HebaruSan

To anyone who's interested in this, there's a bug tracker entry about it that has started to get some traction. If you upvote it, there's a chance it'll appear in future K.E.R.B. posts and hopefully something will be done about it:

I also vote "No" on the proposition, because neither the form nor the content of the feedback would be useful. Some of us flatter ourselves that all those fifteen-paragraph essays and sharp retorts we write are brilliant and would be super valuable for the devs to read. The reality is that the devs don't and won't read them, and wouldn't gain anything from them if they did. They don't need long-form analysis; they need individual bite-sized pain points that have a broad and strong player consensus behind them. The point of the EA as currently structured is to collect actionable feedback on the product as it actually exists and develops. This proposal would generate feedback on what players guess and imagine and hope and fear would exist based on necessarily incomplete summaries and descriptions of things of which even the devs don't yet know the final shape. Players will guess wrong, assume, misinterpret, clutter discussions with irrelevancies, and overlook actual problems that have to be experienced in-game to be noticed. Extracting something useful out of such a discussion would be an exercise in futility. If the devs reached a decision point where they genuinely weren't sure which design choice to make, I could imagine them putting together some carefully composed and carefully labeled mock-up screenshots in a carefully written post soliciting feedback. But I think we all know how that would go; people would rapidly "take sides" and argue back and forth, the feedback would be all over the place, and any position the devs wanted to take could be justified by selecting this or that reply from this or that faction.

Minmus teaches about orbital inclination.

In what sense? I made a lot of ISRU craft in KSP1 that had no component of long-term occupation or high population. Land, mine, process, refuel, launch. I wouldn't call that a colony in any recognizable sense.

This is the inefficient way of going interplanetary. The reason why is complicated but conventionally goes by the name "Oberth effect" if you want to read up on it.

Well, sort of. Remember that in KSP1, ISRU was a way to refill LiquidFuel, Oxidizer, and Monopropellant tanks. That would still have some value even without colonies.

Click the arrow at the top of the issue to upvote this and attract the attention of the devs:

What would this mean? Does the game ship with a robotic arm wrestling simulator prop that I have to beat in order to assemble the rocket?

Or maybe it's an auto-save from before you chose a craft name.

Oh, I see, you haven't actually played the For Science! update. That's cool, you don't have to try something if you don't want to, but maybe you stand to gain more from listening than pontificating in that case?

It's called an "analogy". You may be interested to know that "Super Mario Bros." itself was a sequel of sorts: Hence citing it as an example of a sequel to which fans might share such reactions.

I feel like it's 1985 and someone is asking me why Mario can't get married and start a family in-game. What do you mean the game just ends after you kill the final boss? How are experienced players supposed to get anything out of this after they master all 8 worlds?? Games have areas of focus and are not always intended to be infinite in duration.

This delightful doggerel is a duplicate of (assuming that the shadow isn't supposed to be there, that is)

Agreed, and I think it is. Good luck with that on a large, lifeless planet. Please don't falsely characterize my interests, attitudes, or prefereces. It only results in needless bickering. Thanks. You're only missing one word; there's "something unique beyond the next horizon."

I've seen squigglies most often right before entering a new sphere of influence.

One of the monuments is at a high latitude. Polar isn't required for that, but it's useful.

I want SCANsat for all sorts of reasons, but I'm wary of a UI that encourages repetition of past challenges. If a player enjoys the core game loop so much that they want to perform several Mun landings with basically the same gameplay challenges, then of course the game should allow and facilitate that. But for people who want to keep progressing through new challenges and experiences, a screen full of "You haven't been here yet (but it's basically the same as where you did go)" feels like the game dragging you backwards and distracting from the next step in the progression. Science works well as a bonus alongside the main questline, but I'd find a biome checklist tedious. I don't see science point collection as a primary goal that I would focus on.

You may have a problem we haven't seen before, then. If you figure it out, please consider updating that wiki with your discoveries in case other users encounter the same issue. No, CKAN needs to parse it into an internal format to use it.

The issue is the poor usability of this popup, insofar as it presents two bad options. That can't be fixed just by rephrasing them.

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: CustomFlags | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Win 10 | CPU: i7-3770K | GPU: GTK 1060 6GB | RAM: 32 GB Go to the VAB in an existing save Discover there's already a craft there that you were working on before Click the new craft icon because you want to start a new one This prompt appears: The word "delete" here is scary. It makes it sound like the game is going to remove files from disk. But more importantly, the only two options are to "delete" the current build or not create a new craft at all. Neither of these is adequate to the main thing players will expect from this button, which is to clear the VAB without losing data. There should be a third button along the lines of "Save and Clear", which saves any changes to the current craft before emptying out the VAB for a new craft. This should probably be the default option when this prompt appears, because "deleting" isn't what anyone wants, and cancelling is only for mis-clicks, a corner case. Or for an even better UX, have it auto-save the current craft and clear the VAB without any prompt at all! One easy click!

Well, we need some way to alert the team to the terrible consequences of this bad design decision. They created a feature and then turned it off exactly in the scenario when it's most useful and needed. There isn't even a benefit to doing that. This isn't a proposal for some big new feature. It's emergency-level feedback from users that the core user experience of the content they just released has a huge problem.

Can you please update the title? I'm not complaining about "too restrictive", I'm complaining that this unnecessary limit exists at all, specifically because it is highly deterimental to both major halves of the new content of the For Science! update.

What do people think the real Moon landings were like? What do people think a day in the office is like for the Curiosity team? Endless expanses of dead, dry nothing. It's not cool because there's something shiny there to look at. It's cool because it's another world.

The latter.

That's only applicable to Linux and Mac. Is that you? If so, here's what we know about certs. https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN/wiki/SSL-certificate-errors