Jump to content

Wheehaw Kerman

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wheehaw Kerman

  1. Yup. I’d say that I’m impressed at some people’s ability to stay so mad so long so vehemently and so vocally over… this, but “impressed” is the wrong word - altogether wrong connotations.
  2. Can we expect more historically inspired parts like the Making History Space Race era parts? The Soviet parts in particular were great.
  3. Still, they’re interesting topics, and discussing them is a more enjoyable way of passing the time until the features do drop. I’m not really sure that I care all that much about multiplayer, but I am really pumped for Interstellar. I’m looking forward to exploring some new bodies. There have also been some hints about DebDeb having an accretion disk, and I wonder how they’re going to implement the increased collision risk (and for that matter, will the ring around Dres be a testbed for that system) and how that’ll affect trip planning. Are we going to have to lob craft out of the plane of the disk in highly inclined trajectories? Will planning those even be a huge problem for starships?
  4. [insert “always was” kerbonaut with pistol meme here].
  5. My post does nothing of the sort. I simply disagree with your assumptions, which are quite subjective and driven by an emotional reaction to the state of the EA, and your arguments, which you probably realize are unconvincing as a result of said assumptions. There’s no need to repeat yourself at greater length and with more aggressive formatting, but do feel free to come back and tell me you told us so if the game ultimately does get cancelled.
  6. I think that both a funds model and a resources model could be either great to play, awful, or something middling, like KSP Career Mode. When you get right down to it, both are the same thing - the difference is in flavour, nothing more. You do [things] in game to earn points which can be [spent] to advance your game. I’m not sure there’s any real difference between a contract requiring you to mine x units of ore on the Mün and returning it to Kerbin, earning you funds to unlock parts, or simply flying the same mission but using that ore to build parts. Dream, build, fly, spend, progress. It’s just the flavour or vibe that’s different, and getting the flavour right. And having an enjoyable flavour with the right feel (“Cartoony Verisimilitude(tm)”) is going be critical. A “government funding” model where success in achieving objectives gets you a funding increase and a dacha whereas failure gets your funding cut and you sent to the Gulag would have a very different flavour from KSP’s “Commercial Space” model where you make funds to research parts and build out your rockets and KSC. My big worry about using resources alone is that it could feel very game-y: NASA doesn’t mine its own aluminum, and having aluminum doesn’t translate directly into scientists doing research. Having a completely vertically integrated space program that does everything from mining the raw resources to smelting to manufacturing parts to building and flying the rockets would lack verisimilitude.
  7. Six months to implement a heat effect and a bunch of other stuff CORRECTLY (we hope). They’ll get it right eventually.
  8. What’s going to happen when my patience runs out? Not much. KSP is fun, but I have plenty of other. things to keep me occupied. Worst-case, the game plotzes, I won’t throw any tantrums - I can always go back to KSP1 if nostalgia strikes.
  9. I’ll just leave this here. “Again” -ShadowZone. Since endless repetition seems to be the meme of the year around here. It’s both great nostalgia for those of us who’ve been playing since 2013 or thereabouts, and an excellent argument for the optimist position. If we can expect the same sort of improvement and expansion out of KSP2 that we did out of KSP, 1.0 is going to be amazing.
  10. The glass that is half full meets the “GLASS THAT’S EMPTY AND THE WATER TASTES AWFUL [endless repetitions redacted for brevity]!!!!”. And comes out looking the more realistic.
  11. Can’t say that I’d blame the guy, and he sure as [expletive deleted] isn’t the only one. At least the indignation and whining is getting funnier lately.
  12. Am I the only one who doesn’t like this whole “nom-punitive” thing? Stupid *should* hurt, and the best way to learn why you want to keep your guard up in, say, boxing, is the get punched in the face a few times. Not entirely sure why some failure modes (e.g. crashes) are supposedly less “punitive” than running out of life support?
  13. Nice to see that hunt end successfully, but the taxidermist bill is going to be huge!
  14. I’m not particularly worried about the plug getting pulled. Most of the people banging on about that are the folks who are coincidentally complaining about $50 being a lot of money and the minimum specs being too high for some reason. Although to be fair some of the complaints seem to be driven by the inability to build rockets that don’t wobble. But if that were to happen, hypothetically, I’d be disappointed that the game didn’t get the opportunity to live up to its promise. As a purchase? I’m sneaking up on the $0.25 per hour of entertainment level. That’s not quite the bargain that KSP was (three copies, 5,300 hours), but I can’t complain about being shortchanged.
  15. We got the forum tone this community deserves. I’m not sure whether this is unfortunate or comic poetic justice.
  16. Productive work first and upNates only when you won’t be delaying fixes and features to deliver them please. You’ve established that you are on a roll and things are getting better.
  17. Where software matters, I mean really matters in the life and death sense, its engineering is taken very, very seriously indeed. Take a look at avionics. Engineers are gonna engineer, making cool things, pushing envelopes, and doing so in increasingly safer and less Kerbal fashion, and they get the importance of safety. Games don’t matter in that sense. If a niche game has a buggy EA release, the worst that happens is that a few diehard fans spend a few months yelling at clouds on the forums until it gets patched to the point that the rage subsides.
  18. I’m just happy that we’re getting parachutes back. One of my Kerbals learned he didn’t have one the hard way…
  19. Well, we’ll see. The AMA today was a bit vague about the Science update, but the glimpses we’re seeing of the Mini-Lab and other Science parts could be signs of a different take on it. I forget who came up with the idea, but “fog of exploration”, where we only start with what data can be gleaned by telescope and need to do flybys, probes, etc. to get the useful information like details on the atmosphere, for example, would be fun. Especially for those of us who are new to the game.
  20. I’m kind of annoyed that they hotfixed the bug so fast I literally wasn’t able to test MkIs with and without heat shields to see if that made any difference. Did anybody test that?
  21. Has anybody else noticed that the beach scatter includes some orange starfish, and if so, is it new and when did it come in?
  22. So I like to defend the indefensible, just for bleeps and giggles - it drives my wife nuts. But I’m not going to even attempt to defend IG’s comms in that timeframe. Clearly, they were wrong. Overly optimistic project scheduling, COVID, unanticipated technical roadblocks, PD having a gun pointed at Nate’s head when he said that? Who knows, and besides, it’s kinda pointless except in one respect. It’s almost like a Rorschach test for forum members - you can tell a lot from what they parse out of it. Your own source, which you just quoted a couple of posts ago, used “work”, not “development”. And yes, credibility of sources and quality of reporting does matter, especially when it’s midnight during a power failure and we can’t find the goal posts.
  23. Fair enough. I’d gone to Wikipedia for the timeline. Quibbling about credibility of sources and definitions of work (in my line of work there’s years of prep before we put metaphorical boots on the ground) aside, I expect that the quantity and quality of Star Theory’s work might have had something to do with their replacement. We might be better served by looking at when work on the IG version started. But again, this is all still pointless speculation. Until somebody talks all we have is uninformed guesswork.
  • Create New...