kirmie44

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About kirmie44

  • Rank
    Curious George
  1. thanks for the help, I didnt realize that mod disapeared from my mod directory It would be cool if there was a kerbl konstructs plug that made it so these buildings/launch sites had locations at each place. like three kscs side by side!
  2. I'm having the same issue... I opened an issue with the log
  3. (This is a copy from another thread of an idea I had for a career overhaul, I was thinking DLC but new game works too) Intro: So hear me out. The best way to get people back in the game is to make something new. Although I'm loving that they are making mods like infernal robotics a supported function of the game, it doesn't change the fact that a lot of us have been using those features for years. Same with the deployable experiments. everything added since the late stages of early access have been mods with the exception of their first dlc (which felt more like a groundwork than an actual feature in my book). With that said, there is one area of the content market that hasn't been touched, career mode and science mode. Besides for the rearrangement of the tec tree and the addition of a few new missions here and there, not much has changed. I've also thought the way these features have been implemented seemed a little shallow. What I want to suggest is a new overhaul for these two modes. The first part of this is looking at how it works in the real world. Science: (Continuing the comment the next day. Thought I would post it up here to avoid confusion) Problems with science: In real life, there isn't the direct correlation seen in ksp between science as we see it in the game and the advancements made in technology. The relationship in real life is 90% of the time closer to finding new problems we have to solve. This is never a problem in ksp because we are given all the information about all the star, all the planets and everything in between. what is the point of bringing a barometer to a planet where you already know everything about its atmosphere? In the real world, we had tests to see if space was a vacuum, we had to run many tests to see if we could pressurize a capsule, and we had little idea about any of the stuff we know until we sent something there to test it (Think about our recent visit of Pluto). Problems with technological advancements: The other problem with how career mode/science mode was made was almost systemic. I feel like what was implemented wasn't there original gameplan. I've come to this conclusion because of how little their parts actually fit into the tec tree idea they have implemented. The tec in the game was not designed to go into a tec tree. For the most part, the "tec level" is based on the size of a part and not actually how much knowledge was needed to build it. What I want to see is the implementation of iterative designs. My solution: Basically, you start out with a lot of junk parts. These parts look bad, don't work well, probably fail in environments outside of Kerbin sea level, and for good measure, have a base fail chance. Along with taking missions to study your solar system (of which you know nothing about), you would also take missions from your science team to help them improve your parts. unlike the test missions given off now. These missions would give you credits towards upgrading our parts. Along with these missions to give you credits. there would be general things like allowing engines to work in a vacuum, water, restart, throttle, etc. (All things we had to learn, and are still learning, in the field). This science would be collected by doing things like the barometric test and temperature tests we see in KSP today. A good way to think of this is the first capsule ou send to space should always be empty. It needs to be tested first. Without things like this, this game is missing out on some of the best parts of our job in exploring the world and beyond! Career: Problems with Career & the suggested improvements: The main problem with the career is how lightweight it really is. There is very little to it, and it's hard to actually mess up. This is fine for some, but I think a lot of us were originally hoping for a bit more. A lot of what makes career modes great is the management. You need to be able to see your expenses and take risks. Squad tried to implement this before launch with that one building no one ever clicks on but it really doesn't work that well. a career mode should revolve around time and funds managment. You should see how much it costs to maintain a team of engineers as well as how long it takes to build a rocket. An alarm clock and construction time should be implemented. You should be able to speed up the construction of a craft with part failure chance going up. you should be able to fire staff to lower your costs and hire them as needed. There should be a monthly/yearly expense report. These features would go a long way to making career mode a better mode. A few more ideas would be including things like kerbal konstructs, allowing you to spend money to build more launch pads as well as just more infrastructure. I don't like that particular mod too much because of how messy it looks but a lighter version of it could go a long way. The main point I would say is to look at a game like X-COM. It has a solid management system that would work beautifully in a game like KSP. even the kerbal upgrade sstem could be improved along the same lines.
