• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About darkmuminek

  • Rank
  1. First of all, there are many discussions here whether using mods is fine or not and I don't intend to start another one. Also, don't look at this as a rant or an attack on Squad. I'm just curious about one thing. Let's say I just started a thread in the suggestions forum saying: "We already have visuals of reentry. It would be great to also have the effects on our vessels.". Let's also say it's the first suggestion of this, so we won't have people shouting: "OMG, USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION NOOB!". I'm pretty sure one of the first replies would be: "Well you're in luck. There's a great mod called Deadly Reentry that does just what you ask for." And there's more. You want resource mining? There's Kethane and Karbonite. Flight information display? MechJeb, VOID or Kerbal Engineer. More parts? Try the amazing B9 and KW packs. The list goes on... Now, I'm not against mods. Quite the contrary, I love them and if only a game supports it I download a ton of modifications. However that applies mostly to finished games. With early access we buy games that are still in development and adding features should be the developer's job. Making a game so easy to change by third parties, wouldn't it be treated as an excuse for the devs to postpone new functionalities? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Squad is doing this, but probably most will agree some features should be made stock a long time ago. So the main question is: Do you think excessive modding of early access games can slow down the process of development?
  2. There is a common misconception that early access players are testers. They're not. A tester is someone, who (presumably) does that for a living. He's getting paid to do it. He spends countless hours playing just a tiny fraction of the game and checking it for bugs. After that he fills a survey or writes a report. Then he starts playing countless hours of another portion of the game, fills a survey/writes a report. Repeat. Just because you've got 300, 600 or 2000 hours of gameplay on your Steam account and write a few suggestions on these forums doesn't make you a tester. You bought a product called a video game. You didn't buy an alpha, nor did you buy a beta. You bought a game in development. The fact you bought a product makes you a consumer and as a consumer you have every right to have an opinion. Some of this opinions will be good, others will be bad. Moreso, Squad took our money to be able to develop KSP. Without it they'd have to find alternative ways of funding it. They'd take a bank loan or find a publisher. This is why the fanboy police shouting: "It's Harvester's game! Stop complaining! He can do whatever he likes and you have to accept it!" is, sorry for the harsh words, stupid and childish. In standard game development there is a publisher and a developer. Not getting into details, the publisher funds the developer and has a great impact on the entire process of making the game and how it will look like. Now, we gave our money to Squad by buying an early access release. With this money Squad can further develop the game. What does it make us? That's right - publishers. There are differences of course. We do not share profits from sales. We do not directly participate in the development process, but we are entitled to express our disappointments, to criticize the gameplay, features, updates or Squad's attitude. As for .90 itself. I like the direction KSP is heading, but there are many thing that need to be changed (saying "minor tweaks" just proves you are a fanboy and will take anything Squad throws at you without criticism). The science system is completely broken since day one. Granted, there were some changes, but it's still about spamming the experiments instead of designing them and using your brain. No to mention having to do experiments that take time to give data. That would make space station, ground bases and satellites something more than a nice decoration. More variety in contracts is nice. Too bad they're badly designed. Testing parts is a pain, especially during the first stages of gameplay. Surveys are nice but again: doing them before researching plane parts is tedious. There's also a problem with the contract propositions you are given. I just started unlocking tier 3 of the tech tree (the 90 points requirement) and done a flyby of the Mun. The game thought I'm so good that travelling to Ike, Duna, Eve and Eeloo won't be a problem for me. Well, it will be a problem and now I've got these contracts and stuff like: "Test the Rockomax Band Adapter while flying over Kerbin at 26987,75 meters with the speed of 528,9923671 m/s on a Friday, between 9:17 am and 9:22 am with the Mun being in its third quarter". There's also the difficulty problem. You have to understand: "more difficult" doesn't equal "more grind". And, with a few small exceptions, that's what current settings are about. Sure you can set your science gain to be lower but in the end what does it change? Does it make launching rockets more challenging? No, it just makes you launch two rockets, instead of one, to get the science needed to unlock next node in the tech tree. Difficulty settings should look like the ones in proper simulator games, where you can change how the aerodynamic model works, how the craft behaves, what forces are affecting it, etc. That said, and what Frostiken said, this game is fun to play but needs a lot of improvement and saying it's Alpha, Beta or Potato Version doesn't change the fact.
