Jump to content

Hanuman

Members
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

77 Excellent

About Hanuman

  • Rank
    Rocketeer
  1. Let's assume that is the case. Then it'd be incumbent on them to provide a replacement later on at that size that can handle re-entry temps to keep build possibilities open, as that is the sole size 0 intake that exists in the game. That's the real point of the "why". If it's not just an "oopsie, we'll revert that" then it's actually exposing a greater flaw in logic than this basic temperature problem. That being in a game that the core gameplay is to explore possibility, those are being arbitrarily removed. That has never been the spirit of the game I've known these many years.
  2. Might I ask why the temperature limit of the Small Circular Intake was lowered to 1200? That puts it in the same category as science experiments and without any size 0 replacement later in the tech tree. Was this in error? If so, can it be corrected? It has broken several of my designs that used this intake that can no longer survive re-entry even when closed. I'm aware that I can edit the part myself, but I'm as much interested in the "why" as I am in the number itself.
  3. I think they're fine, really. It's not poor design, it's actually quite the opposite. If you want them more fragile, make a mod. Otherwise, it's better to be pretty forgiving for both kids and people that don't take such things so seriously.
  4. My opinion is a pretty simple one. It should just be assumed that the LV-N has whatever radiators it needs to function as part of the basic model. Just like every other engine is assumed to include all the pieces and parts they need to function. No, it doesn't need remodeled. No, we don't need extra radiator parts (for this issue specifically). It should be assumed that like every other engine, if you stick it on, and you have the resources it requires, then it will work to spec. To do otherwise isn't adding gameplay elements, it's just breaking the messaging. That does not include havin
  5. Just because you can make it viable by gluing stuff to it, that doesn't mean it wasn't nerfed, it just means you found a way to cope with the changes.
  6. I won't lie. That gave me a pretty good laugh. What I wrote was my to-the-point coherent conclusion drawn from my actual observations of some of the forum outcry since the moment 1.0 was announced. It's pretty obvious that we both see the game differently, and I know from reading your other posts that no matter what I write, you'll just do your best to pick it apart at the seams. This is good enough for me and all I intend on giving you: We disagree, and I think you're wrong.
  7. I get what you're saying, but whether or not it changes the amount of time for what you consider a proper review, it has changed the amount of time that can be spent on a review. The only thing you can do if reviews are that important to you, is try to find a source for them that you can trust, which is the same as it always was. It's not really had much of any effect on me, as a demo or trial version was always my go to solution. If a game didn't have a demo, but still looked really cool, I might fall back to a review, but more often I'd simply wait until I considered cheap enough to risk
  8. And what do those two things have in common? Pre-internet era, when deadlines and the pace of things were much different. If you take a month or more to write a review now, and 50 other places do it in 8 hours, you will not keep traffic, and will soon be out of a job. Times change. Is it better or worse? No idea, and I don't care, as I personally have never relied on reviews by anyone but friends. But it is undeniably different now. The hand-wringing over the "bad reviews" KSP 1.0 might get, have come to naught but that's proving to not be good enough. Now some of the same peopl
  9. You put it a bit more eloquently than I could have, but I completely agree. The reviewers can't possibly be right, and if you don't agree with that then you're just a fanboy and you can't possibly be right either. Wandering into this thread feels a bit like stepping in something gross. The only thing you can do is figure out the best way to get it off your shoe.
  10. I figure I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Beyond that, I trust SQUAD not to derail their player's experience of the game without a sufficient reason. I mean come on.
  11. It's exactly this. All the people saying "you just aren't attaching to a big enough part for cooling" aren't getting it. They already made ion drives way more powerful for gameplay sake rather than simulation. This is the same deal. If you're required to only use this engine on large ships, then even that is already messed up, seeing as how they seem to put things in to INSPIRE creativity, not detract from it. It's been said over and over again, being so late in the tech tree, low TWR, no integral radiator to the model, no generic other radiator parts, and a myriad of other reasons say thi
  12. Sure there's something wrong with it. Unless you want to be required to use LV-N's with wings stuck all over them, which seems to kind of go against the spirit of the game. If there were supposed to be a requirement, it'd be built into the model of the engine itself. There's nothing wrong with it overheating as is at full throttle, but half?
  13. Sure, but then you're not talking about an error or oversight or criticizing the concept, you're just pointing out how it's an extreme and you want something different. It's then a suggestion to make the game better, and one I mostly agree with really. There should be a couple available at the beginning, and then upgrades expand upon it. Calling it a "paywall" is being a bit snotty, and that's what I was pointing out.
  14. No kidding. Why it's almost as if it's some kind of career oriented approach to a space program game, where you have to progress further into a career in order to advance your space program's abilities and options! Crazy!
×
×
  • Create New...