the tech tree finishing up after a few moon missions is about right.
  12. I'll make a bold prediction: there will be no KSP 2.
  13. What can be improved in the easter eggs?

    Yeah I don't think we disagree that much. Right now the anomalies are so small and so sparse you you'd be lucky to find any without looking them up. Kerbnet helps because you can flag the little question marks and then go down to check them out later. The better you are at precise landings the less you need a rover, which is cool but doesn't yet reward players as an integrated part of the gameplay (--thats the separate issue micro biomes could fix). The visuals and the mechanics are linked, though, from the player experience. My feeling is the visual on-the-surface experience should be a part of it. Volcanoes and geysers--aside from being a bit more real--would necessarily be tall. If you landed anywhere remotely close you could see them on the horizon and would know to drive toward them. Other geological formations could be smaller but more common, and should also jump out to your eye as you scanned the landscape. Some of these could be scattered heavily in some biomes and not in others, ice crystals in the Mun's polar lowlands or fossils in Duna's canyons for instance. Some of these features could be fixed, others could be randomized for each save. Its that interactive, exploratory experience I think we should be after--mapping from orbit, scouting on the ground and discovering things in the moment that we didn't expect. Don't foist a particular storyline on players, give them a real landscape to explore and let them create their own story. I don't think this would be nuts to implement, either. You'd really just need few models and some visual effects that could be re-skinned from planet to planet.