FlowerChild

Members
  • Content Count

    754
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FlowerChild

  1. I think he means in terms of gameplay. Both involve giving purpose to placing objects in specific orbits, even if the "story" reasons for doing so are different.
  2. Just got a 502 error trying to give this thread 1 star. I think that sums things up nicely.
  3. Consider me schooled I was under the (mistaken) impression that given docking ports result in tree connections, and given you can't set up multi-connections like that in the VAB (say with bicouplers and such), that it simply wasn't possible with KSP's current architecture. Now that I know about it, I think it would actually be really cool if that functionality were exposed through the VAB to make it a little more accessible.
  4. Hmmm...that really makes me wonder how fuel flow is handled in such cases, but thanks for clearing that up regardless
  5. Hmmm...I could be wrong as it's been awhile since I looked at the relevant classes in the game, but if I remember right, the data structures that track how parts are connected within a ship don't support the "loops" that would be created if multiple connection points were allowed. Not sure how this kind of thing would be possible without that changing, but like I said, it's been awhile since I took a look at it. Doesn't Squad normally aim for Tuesday releases to match the dev notes? I'd think it would be more likely tomorrow.
  6. I doubt that's the kind of thing that would be fixed without announcement. I think it would basically require restructuring the entire docking system to allow multiple connection points, and the way ships are handled internally to accommodate having multiple paths between parts. I really don't think that would be a simple fix, as it would potentially affect many different systems such as fuel flow.
  7. Couple of questions: -Will the modifications to the pinning system make it persistent when toggling back and forth between map and in-game views? IMO, one of the most tiresome things about the previous system was the need to reclick on the individual markers to get your numbers back after say switching to in-game view to stage or trigger an experiment, and then back to map. -Will the changes to the thermal system make it behave consistently during time accel? Right now, temperatures can easily vary by a couple of hundred degrees during reentry depending on whether you're at 1x or 4x, meaning the player is stuck at 1X during an entire reentry (which can take several minutes) if they want maximum survivability.
  8. If you're looking for cost savings, you also have to take into account how much money you could be earning with the same amount of time. I think this is the big thing that prevents mining from being a useful game feature rather than just a gimmick (and this has been true of any resource system I've looked at, including my own, not just the stock one). For any given unit of player time, you can advance your space program a lot more through other means. I realize some enjoy setting up the operation simply for its own sake, and that's totally cool. However, in terms of being a practical gameplay solution to anything other than a handful of problems (the Eve landing/return example mentioned previously being one), I feel it leaves a lot to be desired. The relationship of player-time to in-game resources is a rather sticky problem to deal with for this kind of system.
  9. On a "random things that may help" note: If you had a previous version of KSP installed, and installed 1.0X on top of it, trying with a completely clean install again may help some issues. No idea if it's related to this one, but I know there was a fair bit of wonkiness back when the 1.X versions came out that was cleared up with a fresh install. Given you've uninstalled already, it occurred to me that you might be half way to a possible solution already
  10. That doesn't mean it's your space program personally making the components. In fact, it's suggested throughout the game that they come from external manufacturers. I think the whole idea of starting with an amateur or hobbyist rocket launch facility and building up from there suits the game just fine, and doesn't need to imply any incompetence with regards to the Kerbal species as a whole, just about your particular space program when you're getting started.
  11. Yup. For those that play a lot of career, there's a noticeable big gaping hole in the building progression where the barn was obviously supposed to go. If you take a look at stuff like the launch mass limit and part count upgrades, they jump from tight to almost immediate irrelevance in no time, indicating there's a level(s) missing there. Internally, the building upgrade system even recognizes more levels than we currently have and has values defined for them. I personally don't care what they look like, I'd just really like to see that progression be more fleshed out (as it was intended to be) from a gameplay perspective.
  12. I blame Renegrade for the ongoing epidemic of Monty Python quotes. He started it.
  13. Those will take place once the game goes into beta.