  4. I like that idea. I didn't even think about that way. I still think it should be a setting to be selected, specifically for some of the parts that allow the rocket to take off and land on its own.
  5. I 1000% on board for a new game. I think Mecjeb, if implemented into the full game, should be a setting like quick reverts that can be turned off before a new save. Also, I love the idea of a prelaunch view. I can't see any way it would be implemented without it being more like a cinematic though.
  6. I see where you're going. The budget thing was just a small part of the full concept. I think there could probably be ways to counter it with general business that would happen in the background (like maybe kerbals have a need for space flight grade thermometers that you could). that was a random idea. Even though it wasn't the best idle, failure chance could still raise with age. I do think that an update like this would require some payment. We have to remember the game was declared finished ages ago and "supposed to" stay relatively the same. If you think about what has been released and what we want, the next DLC can be summed up in three mods (Infernal, KIS(maybe?), & Ground experiments). They have added some UI elements and a parachute for free updates. They might add alarm clock as a free update but they would never go so far as to something like construction time or planet discovery as free updates to the game. They need some incentive to improve the game that much.
  7. That is why I would like this to be a DLC or maybe even KSP 2. The modes aren't bad but they were far from ideal in my mind. However, some people are fine with them so the changes should be optional. Also, the really could use a decent influx.
  8. I love that you're on board! So for the first critique, The base failure chance would be something for an experimental level of a part. This would basically only be the first time you use the part or if you rush the construction. I do agree that a base failure chance is a bit of a scapegoat, but something is needed, and I can't think of something to replace it. As for the fast-forwarding issue, I didn't quite say it, but I think monthly expenses and the alarm clock would go a long way towards stopping people from fast-forwarding. Also, most of my ideas here are coming from X-COM. When I was thinking of managing other types of employees. I was thinking of a number/quantity as they do in X-COM for scientists and engineers.
  9. Career:Problems with Career & the suggested improvements: The main problem with the career is how lightweight it really is. There is very little to it, and it's hard to actually mess up. This is fine for some, but I think a lot of us were originally hoping for a bit more. A lot of what makes career modes great is the management. You need to be able to see your expenses and take risks. Squad tried to implement this before launch with that one building no one ever clicks on but it really doesn't work that well. a career mode should revolve around time and funds managment. You should see how much it costs to maintain a team of engineers as well as how long it takes to build a rocket. An alarm clock and construction time should be implemented. You should be able to speed up the construction of a craft with part failure chance going up. you should be able to fire staff to lower your costs and hire them as needed. There should be a monthly/yearly expense report. These features would go a long way to making career mode a better mode. A few more ideas would be including things like kerbal konstructs, allowing you to spend money to build more launch pads as well as just more infrastructure. I don't like that particular mod too much because of how messy it looks but a lighter version of it could go a long way. The main point I would say is to look at a game like X-COM. It has a solid management system that would work beautifully in a game like KSP. even the kerbal upgrade sstem could be improved along the same lines.
  10. I like where your going, we need a bit more structure and the ability to tell people where we are going as a Space Program. I think you are going a bit to small. These are minor tweeks, but Im really hoping for a completre career overhaul that they would want to put in a DLC. gotta go big. If its to big they might even mak a new game.
  11. Not that you couldn't, but you shouldn't. Like it's very easy to get ahead of yourself (Think Apollo 1). This would be implemented through the failure factors listed in the previous part. By testing something in the feild, the part is less likely to fail. I agree with you to an extent. Only the government is a bit harsh. I do agree that they should go into that sort of thing though. They should take a play from X-Coms book. I loved how they included the monthly operating cost each month and how it went so far as to include the cost of the Skyrangers upkeep. It would be cool if they could have you choose if you wanted to be privately funded (having less funding but more free will) or government-run (vise-versa / everything you listed) Also, TEST STATIONS WOULD BE THE BEST! but that could be getting to realistic for some. In my perfect game, they would be in it, probably along with construction time. Something else that would be nice would be true reusability. Like building a launch vehicle that can be reloaded instead of these mods that just refund you for the parts.
