Silanda

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About Silanda

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer
  1. OP, a piece of advice for you: don't call an opinion piece a "friendly reminder". That is one of the most passive-aggressive terms you can use; you're telling people what to do under the guise of giving your opinion on a topic. That's going to rub people up the wrong way, especially if you have no authority. To specifically address your points though: Point 1: This makes no sense whatsoever. We can hardly criticize Squad for things that they will or won't do in the future, can we? So, let me get this straight: if it's impossible to criticize something that hasn't happened, and apparently we're not supposed to criticize Squad for past decisions we see as bad, what you're actually saying is that we shouldn't criticize Squad for anything ever? Is that right? Point 2: Who is actually saying that Squad is sabotaging their own product except in jest? What does appear to be true however, is that Squad seem to have been driven in a certain direction for the release schedule of 1.0 that has nothing to do with making the best game possible, and is likely due to commercial interests. Commercial interests that appear to have compromised the current version of the game. That's fair to criticize, the same as it is fair to criticize major publishers when they release buggy, half cooked AAA games because they have to meet a predetermined release date. Point 3: Is actually much of this going on? This has to be one of the most polite forums on the net. Finally: If people are sick of complaints then how does it make any sense to bump complaints threads with statements like "I'm sick of people complaining", or to start entirely new threads complaining about people complaining? Surely it would make more sense to let things cool off on their own. Edit: I occurs to me that this post may seem a little more abrasive than I wanted it to. All I can say is that I tend to be a little grumpy in the morning. Damn sunlight disrupting my slumber!
  2. The numbers I can find put the Falcon 9's fairing at ~1.9 tonnes, and even if it was double that, that is for a ~500 tonne rocket. The fairings in KSP seem excessively heavy at the moment.
  3. Before 1.0 I put quite a few hours into it but I don't think I'm going to bother too much now. I just don't find it very fun. I love the idea of random missions with limitations, but I find the science grind to unlock the tech tree neither fun nor realistic. I'd much rather the tech tree was unlocked with money gained from various sources, or perhaps have a mode where the entire tech tree is unlocked but the missions have to be performed under a certain cost. Just something where there'd still be the challenge of random missions but without having to constantly compromise my designs by carting along science experiments with every launch.
  4. No, I'm sorry but I don't think that's true. What's expected of a 1.0 release is a game that is functionally finished with only minor bug fixing and tweaking remaining, not something that is absolutely perfect in every way. That doesn't preclude development continuing past that point, and it doesn't mean that there won't be any bugs present, but there shouldn't be glaring issues like the ones present in 1.0 that then require extensive rebalance patches only days after launch. Patches that are themselves rushed and introduce other issues including a critical technical bug (memory leak). It's also fair to expect that end users shouldn't have to jump through hoops in order to workaround issues. The end of early access and the version being increased to 1.0 signifies a lot more than many old time users seem to appreciate. It's not just another number, it is a statement that the game is now complete, something that new buyers are going to expect rather than the work in progress that we've had until this point. The many merits of what is a fantastic game do not absolve Squad of all criticism for what looks like a disappointingly corporate launch, i.e. release at fixed date for business/marketing reasons no matter if the game's ready or not. It seems that virtually no-one in the community, or even the testers, thought that it was a good idea to release with so many changes without a beta release first. Squad went ahead anyway, and I don't think it's unfair to take them to task for it. As for your last comment: "Give criticism like you personally would accept it". I agree, and if I handed in a draft with blatant errors as a final piece of work because I rushed it, I'd expect to get my ass chewed over it.
  5. Too hard, not really, at least not if you know what you're doing. It can be a bit grindy though. That being said, I do think the career mode (especially, but not exclusively, the tech tree) needs some rebalancing in order to make it more useful as a learning tool for people new to the game.
  6. I do see where you're coming from, it does tell people to blame the developers if they have to blame someone. Personally I'd have just liked a bit more openness though (well, personally I'd have liked 1.0 to have been 0.95 and to have not left early access until the balance had been nailed but I see I'm not alone).
  7. I did. AFAIK Squad have not commented on why the supposedly feature complete game then required large aero changes almost immediately (is the aero model not a feature?). Changes that have created yet more issues. They also haven't commented on whether the bugs were missed or whether there simply wasn't enough time to fix them before launch. That's what I'm talking about. It's fair for them to say that it's unfair to criticise the testers, because it is, but if the testers are receiving unfair criticism as a direct consequence of decisions that Squad made, then Squad need to put their hands up and accept responsibility. That would be quite refreshing for the game industry and really would quell criticism of the game's testing.
  8. My $0.02: While it makes sense to keep details of future releases under NDA, it seems somewhat counterproductive from a community building point of view to completely bar testers from talking about versions that have already been released. It makes even less sense if, as it seems from the replies here, testers aren't even allowed to discuss whether a bug in a publicly released build was logged by them or not. It might be beneficial for isolating Squad from criticism but it seems to place the experimentals and QA teams in the firing line when there's public ire over bugs. The testers have been taking flack, probably unfairly, because of the presence of obvious bugs that seem to have made it to what was supposed to be the "ready for primetime" release. As has already been said though, this could be because they missed the bugs, or it could be that they were reported but left unfixed by Squad in favour of a quicker release. If it is the latter then, from an outside perspective, the testers seem to be being thrown under a bus. Squad don't seem to be in a hurry to comment, and, by barring them being able to confirm or deny whether the bugs were known, the testers are made to look poor. I understand that this will happen in a corporate environment but it seems pretty crappy when the people on the receiving end are mainly unpaid volunteers.
  9. Personally I think this should be on by default in the new career mode. There are already the sandbox and science modes if you don't want to play that way, and this would add real risk, make the player more careful with their money, as well as make you weigh up risk vs reward with regards to the contracts you accept.
  10. I like this idea and I was just about to suggest an iron Kerbal mode myself. As it stands there is no real risk in the career mode since you can simply revert or quickload to get yourself out of trouble. Having a simulation mode where you can do those things to practice but you get no rewards, and a "real" mode where you cannot revert or quicksave, would add a much greater feeling of risk and importance to the "real" missions. Maybe each simulated mission could have a cost too.
  11. My first post on this board so hi everyone! Excellent work on making this mod, but personally I concur about this feature. I can see why it's an interesting idea but it doesn't really have anything to do with reentry, and to be honest I don't think it adds much in the way of fun to the game. Perhaps it would be better as an option for the hardest of the hardcore unless it's necessary to make things go bang on reentry. On a related note, I might just be having a dumb moment but exactly what do I change in the config files to get rid of the overheating feature?