Cpt Kerbalkrunch

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

956 Excellent


About Cpt Kerbalkrunch

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist

Profile Information

  • Location Chicago...Where else would I be?
  • Interests Baseball, hockey, and Emily Browning

Recent Profile Visitors

4,332 profile views
  1. Stock Game not very fun without Delta-V & TWR readout

    You said this: "I understand all the fun and accomplishment in building the rockets be eye, only guessing things, and making gruesome mistakes. But it's a very short-lived experience, that gets more boring and tiresome than fun very fast. Most people got this taste around the boom in popularity in 2015, and then abandoned the game." ...and then showed a graph. Since we can't know what other people are thinking, that's an assumption. As I said, you may be correct, but there are other factors as well. Not sure where the confusion lies. That however, is not only perplexing but downright amusing. First off, who said anything about "randomly throwing together parts"? The best part is, if you actually build a rocket and see if it works, you're cheating. If you know the answers before hitting the spacebar, it's okay. Answers that were given to you through someone else's hard work. What you're saying is the same thing you see all the time; "the way I play is right, the way you play is cheating". It's usually stock guys talking to mod guys, so I guess this would be reverse discrimination. Whatever works for ya, bud.
  2. KSP Weekly: A Brief History about Stephen

    Not sure I woulda made that info available. Someone is sure to show up to complain about inaccurate rivets and lack of grease-stains on the new fuel tanks.
  3. Stock Game not very fun without Delta-V & TWR readout

    It looks like that spike coincided with the official 1.0 release. That was when I bought the game as well. What that graph really shows is the power of advertising: in this case, the magic of the Steam ads the moment you log in. Graphs like that are probably hanging in every ad guy's office. Not to say that your assumption is incorrect. It probably is. But I think a graph for most games would look quite the same (except the huge, extremely popular multiplayer ones). I have dozens of games I've tried for a bit and moved on, or never even loaded at all. I suspect we all do. You try something, and maybe it's not your cup of tea. Or not quite what you thought. Or maybe you think you'll come back to it later and give it another shot. There are plenty of reasons to move on to something else. To me, KSP is one of those games that either grabs you immediately (and won't let go), or not at all. Is there such a thing as a "casual" KSP player? I'm not so sure. It's sort of a way of life; bordering on obsession. If someone found the game too hard or not to their liking, I don't think seeing the numbers would help. But for someone who likes the game and wants to get better, more info would certainly help. As I said, I'm not opposed to it. I just don't think it will be incorporated into the stock game anytime soon. And though it may be necessary for your enjoyment (depending on the player), it is not necessary for your success.
  4. 1.4.1 & Making History Really Buggy

    I haven't seen all the things you guys have, but I'll take your word for it based on what I've seen myself. The reason I haven't seen any gameplay bugs is that I've been stuck on the mission builder. It's basically the core of the expansion, and probably the only thing that really makes it worth the money. I've got high hopes for it, and I'm really trying to get the hang of it. However, the entire 3rd tutorial is simply missing. The game says there are 3, but I only see 2. At the end of the 2nd it tells you to save and continue on to the next one to learn more advanced techniques; but there is no next one. You can't hit save or continue; you can only hit done. Which ends the tutorials. I've asked in both the mission builder threads, but haven't heard anything yet. Pretty much everyone is asking why they didn't do more testing and what kind of Q&A did they do, but I keep wondering who did it. From all we've seen and heard, you give this to any serious player and they'll find these things within a day; which is exactly what happened. Giving a preview to YouTubers doesn't mean anything to me. If you're not on this forum I don't consider you part of this community, and I don't really pay attention to what they're doing. This forum, however, is full of serious players. Squad would be wise to make use of some of them for testing new parts and features. And we all would be better off with a more polished product. For now, I'm just waiting to see what the next patch is able to do. And how soon it comes along.
  5. Stock Game not very fun without Delta-V & TWR readout

    I'd love to have that for sure. Flipping back and forth to map view is always fun. Especially when I switch back and the camera automatically zooms in for an extreme close-up on my huge ship. Always irritating.
  6. Stock Game not very fun without Delta-V & TWR readout

