Jump to content

LethalDose

Members
  • Content Count

    1,810
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

458 Excellent

About LethalDose

  • Rank
    Banned

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You probably wouldn't be if you actually read what I wrote instead of the rest of community's reaction to it, but I guess I forgot which community I was dealing with.
  2. If some people out there can understand my frustration, that's all I care about really trying to accomplish. I just hope some of them are actually in Squad and can help them pull their heads out of their freaking exhaust nozzles. Beyond that, I can only say I envy your optimism.
  3. To any one who can't seem comprehend "the point" here it is from two other sources that aren't me: As for: Do I need to explain how disrespectful it was before and now, AGAIN!? And yes, that is the issue, they should have stated they reversed, or at least modified, their previous position. The only reason I could possibly have to criticize the developers behavior is to start a fight? Yeah, thanks. And yes, I blew him off because he forced opinions and statements on me which I never stated, held, or even implied. Directly, because he said this: I have to deal with this: In addition to
  4. I don't know if it's what he was talking about in the post, but a way to generate/consume resources during time-warp almost has to be added now to support the new science-over-time generation capability of the Science lab.
  5. Because you fail to see it, then it doesn't exist? Well, you're new here, so maybe you haven't seen how dismissive the devs are/were towards ideas like this. To the point of being disrespectful. It's simply a matter of etiquette when you change an opinion about something that you previously dismissed, you acknowledge it. The devs', and specifically Harvester's, failure to do so is, again, disrespectful. The development team has a long history of doing a crap job of communicating with the community, and this is just another example. Besides, I'm not expecting an "official letter of apology"
  6. [sarcasm] Yep, that's exactly what I said. Acknowledgment = Groveling. The two terms are completely and perfectly coextensive [/sarcasm] Thanks for the hyperbole, son. There's the door.
  7. I expected them to say "We changed our minds about this" or "We looked at this, and realized that we were wrong about time-based mechanics being un-fun and impossible to implement". And as I stated in the OP, I expected to get lots of hate about this. - - - Updated - - - Ask Harvester! He was DEAD-SET against them! I've always thought it's absurd position!
  8. I'm talking specifically about this line: Generating science over time. I like that there is a time-dependent mechanic is the game. I dislike that the devs decried such a system being fun or even reasonable for years, and I hate that they're changing their mind without any acknowledgment.
  9. Okay, wow... So after years of Harv taking a hardline against including any kind of what he has referred to as "time-based mechanics in the game (namely life support and long-term research labs), we see this: In the latest DevNotes. Wait, I thought it was impossible for time-based mechanics to be fun? I thought the mere existence of time-warp would completely negate such a mechanic!? I know I'm gonna get hate for this position, but it just drives me up the wall that, suddenly, this mechanic can be fun... It is just so frustrating to see the devs do a complete 180 on these topics without an
  10. You need to check your math. Burning an escape from LKO into interplanetary space, followed by a separate transfer burn from interplanetary space is never more efficient than burning a transfer directly from LKO.
  11. Well, What you're describing really isn't a bi-elipitcal transfer, but sorry to have wasted your time. I won't make the mistake of trying to help you again in the future...
  12. If you're disqualifying games on the basis of procedural generation, then you need to DQ KSP as well; the craters on the Mun, and I suspect several other bodies, are procedurally generated.
  13. I'd recommend removing and replacing ALL the fuel lines on the vessel. The fuel flow rules in this games are, in a word, dumb. It's one of the many fixes we've been promised in the release version. We'll se if that pans out. It's very possible that something didn't translate well in your reinstall. It's unlikely it's something you did, it's just one of the issues we have to live with in a pre-release game.
  14. I think its fair to point out that Moho is the single glaring exception where your orbital position would matter in an ejection from a higher-than-LKO parking orbit, but I feel like we're all in agreement that the method is a bad idea anyway. The only reason we brought up the counterpoint was to point out that the problems with the method are not so much the positional difficulties, but increased dV costs. Also Moho is almost always the exception because Moho is a freaking nightmare of a planet to reach, regardless of method. But since you brought it up, this paragraph makes gives me the impr
  15. Well, technically, "sideways" is kind of a flat line But I agree, in retrospect, the shuttle kind of stagnated the space program, but I largely blame the USAF's involvement/shenanigans for a large portion of why the shuttle never lived up to it's hype.
×
×
  • Create New...