Jump to content

ArgenTum

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ArgenTum

  1. Finally someone discuss career mode, my favorite part of KSP. And the reason I stopped playing (because it was so lackluster and every update brought it in the wrong direction). What I would want: 1. To really run a kerbal space program. Start by getting a government funding, i.e. choosing between exploring mun, Kerbin, Minmus or building space stations. Then you get a cash up front and for every milestone correlating to your chosen ”mission” you get more cash. (Like if you chose mun, you get rewarded for lunar orbit, lunar landing, planting a flag.) 2. Have an ingame wiki tha
  2. I would like a concrete runway already as T1, but it should be much thinner (less broad) and much shorter. Then the wheels wouldn't break, but it would still be harder to start from and land on. And T2 would be in the middle of length and broadness and T3 like it is now. This would IMHO be much more "realistic" AND "fun".
  3. A whole thread of a delta-v readout!!! I want in! I have skimmed the thread, read NathanKells posts, but not every single post, just so that you know. Just want to have my say how I think it should be done. 1. I think a delta-v readout in flight and in VAB are two different things, and I would say that the game doesn't need an in flight readout (but I'm not against it), but i seriously needs a readout in the VAB. That way you would have some guidance while building the spaceship, but still leave some room for error while in flight, which for me makes good gameplay IMHO. And, probably
  4. That I can understand. Just always nice to hear from someone on Squad that you at least have heard the community, then of course it is a whole other matter to find the time, resources and balance to implement new ideas in a good way. I have full understanding that such features will not be in 1.1, but no harm in coming with ideas for future updates, right? And if you ever need ideas, I can provide them for you, I have a bunch (some of which I posted in the suggestions forum a while back). But then again, I guess everyone have their own ideas on how to make KSP better. What I am still actu
  5. This. But my solution would be (as I've seen others suggest) to have buttons in mission control to let you specify your preferences before hand (and not let the system guess my preferences after I select a contract.) Would it really be so bad for the game to have toggable buttons so I can choose for example: "I want contracts on/around the mun and minmus, with part tests, tourists and space station building" and these choices would count towards the weight of those contracts? Ie let you directly influence the weight of the contract, but still use 1.1s system, so some randomness would remain. T
  6. I have been thinking about this, since I also have earlier suggested a weekly wage and a weekly/monthly economics/balance report. In my opinion it should be small enough to let you go on a 3-4 year mission to Eve and back (on normal = not very efficient burn) without risking going bankrupt, but big enough so you wouldn't warp a few months just to harvest science from a science lab. My suggestion is 500/week for every Kerbal. If you have for example 8 Kerbals employed and go for a 3 year mission it would cost 624.000. Or perhaps Kerbals on a mission costs 5 times a Kerbal not on a mission, so a
  7. Agreed. And it would be a way to balance mid- to late game, where you often have very much money. If the upgraded facilities cost more every week, your budget would be bigger, but you wouldn't necessarily have more (or at least not near infinit) money to spend. And for you wondering about my 1 launch/day suggestion, it is mainly a way to balance weekly costs. Otherwise you can do hundreds of launches in the first week, which is not only unrealistic, but would be kinda cheaty if your expenses for the first week is in the area of 2000 roots or whatever.
  8. This is my view of career as well, and I guess thats what my suggestions are (somewhat) aiming at. To have in game features that encourage exploring by unlocking in game content, for example a delta-v readout, or a selfupdating wiki. Right now I don't even know what career mode is about, and why it is called career at all. (Maybe the easiest solution would be to change the name to "contract mode" or "reasearch mode" or "economic mode" or whatever, because "career mode" is actually quite misleading.)
  9. Ok. So lets see if I finally get this. If the slider is low (0,04) I probably get more FPS, but also more real-world seconds pass per in game second, resulting in the game running slower. If the slider is to the left, ie higher number (0,12) I will get fewer FPS, with larger input lag, but with probably faster running game, where 1 second in game continues to be 1 second in the real world. So for me, who don't want to spend forever in the atmosphere, I probably should move the slider to the left, and accept a drop in FPS (as long as the rocket doesn't become uncontrollable due to larger input
  10. In my opinion, my suggestions wouldn't make the game more difficult. Actually, an ingame wiki, a delta-v readout while constructing and an economic overview would if anything make things easier. Slightly more complex perhaps, but not more difficult. And I do like playing career on hard, with no reverts or quicksave, but to me, setting science to 10% doesn't make the more difficult (depending on how you define difficult), only more grindy. Thats why I like my point #5, because you can chose to make easier missions multiple times, or a harder mission once, and end up at the same place in th
  11. First I'd like to point out I did look at posting in this thread, but since my suggestion is a sum of several suggestions, where I feel none would be that interesting without the others, I choose to start a new thread. Feel free to move/merge this if this was wrong. I would also like to point out that I have been thinking of posting this for about a year, so these ideas are not something I threw together hastily. Now, I do feel career mode in general is fun, but I miss something in career mode, and that is a Strategy layer. That's why I have some suggestions to make it feel like you are m
  12. Hope they do it in the way I and a few others have envisioned it, with an auto-updating encyclopedia. (That is blank when you start a new career, and then fills up as you explore the Kerbol system.) At least the parts about planets and moons, key bindings etc should of course always be visible.