  3. Finally! Installing right now. BTW, some readme and better mod description would be nice.
  4. True, however it doesn't mean we should get nothing. And that's what's happening right now. Look at ARM. Everyone got to play it before the actual players. We've had streams of it, YT videos, previews etc when we couldn't even get a release date. And no, it doesn't mean we should get a date months prior to the update but when they're streaming it they could say: "You'll be able to play it sometime next week." That's what the community managers and dev notes are for... Yes, it is. That's how it works. Maybe because we get information about AAA titles in development? We know what the next Call of Duty be about, in time we will know the multiplayer modes, weapons, etc. And because we are consumers we have the right to know what's going on with the game and to complain or ask questions. You mentioned triple A productions. Did you see the EA forums after launch of Battlefield 4? Or Bioware after people saw Mass Effect 3 ending? In early access you get to play an unfinished product in exchange for your money which is used to pay for the development process. It doesn't mean you get to decide how the game will look like, nor does it entitle you to receive detailed reports about development progress. You do deserve to be well informed however and to the truth, Squad acts like they don't give a damn about the community. I'll refer to Space Engineers once more. Everything Squad isn't doing is being done by Keen Software House. Yet they manage to deliver frequent updates, the game is doing great and there's no tragedy with anything. This is a matter of attitude, not what is possible and what is not.
  5. You do realize this is a poor, not to mention the worst possible, excuse? As for the second part of your post. That's where the community managers come in. Their job is not only to close threads or watch out after the forums. They should be the voice of the developers. No one is expecting HarvesteR to take part in discussions because he's got more important things to do but some comments from Rowsdower or someone else from the community team would be much appreciated. Also there are the dev notes/diaries/whatever you want to call them. This is a way of communicating with fans. Right now it's mostly rubbish with no specific information. Or better said: reading the dev notes we know they're doing something but we have no idea what it is and when will it be finished.
  6. I'm sorry, english is not my native language and I might have said one thing while I meant something a bit different. Generally I don't think Squad is obliged to anything, it's their business and they can run it however they want but it would be nice if they listened to the community and started communicating with it in a better way than now.
  7. I agree with you. Listening to suggestions and sharing your thoughts is very important in not only game development but nearly all aspects of life. It doesn't mean that everyone should start posting their ideas in the suggestions forum nor does it mean Squad should implement everything people write there but having a look from time to time and taking some things into consideration is generally a good idea. Instead the only replies people get there are: It's on the "what not to suggest" list, go to hell. There's a mod for that. Some general good/bad words from other users that give nothing of value. A normal, or better said - standard, game development process has two parties: the developer who does all the work and the publisher who gives the money and tells the developer whad he'd like in the game. In case of indie games there's no publisher and that's why they're called "indie". However KSP is also an Early Access game meaning that people (us) gave their money to the developer trusting they can deliver a complete product in the near future. This makes us a form of publishers meaning we have the right to: complain have expectations have suggestions ask questions get the answers to these questions get reliable information about the status of the game Once again, Squad. This is your game. You decide how it looks like or what features will it have. However it is because of us, our trust and money that you can make it happen. A thing you (and many other indie devs) seem to forget too often.
