• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

351 Excellent

1 Follower

About GluttonyReaper

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

4,550 profile views
  1. A properly set-up career mode that's balanced enough to gently guide players through the early game, but to still progressively get more challenging.
  2. I hate to say it... but this unfortunately doesn't look like it's going in the direction I was hoping for. Perhaps it's a bit biased (this is the future tech episode after all) but I'm getting much more of a "cool sci-fi" vibe off that video, rather than a "realistic science game-ified" vibe. My concern, I guess, is that the whole metallic hydrogen issue is just the tip of the iceberg - there's a lot of talk in the video about what things might be like in the future, or what things could look like, as opposed to current KSP tone of what things do or at worst should look like. I'm bit saying that that's not a valid design decision, but personally it's not really what I'm looking for in the game. My biggest worry at the moment is how essential all of this is going to be on a gameplay level. It's an assumption on my part, but it sounds an awful lot like Met. H in particular will be an assumed part of even just moving around the stock system, and everything balanced as such. Only time will tell I suppose.
  3. Which seems like a great idea until that gene mutates and ceases to work, disabling the self-destruct, and it might not be long before that leads to a strain with a higher survival rate than the original
  4. I could be entirely wrong, but I believe it was to do with it being more universal - Isp only has the units of seconds, which has always been accepted as the standard unit of time for everyone. Velocity however would often be quoted in feet/second by one certain country, and in metres/second by everyone else. Not the best reason, but it is what it is. I totally agree though, velocity is much more convinient measure - it actually gives you a little more info
  5. I'd argue it's more fundamental than this - the biggest problem with career mode in my mind is that it doesn't really function as a cohesive whole, instead just working as a set of vaguely related modules, some of which aren't even balanced in themselves. It more kind of resembles a lot of what somewhat thought a career mode should look like, without doing the legwork of actually making it work - I spent a lot of time trying to tinker with the difficulty settings in the past to try and get it to a point I was happy with, but honestly I never really found a happy medium, nor do I think I should have to do so. The preset difficulties should set things at a reasonable level, but fail pretty horrendously to my mind, just swinging between being mindlessly grindy and trivially easy at various stages in the game, with only a few specific parts really working as intended. I could go on forever about the various issues with career, but with regards to contracts.... bleh. Without regurgitating what other people above have had said too much, I would add that even the most mundane of contracts should be *interesting* at least - KSP might be a simulator in some areas, but career is the one place where game logic should really prevail. A couple of changes off the top of my head that could help: Part testing contracts should have have conditions that are sane (Heat shields being used for reentry, launch engines being used to launch, etc.) and have a chance of failing or performing strangely, such as an engine exploding or producing excess thrust and overheating. This would also make it less useful to hoard part testing contracts to gain access to parts you're not supposed to have yet Tourist missions could do with being flipped on their head a little - in my mind, it'd make more sense for the player to specify a number of empty seats and a destination, rather than the current system of just cycling through contracts and hoping to find some kerbals all wanting to go to the same place. The satellite launch and science gathering missions... well, I think it'd help if they didn't feel so disjointed and purposeless. Like, it'd be nice if these kind of contracts were actually building up to something, like giving you some genuinely interesting science-y info about a body, or a slow progression towards a useful satellite system (also, why do I get to keep the satellite after the contract has finished? Do these people not want their satellite?) ...But honestly, such changes are largely irrelevant, unless the underlying issues with career mode are fixed.
  6. I can't *quite* remember how long ago it was (definitely post-1.0), but they did some pretty serious work a while back changing up the orbit code to try and reduce those kind of problems somewhat. That combined with some other tweaks they've made (e.g. automatically lowering timewarp across SOI changes) has made it all pretty solid in my experience, although I admit I had no idea you could instantly jump to high warp levels without going through the lower stages first.
  7. Ah my bad, I just booted up 1.8 for the first time and.... yeah. Not so great as a launch engine anymore. I was more thinking about it's previous use as the de-facto 1.25m lifter, considering it used to totally outclass the LV-T engines in literally every way
  8. It's been lost to time unfortunately, but I used to have a craft that was designed for a Tylo landing and return... and both the lander and the launcher were entirely powered by Sparks. I think there was a nuke in there for the transfer stage, but the stats on that thing were insane. Except for an atmospheric launch, no?
  9. My understanding of the physics behind it is admittedly quite limited, but I'm not entirely convinced that having the stars follow planet-like Keplerian orbits is actually realistic. I was under the impression that it's an inherently more complex scenario that can only be even approximated through N-body physics, given that the combined mass of stars in a galaxy is not negligible compared to the central "body" they orbit, unlike planets orbiting a star, especially given that it's not a necessity for every galaxy to have a supermassive black hole at all. Point being, it might actually be less realistic to have stars following such orbits than just having them static, which would pretty much be identical from a gameplay point of view.
  10. I was actually thinking of writing a mod that allowed kerbals to form 'bonds' with other kerbals if they spent enough time with them, then providing some kind of bonus when using them together. Alas, it was never to be...
  11. It's not something I use super regularly in my life, but I really do struggle to keep what East and West are in my brain for whatever reason. I always have to check which is "left" and "right", no matter how much I'm using them at any given time, yet North and South being "up" and "down" seems to stick quite happily. Fun thing - I've been doing some stuff with solar astronomy recently, and one of the conventions that is often used for observations is to project the Earth's compass points onto the Sun. This has the really unfortunate effect of actually flipping East and West when using that system, which really doesn't help the confusion...
  12. Can confirm, this combined with having 'floaters' means that I prolly haven't seen clearly for a long, long time The only thing I'm vaguely opposed to is motion blur, if only because it can make me feel a bit queazy sometimes.
  13. I see... it's clearly a moderator conspiracy to monopolize the like economy (and presumably take over the world)
  14. Cube - if you're spending most of your time in space, and ascent is incredibly trivial, may as well just ignore aerodynamics, right? Basically just build a flying house - not the most comfortable, but dirt cheap to make, so you can make loads of em, which is pretty much the major advantage of discovering a method of escaping Earth's gravity with almost no effort.