maxpower

This is an issue for career mode though, and it really goes beyond just the visuals of the planets. The game needs to give the player more reasons to go to other destinations beyond Kerbin, and things to do when you get there. Going to other planets is actually really boring once you land... Granted, since the devs made it pretty clear with their statements about resources being canned that their focus is almost exclusively on players who are new to (or suck at) the game, I don't hold out much hope for any sort of "end" game content or advanced features.

I'm not really sure why so many people automatically assume this mission pack is going to make serious progress towards the core game. Sure, I guess anything is possible.... but its also possible (and more likely IMO) that its going to be a very heavily scripted stand alone scenario that makes absolutely no progress on the core game itself. I mean, the scenario as described doesn't require anything like procedural asteroids or random asteroid generation... so I'm not really sure why you think it could lay the ground work for such. If the mission is to go out and capture one specific asteroid, and that's how its described in the limited info we have, it could easily be set up with a special case game object that functions ONLY for the mission and has no technological overlap with the core game at all. That's not to say I'm freaking out that SQUAD is working on a mission pack with NASA before finishing the core game I actually bought (I didn't buy KSP for NASA mission packs). While I think it would be prudent to finish the game first before getting into these side track ventures, I can't fault them for jumping at the chance to work with NASA. Though I must say I agree with Captain Sierra on a lot of things..... and think SQUAD would be wise to acknowledge that the veteran community actually exists from time to time. Note: Saying things like "We value our community!" isn't an acknowledgement.... actually taking action, like adding desired content, IS acknowledgement.

That logic is a head scratcher though. Landing on other planets requires you to remember a bunch of single purpose parts to a vessel as well (parachute, landing gear, landing engine, enough fuel) and forgetting any of them will render your mission a complete failure. Transmission of science data is impossible if you forget an antenna. Your ship will not function if you forget a power source. I mean every single flight in the game requires several components, and if any are forgot the whole mission will be a failure. Nice try, but that excuse doesn't work at all. Now my thing with resources is that they are a very large part of human space exploration. If we ever do go to Mars or anywhere else, living off the land will be vital and commercial mining is likely not that far away. Since KSP is suppose to be a space program simulator, it would seem almost criminal to leave such an important part of human exploration out. The attempted system wasn't good? Ok, that happens in game development. Sometimes features don't turn out right... but simply walking away from an important feature after one failed attempt, especially when there is clear demand for it? Doesn't seem right to me. Also, I'm not quite sure why there seems to be a shift towards simplification when it comes to KSP and new feautes, but its going to alienate a large part of the community. KSP at its core, is one of the more difficult and complex games out there. It requires a basic understanding of physics, orbital mechanics, and rocketry in order to do anything beyond blowing things up. So it makes little sense to me that new features are being watered down and aimed at those that probably can't even get into orbit to begin with. If you are able to get into space, and go to other planets, I'm sure something like resource gathering is far from beyond your grasp. If you want to appeal to new players, don't water down or scrap end game content that new/bad players will never see, instead focus on things like better tutorials.... you know, things that new players might actually get to use.

Incorrect. The problem is actually a lack of communication. Most of the community dustups over the years could have been avoided, or at leased lessened with more straightforward communication. This whole resource snafu for example could have been prevented if SQUAD simply informed the community of their decision when it was made (likely several months ago), and were very strait forward with the whole situation. That would have allowed them to get out in front of it, and most of the community would have been fine with that. Instead they made some off hand comments about it and ran away from the community. Its not the amount of communication, its how you communicate... and despite all their efforts SQUAD is still really bad at it.

The reality of it is there are very very few people out there who only buy online space games with realistic physics. You're "online only" crowd tends to be restricted to shooters... not space sims. In fact, Id be willing to bet you could count on one hand the amount of people who have passed up KSP because it wasn't MP. I'd also point out that while multiplayer has always been a requested feature, its not a feature that's ever caused an uproar like we are seeing over the lack of resources. If its all about what the community is asking for, I think SQUAD needs to take a good hard look around before they make their next move.

