Jump to content

Bartybum

Members
  • Posts

    272
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bartybum

  1. Yeah same here. I don't need answers, but I want to get in on mystery and speculation. I always thought it was a missed opportunity that anomalies didn't contribute towards science (could have been done via surface outposts and science labs), and that they didn't contribute towards any actual lore of the game by the time of release. There was NovaSilisko's Duna SSTV signal, but beyond that there wasn't really anything else. This leads into what always bothered me about KSP, which was that there wasn't any point to the career mode beyond the tech tree. It was far too quick to complete (and the science labs basically broke the game), so once you had all the parts unlocked there wasn't really anything left to do. Anomaly science and lore would have made for some cool progression, and could have easily been done via contracts
  2. @Radekpl It does look awesome, but from what I can tell the bottom linkage isn't fully constrained. I think something a little simpler/more conventional would do better, like halfway between that and what it was originally.
  3. I agree. I think the best case for this game would be to be KSP 1 (although a proper career mode), as well as 2. It really needs to explore the same stuff the first did, as well as all the new stuff too.
  4. What can I say, I have magic powers
  5. Could this not be solved fairly easy with some programming? Check whether the ship's a dirigible, and if it is and it's at a standstill then freeze it in place. The only real problem I could see would be weather currents affecting the ship's position
  6. Oh no no, I mean have a mining ship that takes raw resources to a nearby processing facility. To separate helium and hydrogen there may be some more complex and heavy equipment required than what can be afforded on a spacecraft.
  7. A derrick/floating installation kinda seems superfluous if you think about the logistics of the whole operation. At its most basic, the derrick is just a floating pump with a reactor to power it. If you have a tanker ship that needs to rendezvous with the derrick to load the gas, then you're burning through a lot of fuel to slow all the way down, collect it and then get back into orbit. You'll end up chewing through all that dV just to stop and hook up with a pump. At that rate you may as well just carry the pump with you, scoop up the gas, and take it to an orbital refinery. If you're flying a ship with an efficient fusion reactor then you have no need for a mining installation to begin with.
  8. As long as you have an atmosphere, you can have lift. Assuming you have a flying fusion reactor that can scoop up the hydrogen and extract energy from it without violating energy conservation laws then it's totally possible. In reality though, a permanent fusion aircraft would be neither possible nor responsible, because of material fatigue life and safety precautions (what if you experience a reactor shut down in flight? That's a likely goodbye sweet prince). Eventually you'd need to punch back into orbit, dock with a newer transport and then discard the old one. At that rate, it's likely more convenient just to have a dirigible. To be honest, while they are cool as hell, I wouldn't really see any purpose in having dirigible installations/colonies versus orbital counterparts equipped with atmospheric skimmer aircraft to handle mining. Assuming compact fusion works, I feel like there's less material speculation with orbital installations anyway.
  9. I probably should've asked about density rather than pressure.
  10. Wow, now isn't that spicy. Cheers peeps
  11. Are floating bases in gas giants even possible in real life? Would the pressures and temperatures not be too high for current material capabilities?
  12. I think it's not even remotely worth worrying about
  13. I consider myself in the core group, because I think options are necessary to help cater to more casual and inexperienced players, which has been the general consensus here AFAIK. However, I've seen no indication of us in this thread wanting mods to be made standard. I also don't agree with the idea that we have an agenda to rush the game. To me opt-out is by far the way to go - this is the game, and if it's too hard for your liking, here's some things you can disable to help you along. Balance the game to be played to its fullest first, and then sort the other stuff out.
  14. Amen, wouldn't mind if people were kinder to each other. Big deal if someone wants weapons in stock. I don't care much for weapons either, but there's no need to gate-keep over different tastes. "WeApOnS dOn'T bElOnG iN KsP" Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, maaan Peeps definitely need so be a bit more tolerant of one another.
  15. Lol no. We can wait and play KSP in the mean time
  16. Because he likes explosions, clearly. I'm surprised you two are taking Bej seriously lmao
  17. Hurr durr I doubt that it'll affect balancing, but then I just say oh they don't care about balancing anyway. You are correct, and I apologise. I was under the impression we were talking about sandbox, and forgot about career. After thinking about it, I can see how optional/difficulty-based features like aero heating, and comm line of sight may affect career balancing, regarding funding rewards. If I don't need to set up a relay network first to send probes to a low orbit, the surface, or really far away from mission control, then my spacecraft will be cheaper. The reward I get will hence be worth more than the effort I put in. Likewise, if I can ignore aero heating, then I don't need to pay for heat shielding, nor do I need to carry as much life support (if enabled) to support multiple aerobraking events, and/or fuel for capture burns. I don't really see plasma blackout and G-limits impacting reward balance. For the player who doesn't really want to be penalised, leaving rewards alone would be okay. However, for the player that feels that they shouldn't be receiving as many rewards because they're not using all the hard features, fixing these balancing issues could entail identifying what each reward in the game is based on, and making them based on what features are and aren't enabled. Assuming the rewards are all hand crafted (I don't really think this is unreasonable), then I don't really see this as much of an issue in regards to balancing, as they need to spend time figuring out appropriate rewards anyway. So I'll concede that balancing may be impacted, but I don't think that balancing would necessarily be very difficult to do, at least from a rewards perspective. For the moment I think it's still too early in development to tell whether optional difficult features will have other balancing issues that negatively affect career mode.
  18. I'll take "gatekeeping" for $500, Alex. That sort of game really seems to be hostile to those who may just want something a little bit between relaxed and full on.
  19. The player's already not looking for gameplay to be balanced, they're looking for it to be easier. You can still ignore aero heating while having overheating engines and functional radiators, since the two aren't solely dependent on aero heating. By all means, but that's not guaranteed to convince the player to keep them. They may be totally incompatible with what the player wants to do, like drop a large cosmetic mech out of orbit and land at the KSC in sandbox. And yet the player may go nah screw that, I'm here for cool stuff not realism.
  20. But even then, that's just one contract out of a range of available ones. All it takes is to not make that one pop up if G-limits are disabled. Thermal effects are very likely gonna rely on velocity and air density. All the game needs to do is just ignore thermal effects. It's going to impact the game by making it easier, which is exactly what the person who's disabling it wants. I dislike the notion that it's "throwing in the towel". By all means, I'll welcome an attempt, but the way I see it, the only thing that's fun about it is the cool flames. Keeping the flames and disabling the heating is already a thing in KSP. It's wise to cover your ass in case the players you're trying to persuade with fun mechanics aren't persuaded. A hard game is still a hard game, even if it's well made. Some people are gonna want the game, but aren't yet ready to tackle the learning curve in one go.
  21. I'm having this same issue. It's making AFK rover voyages impossible. I'd like to be able to stop at every waypoint and quicksave, but as soon as i pass below 3m/s, the rover starts spazzing out. The stability assist should reduce to 0 below a configurable speed.
  22. @KSK but how would making comm range, aero heating, plasma blackout, G-limits, etc. optional more difficult for balancing? Whenever they're disabled they're disabled because the player wants an easier game to begin with. Bar life support, I honestly can't think of any features that players would want to be optional that would impact balancing in any meaningful way.
×
×
  • Create New...