    After almost 3,000 hours, I've been to every stock planet and moon multiple times. Done the Retro Solar Rescue, the Jool 5, and several Eve land and return missions. Except for mundane and repetitive missions like rescues from LKO and asteroid grabbing, I don't reuse rockets. I build every one from scratch for that particular mission. And I could not tell you the Delta V or TWR of a single one of them, because I just don't know. I've never used a mod, spreadsheet, or calculator. I just use trial and error and guesswork based on experience. It was tough going at first, but it taught me a lot. And I would not trade those early experiences. Now, unless I'm going to Eve, I just look at my rocket as I build it and I can kinda tell what it can do. You don't over-build, you try to make it as small as possible while still bringing everything you need and accomplishing your mission. I've gotten good enough at it that I usually just make it or just miss it. And I'm right more often than wrong. It always makes me feel good. And there's an element of mystery and excitement to every mission. Did I cut it too close? Will I make it, or have to mount a rescue? It's fun. The only drawback to this method is that my ships will almost never be as efficient as someone's with the information at hand, but I don't really mind that. I can pare it down pretty well if I work at it. With all that being said, I will admit to salivating with envy whenever I see screenshots with KER open. I would love to have all that info available. I said when I started I would play stock, and I have. I figured once I got good enough and had nothing left to prove to myself, I would install KER. But I just never got around to it. I now moved on to New Horizons; where I've again been demoted to rank amateur. And I'm loving it. It's an absolute blast to me. Just a difference in play-style is all. However, if it were in the game, I would certainly make use of it. I would just make it something to be unlocked further along the game to encourage learning on your own; as I've seen @Rocket In My Pocket and a few others suggest. However, if I were Squad, I would not put it in the stock game. You would immediately see videos posted with ships showing a certain Delta V amount, then making maneuvers and showing the numbers to be completely wrong. Veterans here on the forum would rise to their defense and explain why you can't account for everything and say "you shoulda been around when we had nothing". And others will say "who cares? If it's in the game it should work". There's no winning there. I'd leave it to the realm of mods. It's not hurting anyone (except maybe the console guys; and they're all nuts anyway). A better question is why isn't KAC in the stock game? It's the only mod you actually need, and it's authored by a staff member. That one's a head-scratcher.
  7. KSP Weekly: A Brief History about Stephen

    Consider me reassured. I'll get back to the game now and bring you a lost of gripes later.
  8. KSP Weekly: A Brief History about Stephen

    This kinda reads like a goodbye letter. You guys are sticking around, aren't you?
  9. Do I need a change in gameplay?

    Thinking of joining that crazy spaceplane fraternity? Sorry, bud. I'll have to report you for that. Yo, @SQUAD. Put this guy on the list.