  8. I just love it when someone criticizes KSP and the fanboy police arrives in seconds with no arguments at all. Frankly speaking KSP is a bad game. Not in terms of idea or gameplay, but because of slow development and horrible communication. Right now the main line of communication between developers and player base are the devnotes which, for me, don't work at all. Most of the time they consist of statements like: "We are doing something right now, we won't tell you what or when it will happen" or "We were at someplace and we're tired but now we are preparing to go someplace else and we will be tired too". The best example is this forum, where mostly the only occasion to get some reaction from the team is "thread closed" when someone dares to post something from the dreaded "what not to suggest" list. As for the development, we know how it works. We know it takes time and resources. We know and understand it's an early access game but I think SQUAD lost it some time ago. The game's been in development for three or four years and yet most functionalities come from mods. Reentry effects and damage? There's a mod for that. Better atmospheric model? Try FAR. Basic flight and orbital data? Yeah, go and install Kerbal Engineer or MechJeb. Kerbal Alarm Clock, Crew Manifest, KAS, Infernal Robotics, Kethane... these should be stock. Instead we get the, in my opinion, completely unnecessary ARM Pack. It's great we've got asteroids now. Too bad all you can do is dock with them just the same as you can dock with another ship. Too bad you don't focus on what's important. The science system is completely broken. There's no fun in preforming the experiments, there's no sense of achievement. Just spamming the "get science" button. Another example? 64-bit. Unity announced a few months ago that the new version of their engine will have proper 64-bit support for Windows. Did anyone from SQUAD bother to tell us they're looking into it? Don't think so... Yes, but I don't understand how one person (or even a group of them), working for free, in their spare time can do a better job than a studio of professional developers. Of course it took a lot of time and work to make the best mods but eventually they got finished, they are compatible with other mods and once again - all of this done by someone who has a family, a job, school and does it for free. Every time there's talk about development of KSP I compare it to Space Engineers. It's also a complex, sandbox, space game made by a small studio. Yet they manage to release weekly updates. Granted, they have their own engine and the updates are smaller than the KSP ones but still they deliver what the players want, they are in constant contact with their fans, they listen to them and give them complete information about the status of the game and it's planned features. Why can't SQUAD do the same? As for the OP's question. Yes, I think it can kill a game. To be honest I don't believe we'll ever see a finished KSP. I give it two, maybe three years after which it'll get abandoned. This saddens me because it's a great game with great potential but the developer forgot what's it all about.
  9. I think there should be some kind of auto close/delete mechjeb discussion threads as every single one is the same and brings nothing. To sum it up: 1. Yes, people use MJ from the beginning, deal with it 2. Noone cares if you play KSP with your hands tied to a chair using only your feet and a Playstation One driving wheel. 3. Some people like challenge, some don't. Again, deal with it. 4. You are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone on this forum. There are no good or bad opinions on MJ and any other mods. 5. It's a single player game. The way I play it doesn't affect your gameplay and vice versa.
  10. Then please, make a video of it and post it here
  11. I'm sure he would. The question is: would he crash it?
  12. ... that would love to see Jebediah instead of Van Damme in this video?
  13. Sure, most new players probably start stock and try doing everything by themselves but could we leave the decision whether to use MJ (or any other mod) or not to them? You believe they should learn the hard way. I believe they should do whatever they want. I really don't get you guys. KSP is just a game, it's meant to be fun, not a struggle (unless you find fun in struggle). It's not real life, there's no real challenge to it. Most people don't care you managed to build a space station using only stock parts or that you landed on Eve and returned without refuelling. Playing this game is the same as watching a TV series. Some people will watch one episode a week, while others will spend entire day watching two seasons one after another. As for making MechJeb stock there's actually one good reason for it: if SQUAD makes it possible to control missions from a command centre you'd need at least some kind of an autopilot to do the job. I'm not sure but I think I read somewhere that they want to implement this feautre in the game. Now to get back on the topic (is it a correct phrase?). MJ can be a good learning tool. I learned most things from youtube videos but it's more convenient to have this in-game. Proper placement of manouver nodes, Hohmann transfers, randezvous, inclination changes or proper launching (assuming you don't use FAR). Also it can be a great help for handicapped people. Not everyone can use their both hands or has a good hand-eye coordination.
  14. Scott Manley made a video review of this mod. It's not a tutorial but he shows how things work. Also the Interstellar Wiki you found should have all the necessary information.