  12. This is a copied and pasted post I put in a discussion of a similar topic in the development Problems with science: In real life, there isn't the direct correlation seen in ksp between science as we see it in the game and the advancements made in technology. The relationship in real life is 90% of the time closer to finding new problems we have to solve. This is never a problem in ksp because we are given all the information about all the star, all the planets and everything in between. what is the point of bringing a barometer to a planet where you already know everything about its atmosphere? In the real world, we had tests to see if space was a vacuum, we had to run many tests to see if we could pressurize a capsule, and we had little idea about any of the stuff we know until we sent something there to test it (Think about our recent visit of Pluto). Problems with technological advancements: The other problem with how career mode/science mode was made was almost systemic. I feel like what was implemented wasn't there original gameplan. I've come to this conclusion because of how little their parts actually fit into the tec tree idea they have implemented. The tec in the game was not designed to go into a tec tree. For the most part, the "tec level" is based on the size of a part and not actually how much knowledge was needed to build it. What I want to see is the implementation of iterative designs. My solution: Basically, you start out with a lot of junk parts. These parts look bad, don't work well, probably fail in environments outside of Kerbin sea level, and for good measure, have a base fail chance. Along with taking missions to study your solar system (of which you know nothing about), you would also take missions from your science team to help them improve your parts. unlike the test missions given off now. These missions would give you credits towards upgrading our parts. Along with these missions to give you credits. there would be general things like allowing engines to work in a vacuum, water, restart, throttle, etc. (All things we had to learn, and are still learning, in the field). This science would be collected by doing things like the barometric test and temperature tests we see in KSP today. A good way to think of this is the first capsule ou send to space should always be empty. It needs to be tested first. Without things like this, this game is missing out on some of the best parts of our job in exploring the world and beyond!
  13. I honestly think they need to start working on the next ksp. The need a More reason to invest time into a game that's been out for years and a bit of money. ...That or make it like an operating system where after a certain point you have to buy a new version that basically starts updating where the last one ended its updates. I like the first idea better but PD is having trouble putting this one down.
  14. Problems with science: In real life, there isn't the direct correlation seen in ksp between science as we see it in the game and the advancements made in technology. The relationship in real life is 90% of the time closer to finding new problems we have to solve. This is never a problem in ksp because we are given all the information about all the star, all the planets and everything in between. what is the point of bringing a barometer to a planet where you already know everything about its atmosphere? In the real world, we had tests to see if space was a vacuum, we had to run many tests to see if we could pressurize a capsule, and we had little idea about any of the stuff we know until we sent something there to test it (Think about our recent visit of Pluto). Problems with technological advancements: The other problem with how career mode/science mode was made was almost systemic. I feel like what was implemented wasn't there original gameplan. I've come to this conclusion because of how little their parts actually fit into the tec tree idea they have implemented. The tec in the game was not designed to go into a tec tree. For the most part, the "tec level" is based on the size of a part and not actually how much knowledge was needed to build it. What I want to see is the implementation of iterative designs. My solution: Basically, you start out with a lot of junk parts. These parts look bad, don't work well, probably fail in environments outside of Kerbin sea level, and for good measure, have a base fail chance. Along with taking missions to study your solar system (of which you know nothing about), you would also take missions from your science team to help them improve your parts. unlike the test missions given off now. These missions would give you credits towards upgrading our parts. Along with these missions to give you credits. there would be general things like allowing engines to work in a vacuum, water, restart, throttle, etc. (All things we had to learn, and are still learning, in the field). This science would be collected by doing things like the barometric test and temperature tests we see in KSP today. A good way to think of this is the first capsule ou send to space should always be empty. It needs to be tested first. Without things like this, this game is missing out on some of the best parts of our job in exploring the world and beyond!
  15. I think this is starting to need some serious thought.