Jump to content

Bej Kerman

Members
  • Posts

    4,668
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bej Kerman

  1. If someone pulls the "space stuff" card, I wouldn't consider taking it too seriously. While KSP is about the journey and not the destination, the journey would be pointless without the destination. Hence why we have rover parts (+ a Tylo cave and a Vall lake) in the first place! I'd dig subterranean gameplay, especially considering the possible near-future exploration of Europa IRL.
  2. That is a very funny definition of "options". Players who want QOL have to tediously bind everything to an action group, and players who are tedious can enjoy the tedium. You realise if you don't like this change, you can just ignore the science button, right? Players still have "options", just that the ones who want QOL are spared action group tedium.
  3. Those are massive gameplay changes and therefore bad analogies. Reducing the tedium of clicking 5 experiments to 1 button does not change the 5 experiments besides not wasting the players' time - it's functionally the same. If you hate this change though, do you hate the positive QOL change or do you hate the shallow nature of the gameplay loop that the QOL adjustment makes impossible to ignore?
  4. Unsure what this has to do with the layout of the KSC. No innovation at all, in terms of career mode at least.
  5. I wrote a bullet list on why all four of these points are incorrect, but it became clear to me when you accused it of having the "same KSC layout" you're just doing this for the sake of it. A completely different KSC is literally one of the first things new players will notice, and if someone claims it's the same, I have no reason to believe they've actually even played KSP 2. It's an objective fact that a top-down view of KSP 2's KSC model will not match up with a top-down view of KSP 1's KSC model.
  6. You neglected to mention that's not been true since Squad as a whole picked it up, then that got backed by a large company. This would be like saying "Starfield is an indie title" just because a small dev team at Bethesda was responsible for a prototype of the game years ago. That latter part is a massive [citation needed].
  7. Discussed this in a PM, but figured this was worth echoing here as a PSA-lite. $0.16 was the Yen-Dollar conversion, which does not mean the game was on sale for $0.16. It means that the lowest price in Japan was equivalent to $0.16 Dollars. The lowest the game's ever been in Dollars is $9.99 (75% off - this has been the default discount since May 30, 2019). Thought I'd throw this out there before more confusion stems from Steam's currency conversions.
  8. I checked the price history myself, it has never gone below£7.49. I think it's absurd to suggest that Steam's databases would not record lower prices. I stand corrected. KSP was free up to 0.13.x, and the two Demo releases, obviously. I made a confusion with the 1.0.0 Demo being free (but with reduced content). My apologies. I see, thanks for clarifying.
  9. Super efficient engines in a game about unlocking increasingly efficient engines?
  10. I don't see what this has to do with KSP 2. Although I do agree it was lackluster and Squad was doing themselves and everyone else a disservice by helping set that precedent.
  11. How many tons of air and water are there in the atmosphere of Kerbin? Good luck manufacturing a fraction of that.
  12. A quick workaround for this is using the offset tool. The collision mesh of the decoupler should be hollow. Stack Overflow in a nutshell
  13. Yep - fun movies but not any less insane than everything that came after them
  14. Of course, all the things Solo was alive to see before then - hyperspace tunnels, planes in space, giant space lasers, some insane spiel about using the force to aim a photon torpedo blind, those were perfectly logical. Nah, it was all a coma - Han Solo is obsessed with guns and that's why the heroes are sharpshooters while the aim of the stormtroopers border on Deus Ex Machina, and his insanely boring office life results in him drinking
  15. I'd be happy to see an elaboration on this.
  16. This is a public forum though, and kerballs is absolutely right in their evaluation. Forcing people to answer the way you want and trying to butt out others joining in doesn't exactly provoke decent conversations.
  17. I'd guess the scenario where you were more careful with your resources, or the scenario where the game lets you trade in resources of one type for another, or the scenario where uranium and steel are lumped into the same generic resource budget when inside the VAB (say that parts take the amount of resources specified on the tin, and 1 unit of uranium counts to x units of resources). Edit: If someone asks you to pick from two scenarios, and they will happily throw accusations of bad faith if a viable third scenario is proposed, that in itself is bad faith. Would much rather see people not trying to railroad discussions in their favour. Figured I'd throw that out there for future readers.
  18. Yes, in the scenario you imagined where you only earn steel. My bad for not wanting redundant systems that only muddy gameplay up, for the sake of the above invented problem.
  19. Like just earning resources instead of earning tokens that let you get the same resources? It's an unnecessary step.
  20. Why currency? All the challenges you described can be filled in with a generic resource, the same that'll drive colonies and orbital construction, without a currency system adding unneeded complexity. What does this add that a resource allowance wouldn't?
×
×
  • Create New...