I bought KSP with the understanding that it would never be a multiplayer game. While I might use such a feature, and don't really have any issue with it being added once the core game is finished, I want SQUAD to finish the game I actually bought first. For as much fun as I have in KSP, there is a serious lack of things to do in the game aside from launching rockets. KSP needs to give players a reason to actually launch rockets, a reason to go to certain places in the solar system, and something to do when you actually get there. The science system is watered down and boring, and it doesn't sound like the changes coming in .23 are going to change that. Recourse gathering and processing would change that, and it should be a primary focus. As for it being "too complicated" for the average player.... the average player will never go anywhere in KSP anyway. You need a basic understanding of rocket science to actually do anything with the base game beyond blowing up and crashing rockets. Once you have that and are able to get into space, I don't see how a one page resource tree is beyond your understanding. I mean with a complicated base game, additional features can't be tailored to the most simple minded of the community or the game is doomed.

That's just blind [FLUFFY BUNNIES]. Every developer makes mistakes, and choices they shouldn't have. IF you think they have been perfect, you are simply looking through your fanboy glasses and heaping blind praise on them. Funny enough, your EA comparison is ironic. EA's problem isn't that people have complained about the games they publish and driven them to mediocrity, but rather that they have ignored their fans over the years. When there is good criticism to be made of EA, they simply ignore it and do what they want... and it results in so-so games and angry fan bases. That's more along the lines of what's happening here. A very desired feature among the true fanbase (not those that will play KSP for 20 minutes and forget about it) appears to be headed for the scrap heap so that another feature most had accepted as not even happening, but has more commercial appeal, can take center stage. SQUAD does appear to be heading in the direction of EA's developers, but not because of how the fans are reacting... the fan reaction is a result, not a cause. If nothing else, SQUAD really screwed up with their lack of communication on the subject. This change didn't happen yesterday, and resources have been the main feature people have been looking for update after update since they were shown. We were led to believe that they were simply delayed to get other needed features in first... now it seems that was never the case. As soon as they were cut, or at least downsized from what we were shown, an announcement should have been made given how desired they were. Instead the community was left hanging for months assuming resources were still coming in the same form we were teased. That is SQUAD doing something very wrong, with their best EA impression. If you can't see that, you're just a blind fanboy sucking up to the devs. PS: People who played MC from day one are very split on how "fine" it turned out.

I know you are exaggerating a bit, but it wouldn't take 4 years at all. The vast vast vast majority of games take between 2-4 years to build from the ground up (and KSP has been under development for 2.5 years), so I have no idea where you came up with the idea it would take that long to switch engines. Mind you all the art work transfers, and all the game systems have been worked out... so its really just a matter of re-coding everything to function inside a different engine. At most, it would take a few months. That's not to say I agree with the idea of switching engines. Unity has limitations that probably hold parts of KSP back, but other engines have limitations of their own... and its not likely that there would be enough benefit to switch at this point.

I think both camps have it correct. As you get better at the game, the feel does change. This was true back in the older versions, and its true now. Even before a lot of parts were added, once you get to the point where you almost never crash a ship anymore, the game doesn't feel quite as comical as it does when you start playing. Hell back when I couldn't get off the launch pad the game was all about having a laugh, but once I started actually being able to do things it took on a much more serious tone. Now its not about seeing how big a fireball I can make, or how many Kerbal's I can kill.... its about trying to NOT kill them. That makes it almost a completely different game. On the flip side, the feel of the game itself has changed a bit over the last year. As new features were added, and the old placeholder parts/buildings/terrain were replaced with more realistic looking ones the game has taken on a more realistic feel. It still has its off the deep end charm, but its a much more believable space flight simulator then it use to be. Personally I love the direction the game is headed in. I never liked the community created idea that the Kerbals were terrible engineers and that KSP should look more like an episode of Junkyard Wars then an actual space sim game. I don't want the space port to look like a broken down trailer park, or my rocket to look like something assembled from stuff found in a dumpster. The best choice the devs have made IMO so far with KSP is to tune out the "lolz so Kerbal" section of the community and instead shoot for a more realistic art style for the game.