  14. To answer the question in the title of the thread (which appears to be distinctly different from the poll topic): Yes, I do find stock reaction wheels to be overpowered and to feel "cheaty". I don't say that as any kind of realism argument, but rather a gameplay one. The reaction wheels minimize the use of other (more interesting) control systems like RCS, and while I suspect Squad did this to decrease the initial learning curve, it in turn creates a spike at one of the more difficult parts of learning the game, which is first docking. IMO, learning that you have limited maneuvering capability in vacuum early on is a fairly trivial bump in the difficulty progression that would help introduce players to the use of RCS. Instead, that's postponed until later once they decide they want to attempt docking, when they already have a huge hump to get over in terms of difficulty. So, instead of learning things like balancing thrusters gradually in general play, it's all dumped on the player at once during what is likely the most difficult portion of learning to play the game. Personally, I think that using RCS more and thus having limited maneuvering capability also makes for a more interesting game overall as you have to keep in mind the efficiency of your maneuvers rather than simply performing them willy nilly. I rarely play stock these days, but when I do (generally right after a new release), I know that the reaction wheels are one of the things that bug me the most.
  15. I think trying to redefine cheating to avoid feeling like you're cheating, and freaking out because people even ask if something feels like cheating, is cheating.
  16. I'd personally call that progression, but tomato, tomato, I guess I tend to reserve the word "story" for narrative elements that have little or no impact on actual gameplay. If you're talking about gated gameplay dependencies where accomplishing one thing unlocks progress towards another (like where performing a manned Mun landing unlocks the ability to begin exploring the rest of the solar system), then yeah, that's what I attempt to provide with BTSM, and if it's what you're looking for I'd recommend giving it a try.
  17. I'm having a very hard time even understanding what you guys mean by "story" in the context of KSP. Are we talking about the slow reveal of the developing romance between Jeb and Val or something or are we actually talking about progression here where the player say is first tasked with landing on the Mun and then moving out into the solar system. If the former, I think that's an exceedingly poor fit for KSP. If the latter, then that's largely what I aspire towards providing with Better Than Starting Manned, which is more along the lines of the total conversion mods that regex is describing above in other games, that revolve around changing a game rather than adding to it. One thing to keep in mind about doing that though: once you start changing the game like that, which I consider pretty much a necessity for creating strong progression, then compatibility with other mods largely gets chucked out the window, which comes along with its own set of problems. I think that may be one of the main reasons that many stay away from that style of mod development as well: it's a mammoth amount of work to go it alone like that, and it also tends to create a lot of bad blood with other modders.
  18. Hehe...totally awesome man. Totally insane, but totally awesome
  19. Personally, I couldn't care less about story. I just appreciate much more meaningful and prolonged progression than what's currently in stock, and I get an ample supply of that through my own mod. To me, sandbox is essentially what happens when the game is over, at which point I lose interest.
  20. Yup, absolutely. That's also a big part of why I mod Well, I don't think it's so much not being able to manage to set goals, as I'm pretty much an entirely self-motivated individual, as much as it is not enjoying pursuing goals set in that manner within the context of a game. I think when I do that, I tend to switch focus more to real-world goals that I've set for myself as being just as enjoyable to pursue (but more productive), and wind up rapidly losing interest in the in-game ones as a result. Anyways, I'm sure there's an interesting psychological analysis that could be done on why different people enjoy different kinds of games, but suffice it to say, pure sandbox games have never really appealed to me
  21. Not everyone enjoys pure sandbox games though. I know I don't, and without an overall structure to things, I'm really just not interested in playing. I didn't even want to purchase KSP until career mode was added, and games like Space Engineers wind up leaving me flat because of the lack of any such structure. For those of us that feel that way, I really don't think it's just a matter of learning how to play sandbox or what have you: it's just not the kind of game we're interested in playing.
  22. The Mun is also a lot smaller/less massive than the moon, so you don't have as steep a gravity well to climb out of, and the savings you get out of a CM/LM style design are thus less pronounced.
  23. Yup, that would be me Relax man. I haven't been telling anyone how they should play with regards to this. I haven't been trying to convince Squad not to include the remaining deltaV meter. All I've been doing is explaining my own preferred way to play the game and arguing counterpoints against what I view to be some of the weaker arguments on the other side that aren't doing anyone any good.