T1mo98

Members
  • Content Count

    209
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

302 Excellent

About T1mo98

  • Rank
    Craft Connoisseur

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Despite this being an April Fool's Joke... I really want this in the game. I prefer this so much over green Jool.
  2. Go to the first page of this thread and read the fourth comment. That's me, making a case against the points you brought up in the OP in a semi-lengthy comment positing multiple counter-arguments. And last time I checked, you were the one to never respond to those arguments, so please don't go around saying stuff like "you simply have no counterarguments and are upset about it. Customarily that's considered conceding a debate", because that's factually untrue.
  3. It's also super arrogant of you to claim that you know what's best for every player of KSP who doesn't want to download a metric assload of mods by wanting them to be forced into a play-style that's catered just for you. You can claim all you want about not having those motives, but actions speak louder than words, or in this case, you've spoken many, many words that proof the contrary is true. According to all the posts you've made, you genuinely believe "It's my way or the highway" by the fact you refuse to engage with other people and dismiss any and all talk that doesn't agree.
  4. So yet again your argument here is that people should be forced to play exactly how you want them to. Some people don't want to have manned missions for everything, yet here you are saying to people "I don't give a toss about how you want to play the game or what you want to do, you should all play what I want" There's literally not a single disadvantage to a game having options, yet here you are acting as if having options makes a game unplayable or results in the death of the universe or something, considering how adamant and dramatic you're acting over it. This honestly baffles my mind on so many levels because you are actively asking for the value of your money and the product you pay for to be diminished due to some crusade against player choice and freedom. And why? The only answer that makes sense at this point is that you just want to control how other people play.
  5. In other words, contrary to what you said before, you do want to decide how every single other KSP player should play thegame. This whole thread can pretty much be summed up by "I want every player to play the game exactly like I do, otherwise they can just sod off and play something else" Not to mention your entire reasoning for that gamemode you keep mentioning is just moving all the options currently there to another screen, accomplishing nothing and only frustrating players who now have to ponce about with settings for a Sandbox Mode, while also frustrating a lot of other people by forcing them to use features you decided they should play with. Because let's be honest, you can claim all you want that you "want the creators of KSP and KSP 2 to dictate", but you just want them to implement all of your ideas. Would it be at all possible for you to not gatekeep KSP? All you're doing here is telling people that they should either play exactly how you want or just sod off.
  6. In my opinion it's a fundamentally bad idea to leave out extra features or content to just let modders do it. At that point it's not even a game developed by a studio, instead it becomes a group project by a bunch of modders that you can never be sure whether or not it will work out or have long-term viability. The problems of modding can be numerous: 1. Depends on volunteer-programmers that can decide on a whim to stop supporting a mod, leaving you high and dry when an update comes that breaks that mod. You're left hoping someone else will pick it up, but linuxgurugamer doesn't have infinite time to take care of every unsupported mod. 2. New game updates regurarly break mods, so if your entire build is dependant on those mods, you have to wait potentially months before a mod is updated. If the update in question fixes a major bug that hampers the experience on older builds or introduces major performance improvements, this can be a real problem. 3. The obvious issue of Console players. 4. Craft sharing becomes far less easy considering more mods will have to be installed since more people will be reliant on mods, especially if Advanced Tweakables are removed and put into a mod which you are suggesting. Benefits of having options: 1. All players have immediate access to all options after downloading the game and don't need to download other stuff for basic functions. 2. Craft sharing is simplified because unmodded craft will be much more prevelant. 3. Supported for the entire length of the game's lifecycle. 4. Automatically updated with each new version of the game. There's also a flaw in the reasoning that options are "a bad kind of complexity for players." Simply put, players that are looking for more options of stuff to use will only be frustrated by the lack of options and the requirement to download something else. Players that aren't interested in all these options or don't play the game in-depth will simply play the game and not be bothered. They wouldn't even be aware of or care about the complexity of options and when they start to become more involved, they will appreciate the level of customizability. Conclusion: Relying on mods for everything is a bad idea.
  7. This test footage of the Vulcain 2.1(of the same family the new Mainsail revamp is modelled after) shows that the exhaust looks a lot less like smoke than you might expect.
  8. I'm seeing a lot of people saying that while the Mainsail and Skipper are an improvement on the first revamps we saw, they're still worse than ReStock. So let me just be the voice of opposition here and say that I like these revamps wholeheartedly and considerably more than what ReStock has to offer. Great job Squad!
  9. Meh, ReStock is a pretty mixed bag for me. Some things are awesome, so things I really don't like.
  10. Struts aren't ugly when you can't even see them, so what's the problem here? Also, have you never heard of autostrut before?
  11. 1. It's not the same developer. 2. KSP gets regular updates so what are you blabbing about this game being abandoned? 3. If you want the look of two decouplers holding your booster, just strut the booster to the decoupler and advanced move it.
  12. Not everybody wants to rely on mods for everything.
  13. My constructive feedback: 1. Slightly reduce the nozzle size. Maybe to 80 or 75% of what this is. 2. Remove the tankbutt and make it a seperate structural part, since we need more parts to work with 1.875m. This would also make the engine far more flexible in use considering you don't have to deal with a massive 2.5m adapter each time you want to use. 3. Give the engine more detail with an option to remove the cover. 4. Make the cover more shiny to make it really look the Vulcain engine which this design is based off. 5. Consider modeling the nozzle and exhausts to make it look more like the Vulcain 2.
  14. You assume that he KSP team has a dedicated artist that only spend time on making these. I'm not privy to the full, detailed make-up of the team, but i would presume they don't have an artist solely dedicated to revamps. Lesson: Don't judge the efforts of a team or person if you don't know the full story and base everything on assumptions.
  15. Because a development team's full focus isn't on just part revamps and they have a lot of other stuff to figure out.