    Nostalgia plays a part, certainly, but also personal preference and play-style. I don't know if beginners really don't care about weight or not, as you said, but if you're saying it's harder to launch a lighter payload, I'm not seeing the logic. I used the Mk1-2 for my Jool 5 and an Eve ascent vehicle precisely because it made things more difficult. They were not easy, and I'm extremely proud of them. To me, light rockets are difficult when you get to the end of the spectrum. In other words, when you make it so small you're now pushing the boundaries of capability; like a "low mass" challenge. Building a good, huge rocket can be just as difficult. I don't dislike the Mk1-3. And I don't mind the added functionality it has. Your "top of the line" command pod should have things the others don't. However, it should come at a cost. And not just funds. To me, this game is all about accomplishment. Even after a simple mission, seeing my chutes pop back at Kerbin always makes me feel good. It's something that sets this game apart. So if you wanna launch 3 Kerbals but save mass, it's going to cost you in looks and "cool factor". You'll need some combination of smaller pods or passenger cabin or (God forbid) command seats in a fairing or service module. If you want 3 Kerbals all in one pod that looks cool, is extremely sturdy, and has more functionality, it'll cost you mass. It should be so heavy, in fact, that it makes you wonder whether or not it's worth it. Design decisions should not be easy. If you want this, it should cost you that, and so forth. So I'm fine with the new pod, I just think it should be heavier. At least 4 tons. Make it a tough decision instead of a no-brainer. As always though, this is just one guy's opinion. I doubt I'M the only one, though. Others surely feel the same way.
  11. My thoughts are pretty much the same. It wasn't a "No Man's Sky" level of debacle, but it wasn't good. There's a lot that needs to be addressed. I'm eagerly anticipating today's KSP Weekly. How many of these issues will they admit to, and how many will they attempt to gloss over? They'll surely spin the release as a success (and it probably was financially), but the problems definitely outnumber the positives. Though it's head-scratchingly separate from the rest of the game (as everyone has pointed out), I still think the mission builder could save the whole thing. I've been playing around with it the last 2 nights, and it seems to have tons of potential. It still needs some clean-up and polish (sad to say after a year of development, but I'm willing to give a bit more leeway here; it must've been quite a job putting something so complicated together), but I can already see it's going to be fantastic. Can't wait to see what patches and updates are offered down the road. And if modders are able to get their hands on it, there's no telling what they'll be able to do. So, for now, I'll remain hopeful.
  12. Guess it's time to pick a side. I'm gonna ride with the robots. Maybe they'll hook me up with a 1080.
  13. So I've got an idea for a mission (as I'm sure we all do), and started playing around with the mission builder. My first impression is that (once I figure it all out) it's going to be extremely cool. I can't even imagine yet all the places different players will take it, but I'm definitely excited for it. By far the most potential of the new features. I've been wondering what the modding potential for it is as well. Anyway, much of it seems like writing a program (the first thing I thought of was that it reminds me of Human Resource Machine). Since (if you don't count HRM) the last program I wrote was in BASIC on a DOS machine when I was a kid, the tutorials are a big help. However, I still haven't heard why the game says there are 3 tutorials when I only see 2. Being that there is a "basic" and "intermediate" tutorial, it stands to reason that there would be an "advanced". At the end of the 2nd tutorial, it even tells you the next one will teach you some of the more advanced techniques. It saves to save your progress and continue to the next one. However, you can't hit save at that point and you can't hit continue either. You can only hit "done" and the tutorials end. I'd really like to learn some of the more advanced techniques (such as the best way to make use of the "always true" and "always false" nodes, along with a few others), so I really hoping this was just an oversight and the 3rd tutorial was left out somehow and will be quickly added via patch like the Mk1-3 IVA. Also, I'm curious if there were plans to add a "choice" node. A way to force a player to choose a certain path, and once activated, no way to return. I know there are ways to activate this through other nodes, but giving a player a choice to make in a dialog box (option A, B, C, and so on), would really make you feel like you're playing out a story with multiple outcomes RPG-style. Anyway, though it looks like crafting a mission is going to be time-consuming (of course, what isn't in KSP? ), it looks like this is gonna be a lot of fun. Can't wait to see what patches, updates, and mods will bring in the future.

    I absolutely love the Mk1-2, and was horrified to see it removed. I assumed the Mk1-3 was named so because it would be the 3rd Mk command pod. Any time I thought of "new parts", to my mind it meant "more parts". Not replacing the old ones with new ones. Plenty of players wanted parts that looked sleeker and more polished, but I think there are plenty of us who did not. Even with the mesh switching, the rockets I've seen this far all look pretty similar. Basically, something out of RSS. One of the best things about this game is the vast difference in style from one player to the next. I love seeing other guys' screenshots, because their ships are always so different from mine. People liked to crack on the old Rockomax tanks, saying how ugly they were and constantly going on about the "garbage found by the road" stuff, but that's really just looking at the part on its own. If you worked at your design, you could make ships that were really cool, asthetically appealing, and extremely Kerbal. To me that was always part of the fun of the game. You shouldn't just be able to throw parts together and have it look good. You should have to work at it. You should actually have to put some "design" in your design. If you follow the Gameplay Questions forum, how many times have you seen someone ask what was the best way to do something, be given a perfectly good suggestion and say "no, it wouldn't look right"? I don't want cookie-cutter rockets. Take the new LEM, for instance. You want a lander? Okay, here's your lander. No, I want to build my own lander. The Mk1 Lander Can was no beauty, but I've seen some pretty slick lander designs with it. I know they're trying to keep part-count down to make the game a bit easier on the average computer, but I prefer to build things myself. The1.875 parts, on the other hand, are a great addition to the game IMO. The drop-down from 2.5m to 1.25m is a bit extreme. Having a middle option should help make for some smoother transitions. And since I often favor huge rockets, I'm sure I'll make use of the 5m tanks. For me, additional content is always welcome; but newer does not always mean better. I'm not ready to throw away the past, and I suspect plenty of others aren't either. If there's enough outcry, hopefully they'll be fully reinstated. Starting with my beloved Mk1-2.
  15. I think the Wolfhound's entire existence should be in question. The numbers were so eye-popping, it was the first thing I tried. I didn't notice an off-center thrust, but that's probably because I was knocked over by its abilities. An engine that weighs less than a Nerv, with 6x the thrust, and still has over 400isp? I put the thing in orbit and it was unreal. The Energizer Bunny of lf/o engines. It just kept burning. Not a fan.