What games can't you say that about though? Almost all games have the same gameplay from start to finish... even sandbox style games like KSP. I mean LA Noire is a police detective game, so it stands to reason the entire game is going to have you playing as a police detective (gathering evidence, getting in chases/gun fights, and interrogating people). If you happen to find that kind of gameplay boring then its just going to feel boring and reparative, but again that goes for every game. As for the LA Noire itself I thought it was really good. One of the better games I've ever played in fact. There's no doubt that its a story heavy game like Heavy Rain, but the gameplay isn't bad. Took me about 35 hours to beat the entire thing including the DLC... though I took my time with it. My only complaint with that game is that no matter how bad you screw up a case, you eventually solve it and the story goes on as though you did a great job. Would have been better if, like Heavy Rain, the story changed based on your actions. Its not that big of a deal though. If your not sure about it but really want to give it a try, I'd wait till its on sale on Steam and pick it up (if you want it for the PC). Its one of the games that goes on sale fairly often since its been out for a while now.

Wow, condecending much? This is the .17 DISCUSSION thread. Its for discussing the update, and thats what he was doing... discussing a picture that was posted in this topic by a dev. No need to be rude just because he has an opinion other then yours. To be honest untitled is right, something does look off about the texture in that picutre. Perhaps its just the lighting or this perticular screenshot, but something doesn't seem quite right.

Thats exactlly what I was thinking. With the stock parts we have now, I\'m sure we can build a ship to reach other planets and get back without an issue if theres no landing involved. The problem, as it is in real life, will likely be the amount of fuel required for landing on the planet and getting back into orbit. It won\'t be easy to build a ship that can reach another planet, land on the surface, and make it back to Kerbin all in one shot with current parts. Thats not to say it would be impossible, but doing it with two ships as you say would be the easy way to go IMO.

I\'m not sure how the game handles time warp exactlly, but its possible that there would be no way to have different warp speeds for different areas. Since the universe is one single world, if one part of it is warping fast, the rest of it might have to warp fast as well. Not to mention there are countless holes in this idea when you start thinking of all the possible scenarios, for example: 1. The obvious problem... what if two people want different warp speeds in the same sphere of influence? Then your back to the very issue at hand. 2. Say you plan to do a slingshot around Planet X. If your in time warp, yet the planet/its moons aren\'t.... how would you time your slingshot so you don\'t hit the moons? 3. If I\'m in Kerbin orbit, and want to head to the Mun/another target that is currently in a high time warp... its going to be a pain in the ass to target the launch just right. ---------------------------------------------------- There are a lot of other issues as well. I give you credit for trying to come up with a creative solution, but the whole world needs to warp at the same speed or there will be issues.

Thats probably how I would do it as well. Although, instead of sending my return craft to the surface of 'Mars' I would probably put it in orbit instead and just make sure my lander has enough fuel to get back into Mars orbit and meet up with it. Otherwise my return craft would need enough fuel to get to 'Mars', land, get back into orbit, and go home. If it can do all that, you could just use one craft to begin with. Sending it to orbit instead would save all that fuel needed to land and get it back into orbit... which is probably the part of the mission that needs the most fuel. Of course that means your lander needs to carry enough fuel to make it back into orbit itself, but that shouldn\'t be that hard to do. The other way I could see doing a Mars style mission would simply be to build a huge 'mothership' in Kerbin orbit using docking, and then launch that to 'Mars' and have a small landing craft attached to it to get to do the landing and get back into orbit. One thing I don\'t see as being possible is doing a 'Mars' mission with one single launch from the surface of Kerbin with current parts. You would need to bring so much fuel the ship would be way too large to get into orbit.

Don\'t worry. Once you learn one, picking up the other isn\'t hard.

ooo Lander Engine... thats awesome. Keep up the good work guys!