Jump to content

Master39

Members
  • Content Count

    812
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,367 Excellent

6 Followers

About Master39

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

2,150 profile views
  1. Bethesda bought Battlecry Studios and put them to work on a multiplayer DLC for Fallout 4 while the rest of the studios worked on Starfield. At the end the project got bigger they decided to make it into a mainline separated game. I've somewhat enjoyed F76, I'm in the right niche, I have a group of 2-5 friends who love Beth RPGs like me and wanted something multiplayer with the same logic, but I see the point of people saying that the same resources could have been used for another full single player title, being it a sequel or a spin-off like 76 or New Vegas. Working wit
  2. I'm not a fan of "I don't want feature X because it would take away time from the things I like more" but here you're talking about a second entire game, with at least all the planets redesigned and with all the parts and gameplay mechanics modified, redone or rebalanced. A project like that would definitely cannibalize part of the market, but also part of the time, the budget and the resources poured into KSP2. Even if starting from KSP2 assets would reduce the amount of work we're still talking about a sequel worth of additional work to do. That said, my personal opinion on
  3. Scratch is exactly what we're talking about when we say VPL, my stance is more against things like the logic gates in Stationers. A VPL often has a text editor somewhere for more advanced users or to teach coding by showing what each block is doinh exactly on the text side.
  4. All the room for improvement is still there untouched since career was first implemented, KSP1 career is designed like a school project done at 10 PM the day before and then forgotten in a corner and never touched again.
  5. "Adventure" it's just something that doesn't make your mind go back to the specific rules of either KSP 1 Science or Career while being a lot less bland than "Progression mode". They're not scrapping the idea of a career/progression, they're redesigning one from scratch and probably don't want to give player false expectations by calling it specifically Career or Science.
  6. Nobody is saying that, if that's what you're reading then you're misunderstanding someone.
  7. Most of what you're asking here is confirmed and even for what isn't basically everybody here agrees that that kind of automation should be in the game, maybe not when you're planning your first Mun mission.
  8. That would clear all the possible misinterpretations. From my perspective is all about preserving gameplay when it emerges naturally, I want my resource haulers to precisely and routinely land on landing pads at my colonies without too much hassle, but the highlight in my first Eve return mission was planning around the pinpoint landing problem, with a 3 surface crafts mission turning into a 5 one plus a backup ready in orbit. Anything that can keep that side on the exploration phase while automating away the tedium when you're trying to set up resource transfers and crew rotations b
  9. I'm starting to think that MJ is too big of a mod to be a meaningful example. Automating running maneuvers? I don't think pressing 3 buttons (warp to maneuver, full throttle, cut throttle) in the right order is a skill or some magic engaging gameplay, and since we'll have background maneuvering it's probably a given, at least for anything interplanetary. But MJ is much more than that, automating landings, gravity turns, rendezvous, docking and plotting it's an entirely different kind of automation. And plane autopilot features are another one altogether.
  10. You should have to learn how to orbit, rendezvous and dock before having access to automation of such maneuvers (this does not include Sandbox, which is an entirely different can of worms). That's were I draw my personal line. Is it that hard to admit that an autopilot feature can have any intrinsic value? I wouldn't consider "it's a better tutorial than the existing KSP ones" an intrinsic value. I want tutorials as tutorials, not being forced to automate things the game doesn't explain me how to do only to learn them by mimicking the automation. The whol
  11. When everybody agrees that automation shouldn't be available from the start and that flying shouldn't be optional and you come in asking what automation would remove from their game if they don't use it and why they want to force everyone to play the game their way, unless you're searching the debate for the sake of it, you're saying that. The repetitiveness of milk runs is a solved problem, and (almost) no one here has problems with automation features being unlocked through gameplay, more than that there's only having those features from start and thus making flying optional.
  12. It's ok to have any kind of automation integrated with the progression, as I wrote multiple times already, it's not ok to demand for flying to be entirely optional from the start, it's (at least partially) a flight sim we're talking about. Since that kind of automation has already been confirmed, and nobody argued to remove it, and most of the people talking here were the ones highlighting the "milk run problem" back when we didn't know about the supply routes, I don't think that the "i don't want to run the same mission a million times" has any place in this discussion. It's an already s
  13. We already know that the game will have: Brachistocrone trajectories running in the background Automated supply runs Off-planet launchpads They've already confirmed that reducing the monotony of repetitive mission is one of their design goals. A MJ equivalent would not serve that purpose, you're proposing a solution to an already solved problem. If the point is making flying optional then someone has to openly say it so we can switch to the next step and debate if flying should be optional in a flight sim.
  14. You make a "flight automation" branch of the tech tree, you end it with complete automation (late into the game, with nodes normally unlockable only with advanced colony labs), you make all the refined interaction with other branches (Relays, scripting, remote mission control buildings, supply routes) that you couldn't do if the game behaved like a bunch of isolated systems, and then you give the player the ability to chose at which tech level they want to start their game. In that way you have everything well designed and integrated but you also give the players options.
  15. I'm against the "no optional systems" stance, but it's true that KSP 1 was developed (due to its story) like a bunch of completely isolated optional systems each with its own part sets barely interacting with each other. I want option to be there, but I also want the game systems to be designed together as parts of a whole and not as a set of unrelated switchable addons. Keeping it on this example I would prefer a "automation" branch of the tech tree, starting with the first probe cores, crossing the "logistics" one for the supply routes and culminating in a full blown flying automat
×
×
  • Create New...