Jump to content

pandaman

Members
  • Content Count

    2,282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. So am I, and so are mine (yes, really, on both counts). And 'the customer is always right' has never been true... you just don't always tell them that to their faces. I understand your main point, but in my experience here (not as much as @Superfluous J though) Squad very rarely get involved in suggestions discussions, they do read the forums though and will very occasionally chip in. Getting deeply involved in discussions can be very time consuming and unproductive, and they have been 'misunderstood' in the past by mentioning things they were 'considering' or 'planning/hoping to l
  2. It is just a guess, but I would imagine it will be similar to KSP1 for this. Hopefully mostly different things, in different places, and a few more too. With maybe a monolith equivalent too that has 'copies' dotted about.
  3. @Moach thanks for that, I guessed it was most likely not him. I know I saw it after he left, which is why I just didn't dismiss it at the time.
  4. @Moach thanks again for that. I remember it from before, but great to read it again. Off topic I know, but this reminded me... A longish while ago now I was watching a 'reality' show called 'Ice Lake Rebels' and a passing tourist called Felipe was rescued after crashing his snowmobile. I wondered at the time, and a few times since, if this could, by chance, be Harvester doing some 'travelling' after leaving KSP, as he seemed the right sort of age and looked vaguely familiar, and it struck me as just the kind of thing he might do. Was that him by any chance? Probably not, but - cu
  5. KSP1 is already a significant force in many of our lives...
  6. I don't think there is anything wrong with the idea that Monoliths could impart some kind of 'boost' to your knowledge. But what that boost should never be IMO is a massive jump, or be the only way to achieve or unlock certain tech. As @harrisjosh2711 said, we do learn, or relearn, from old or ancient things by analysing them. But just visiting the thing doesn't instantly grant us the knowledge. I may touch, a recipe book, but that doesn't just turn me into a chef, let alone impart any knowledge about anything else.
  7. Assuming you mean 1 hour 'real time', not 1 hour in game flight time... Alt F12 Other than that... A small, simple, main craft so as to minimise design time, reduce control issues and simplify launch etc. But mainly, Hohmann transfer, and lots of time warp.
  8. Interesting point. It's never been an issue for me, but yes I can see how being able to display UT would be handy. Or better still, integrate KAC functionality into stock.
  9. I use the 'sandbox R&D' method. Although I play sandbox anyway, I disable 'reverts' in my 'main' save. The R&D save gets used for designing, testing and 'mucking about' all 'cheats' are on the menu for that.
  10. I completely agree. The thing is, IMO, because so many other games have a 'check list' of tasks, levels, goals, achievements, or whatever the game calls them, and once they are done you 'win', game over, start again from sctratch. The KSP career mode/Tech Tree seems to me to give that same impression, that the object of the game is to gather science to complete the Tech Tree itself.
  11. The trouble with KSP1, I think, is that the decision to go to 'Beta' then 'Release' properly with v1.0 in such a short soace of time were purely marketing based, and not connected with the state of the game. I know they could have stayed in Alpha or Beta indefinitely, which would not have been good either, but a slightly longer Beta period to decide and pin down what v1.0 should be may have been more sensble. But Squad were not an experienced games company either. As for KSP2, I also expect the release version to be in a finished and polished state. No doubt there will be 'fixes' and
  12. Me too. KSP is a rarity in that it has no 'end game' or 'victory state', other than what each player decides their goals are. And even then the game isn't over, you just find another set of achievements to accomplish. Even the 'career' mode has no actual end. It's just that the tech tree makes it feel like the goal is to complete it.
  13. Well, for me the motivation is finding the darn things. It gives me a basic mission objective, and defines where my target landing area will be. I play sandbox, so science points are of no use anyway. But a message saying 'Hey, there's more things like this, here's where you can find another' could give some inspiration for another mission.
  14. For me, optional or not, any 'bonus' should not be too big. In KSP1 terms (as we don't know how KSP2 will do it yet), something like a few extra science points instantly, or increase science gained by a small percentage for the couple of game hours would be perfectly adequate. What they could do, 'bonus' or not, is give the location of another Monolith elsewhere in the current, or a different, solar system. This would give you another 'objective' without any 'free science'.
  15. I don't think there will be enough star sytems for it to be relevent. Even there are as many as 10 different star systems, which I doubt. My guess is the stars will sort of represent a chunk of the galaxy broadly similar to where we are. Take the nearest 10 stars to Earth, then think how close are they to the galactic centre? Doesn't rule out anything of course, but my guess is if they do model the stars moving around a 'centre' at all (rather than just maintaining set positions relative to each other) it will be too far away to be of much consequence. I expect the 'skybox' will
  16. Yes. I've had it hapoen quite a bit. Not so much recently though, but I've learned to be more careful. Mostly, nowadays with rovers I do tend to destroy rather than damage because I either go carrfully or lose patience and go mad. So I just don't hit things in the right speed ranges to just damage wheels.
  17. When scanning planets and moons with Kerbnet a '?' appears in the vicinity of an anomaly. Why not expand that idea, but using a different symbol, to highlight existing unusual or significant ground features too, such as Dres canyon, highest peaks or particularly 'scenic' spots etc. This should help point players to other small target areas to explore that are not 'biomes' and aren't related to the anomalies. This would't need a surface remodelling (so not risking wrecking landed vessels), just point out some of the existing 'natural' features. Also, perhap some relevent inf
  18. But, the article was entirely relevant to the development of KSP2. And far better to have some info, to reassure us that development is still happening, than silence because there is nothing 'new and cool' ready to show yet. It may not be 'juicy, exciting' stuff on gameplay, but it is vitally important to the overall player experience. And, for me at least, it is encouraging to see they are putting effort into that aspect of it.
  19. Seeing the neighbouring stars should be as easy as spotting the Mun, so hiding them altogether just feels wrong. Discovering ,and then learning the basics about the planets around them could use telescopes and other 'long range' sensors as a prelude to exploration. The same idea could also be applied to the Kerbin system.
  20. [snip] UX/UI is a very under appreciated aspect. As a (sort of) engineer I appreciate function over form. Important as form/aesthetics are, especially for games, if it looks pretty, but doesn't function efficiently then it spoils the overall experience and fun.
  21. Well, I think it will make it possible to use either of the 'claw' parts to connect the vessels, then run a fuel line. That will avoid fiddling about matching port alignments.
  22. Maybe not the 'only' thing, but ^THAT ^would be awesome. I doubt it would be too hard to implement, maybe have it as a 'pop up'option on recovery. Does anyone know of a mod that does it?
  23. IMO, if the illustrations and text are good enough then you don't need a 'voice over'. This also eliminates any spoken language/accent problems completely.
×
×
  • Create New...