johnkeale

Members
  • Content Count

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

83 Excellent

1 Follower

About johnkeale

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

664 profile views
  1. Hi guys! So I've been testing the game event triggered shouts for a while now, apologies for taking so long. Anyway, I realized that I've only been testing in Career mode. Since the shouts are tied to the reputation, it didn't come to mind to test it in Sandbox and Science modes until now. So here's my question, if there is no reputation, how do you think the shouts should be displayed? In Career mode, a large percent of the shouts will depend on your rep. For example, if you have around 400 rep, a large percent of the shouts will praise your space program, and will express excitedness for whatever you do. There will also be shouts when you do something in-game, e.g. flag planting, kerbal hiring etc. Most of these shout will sound positive for high reputation, and negative for low reputation. But in Sandbox or Science mode, there is no reputation, so these shouts just get displayed randomly. Should I disable reputation related shouts entirely? Display them randomly? Assume high reputation and display as if the user has high reputation? Something else? Any thoughts? Especially to @ensou04? Cheers!!
  2. I see where you're coming from. I believe that this is just some bad impressions gained from the all those debacles with EA. But I believe (and hope to continue believing) that KSP is different from all those other games.
  3. Only one way to find out! Yeah! When I installed IR, it opened a 'whole new world' of building for me. Same reason why I haven't installed kOS yet, because I will be drowned with all the new possibilities. Man I can't really wait for this DLC to come out XD
  4. Oh yeah, that could work too haha. I didn't think about that, but it seems to be a good in-game advertisement too. I think that's going to be one of the new stock robotic part. It looks like a hydraulic piston to me.
  5. Hmm, in my understanding, the terrain scatters will just be 'something to see/discover' that's why I agreed that they should be in the base game. They'll just be like new anomalies, hence I referred to them as such. I mean sure there are already anomalies on the planets, but I think more would be good. This is so awesome to hear! Thanks! Maybe I should just mention @IgorZ here XD I actually didn't know this, but since @CobaltWolf mentioned that SEP was discontinued, I think it won't be much of a problem. And now that I think about it, I can have an explanation for why there are two versions of a functionality (e.g. IR and stock robotics). I could just say in my headcanon that IR was a third-party manufacturer software (which means that it works on third party parts) and that the stock robotics are KSC developed software. All is well
  6. Personally, I think the DLC is worth more than its current price. But I'm a filthy weab that buys overpriced plastic figures, so my sense of value is somewhat off. :v But the point still stands, the DLC brings so much new content to the game that I think it's worth a go. As quoted above, this is one good way to keep the game going. Let's be practical here, software development costs money, and this DLC is a really good way to generate income for the game. It has robotic parts people! And deployable experiments! Rover arms! Though I still stand by Gameslinx point. Maybe have the anomalies on the base game and the functionality on the DLC. It's a really good compromise IMO.
  7. Yeah I get what you're talking about. Software development is costly, and I am also willing to buy the DLC. In fact I think it's worth more than it's current price. But I think @Gameslinx has a point too. The planets have been bland for a while now. They needed something to spice them up. So I actually like his proposal to put the anomalies on the base game, but have the functionality to interact with them on the DLC. I think it's a good compromise.
  8. I wholly agree with you on this one. Thanks a lot for explaining it. I love IR, and all the other mods out there. I love them so much because they make the game 1000x more fun. But yeah at the end of the day, they're mods. They have their limits. I know that and accept that as I play my game. That's why I'm so hyped about this DLC. Hahahahaha I read this in your voice XD So looking forward to it
  9. It's a DLC, so yeah, it will not be a full replacement for KIS. Still I wish the DLC would be compatible to the existing mods, since I will definitely buy it and I don't want to give up the mods I have installed.
  10. I agree, this is my primary concern too. I've been playing a heavily modded game, and I hope it would stay consistent and compatible.
  11. Goes to show how the community is still excited about this game! Our enthusiasm might be getting overboard.
  12. That's nice to hear! I don't know what to feel about this. The way KIS works right now really adds a different dimension to the game. I mean I was able to pick up debris on the Munar surface and assemble something to improve my existing base. Not that realistic, I know, but it was fun planning and executing nonetheless. If it's just an inventory system, maybe it's OK? Anyway, still seems to be fun and am really looking forward to it!!
  13. That's good to hear. I guess I'll just wait. For now, once I've come up with a naming scheme, I'm still planning on installing SEP on my save and deal with the issues on my own (via quicksaves or cheats or some headcanon about the Kraken). I always attribute bugs to the Kraken in my headcanon so I can deal with that. Can we clarify this? What I'm thinking right now is that the deployable experiments are ever present on a payload bay or something, and we use the rover with the arms to 'detach' them from the payload bay and 'deploy' them on the ground. Is this how it works? Or would the Kerbal be able to 'grab' it and 'deploy' it just like planting a flag? Cheers~
  14. Oh that's sad. SEP is an awesome mod, and I've been wanting to try it for a while now. I just don't have a naming scheme for SEP 'bases' that's why I haven't tried it yet. If it turns out that you can add new deployable experiments using the DLC, would you reconsider adopting SEP to the new system? Or have you really closed the doors for SEP?