  13. I'm having the same problem as everyone else on a Mac Pro from 2009 I think. (Writing this on my ipad, so I don't have my specs right now.) I was just thinking, if this is a VM issue, maybe the difference between those having this issue and those who don't might be other things that take up VM, gadgets for example, or spaces. I'm quite spaces happy and uses about 5-6 spaces regurlarly (but only 4-5 gadgets). I also run about 6-7 programs (like aperture, spotify, firefox etc) at any given moment. Could that be the reason for VM filling up more quickly?
  14. I agree with everything in this thread. Career mode needs fixing. I wonder if Squad ever really sat down and though hard and long on what they want with career mode. Should it be about managing money and/or science? Or is it a kind of "tutorial", to make it easier for new players to get into the game? Or something else? It's hard to properly balance a game, it you don't have a clear vision for what you want with that game mode. Now, 2 suggestions: 1. Why not put contracts in the tech tree, so if you go for "rocketry" you also (apart from the actual parts) unlock contracts about mun and minmus
  15. I too find hard mode a bit grindy. In my opinion hard should be hard because of more "realistic" effects, ie stonger reentry heat, no saving, bigger penalty for crashing etc. Smaller marginals for error, quite simply. In fact, maybe you should earn MORE money than in normal, but also loose more money when failing. I also (as someone else wrote) think it is grindy in the start because I'm already so experienced, so I don't really have to think when I design my first 10-15 rockets. The fun challenge is to get to the Mun with no manouver nods. That is hard, and its not grindy. Then, I found in 0.
  16. Of course they have a definite day in mind (internally). A deadline. Why otherwise hurry at all? And I guess they need a specific date to tell the partners in all those deals they keep talking about. The question is when. I'm also wondering if they plan on selling boxed versions? If they are, I would guess at a release day in late may/early june to have time to send a gold version to be printed and shipped. If not, I would still say early may. They still need time to up the hype by trailers, and I'm guessing with 1.0 they would want to announce it a couple of weeks beforehand, not just drop i
  17. Um... thanks. It's not my fault everyone so far has misinterpreted my poll (or maybe it is my fault that I can't explain what I mean... :S ) To me, it's obvious that the game has both simulationy and gamey content (contracts, for example being more on the gamey side, and the new aerodynamic model being more on the simulationy side (even though some may argue it is not advanced enough to be a true simulation)). Of course, a thread can always evolve to include discussions and subjects that was not the original thread-creators intention (as for me in this case.) I would however like to make one
  18. This is a really interesting discussion IMHO. But I now realize 2 things. When I use the word "simulator", I made an error, I guess. I was thinking of the use of the word from for example "Microsoft Flight Simulator" (MSF), ie a computer program trying to simplify (without over-simplifying it) something complicated to a degree where a normal human can get a feeling of whats its like (in MFS, whats its like to fly different airplanes). I don't think anyone would use MSF as an instruction manual in a real world flight school. (That's what I believe the difference between simulate and emulate is.
  19. Sorry. Don't know if I can change it now... On the other hand, I kind of made it that way on purpose, adding the line "first and foremost". To force you to take a stand, I guess. If I phrase it like this: "What would you like KSP to be?" or possibly: "In what direction would you like KSP to move?". Would that make it easier to chose?
  20. Now a couple of references to HarvesteR. But what do you yourselves think? Should be interesting to Squad as well. If they release a game and keep updating a game, when the majority of those who play it want more simulation...
  21. I agree, thats why I myself see it more as a game than a simulator. In a perfect KSP, all those game mechanics would be tied to your difficulty setting (or selectable), "hard" having them all enabled (life-support, re-entry heat, signal delay, solar flares). And some, like realistic science experiments wouldn't be interesting of course, but it could be tied to the in-game time, forcing you to time accelerate to collect surface samples. (Not saying it would be a good idea, but you could...)
  22. Since my first post went largely unnoticed about 30 pages ago, I will make one more post about why I don't think KSP is ready. As I just started a poll about, I regard KSP now as a game, in contrast to a simulator/emulator. Mostly, because I think HarvesteR and Squad tries hard to make KSP a game. (Look at all the latest updates. Have they added anything really for the simulator/emulator part of the game, i.e. sandbox. Well, a little, but mostly for career mode - the game.) So, is sandbox ready for 1.0? Yes, and it has been for 1-2 years. (Seriously, you can add a new aero model, or better wa
  23. After the discussion about whether KSP is ready for 1.0 or not, I got the feeling that many on this forum regards KSP as a simulation of a space program. The way I see it, one can look on KSP in one of two ways. Either you think KSP is a simulator/emulator where you construct your own rockets, fly to the places you want just because you want it and explore the KSP universe simply because its fun. Or, you consider KSP to be a game and load up career mode, struggling to manage your base, upgrading the right building at the right time, choosing the right contract and try to make as much r
  24. I have thought about that as well (rocket simulation), and think it really is a missing feature. I would fit nicely in. After finding out enough info about Eve, you could (automatically) import Eves parameters into the simulator and let you test/simulate a landing craft before launch. It would cost money and time of course (being the "downside" of it.)
  25. I disagree. Or, it would be cool. But mostly (I think) it would be fun. And that is the point of games, after all, to have fun. Besides, if implemented in the way I suggest, exploring would give in game advantages to accelerate further exploring, also increasing the fun. (For example finding out the correct amount of oxidizer and fuel to be extracted from moon dust. One could find that out in the online wiki of course, but where's the fun in that?)
×
×
  • Create New...