Unfawkable

Granted. You now have all the men that want to poke you. I wish to never have to work.

Well, no one says you can't use this within the same star system, nor that you can't have wormholes inside one. It would be useful when other planets get biomes as well, so it would make studying the same planet much less tedious, and it would give great sense of accomplishment

Well, this is true, rather than buffing we should just broaden their use, which will take time I guess. If there was more stuff to do within a biome, this would not be a problem. Ion engines are not as bad, since you can warp orbital vessels after performing a burn, while you can't do that with rovers. I know this game is all for realism, but no one would want to drive a rover straight line for over half an hour just to MAYBE change a biome. If warping while driving a rover were possible, this would not be a problem. And if there was more stuff to do in a single biome which would require moving. Niceee. This is however my first Rover, and it's hardly stable, but at least it moves, and I managed to get it on the Mun in the first place. I'm pretty new, and I'm playing career mode.

That's odd, I could have sworn I checked if it was. Rechecking. Edit: Just checked, FTL is on the list, but there's nothing about teleportation.

So I've tried my hand at Rovers, and I've managed to build a half-decent one that gets 20m/s on the Mun and is stable enough, but previously I though the purpose of Rovers would be to more easily explore different biomes of a celestial body like the mun. Turns out it's far, far, FAR to slow to do this efficiently, and it's much better to bring one rocket with extra fuel and to explore the biomes this way. So should Rovers be significantly buffed to actually have a purpose, or should they just stay these fun things that you can use for that ''I'm driving around on the Mun, yay'' effect?

OK, so I know there are many people who'd like to see other star systems and more sci-fi tech like warp drives and such, and I know there is probably an equal number of people who are against this. Everyone has their reasons, but I personally would love too see this in game some day, if it was implemented in a challenging and hard way. Because tech like this would grant huge benefits, it should be equally hard to gain those benefits. And as I've recently started being interested in orbital construction via docking ports, this came to mind. Building stargates in space by assembling 4-5 parts of it in orbit around Kerbin (and one at your destination too). The parts would be huge, hence why they'd have to be built in orbit. Once 2 stargates are constructed completely, you can bind them only and only once, and this process can't be changed. If one stargate is damaged or destroyed, so is the other one. (or if that's too harsh, the other one goes offline until the previous one is repaired. Still can't be bound to a different stargate though.) To enter a stargate, you would either have dock with it (it's portal), or just pass right through it. Upon exiting on the other side, the rocket maintains the same Delta/v and direction (which only changes depending on the rotation of the exit portal) as when it entered. Stargates would require huge amounts of electricity to perform one teleport, and maybe the bigger the rocket that goes through (more parts/mass) the more electricity it would need. If a rocket too big for the amount of electricity the stargate has tries to go through, BOOM, everything blows to kingdom come) So building one stargate in orbit around Kerbin is hard enough, but if you want the other one, the farther you'd want it to take you, the harder it would be to take the stargate there and assemble it. Now, I know this sounds like a mod, but I just hate mods that affect gameplay, and I'd like awesome things to be developed, balanced and implemented by the devs themselves. Questions/thoughts/discuss. For those asking why would one eliminate the core basics of this game which is orbital manuvaring between planets, take a look at this comment: Not only did you do it multiple times over in order to build the stargate, you also assembled it there. This means you've done this maneuver many times already, and just want to eliminate that tediousness if you want to come to the same place again.

Bumped for the last time. Does no one want to discuss this any further?

Banned for having a join date.

Banned because I don't whether you mean me or yourself.

Banned for being sad. Edit: Banned for ninjaing me

Banned for having legs.

Either that, or you are a masochist

Banned cause I didn't understand what you banned for.

OK, as stated, it's not for the early phases. But presumably 1.00 will have as rare and few bugs as possible so it overally won't have a great effect on this.

Banned for not having a deep meaningful signature.

Banned for ponies... probably again.

Well the entire point of perma death would be to NOT have any warnings, to know that your play can have consequences, and to thus play and design more carefully.

Banned for banning him before I got the chance.

Banned for trying to help me. I don't need help. Ever.

Yeah, me neither, but I have a mid-high end computer, lower comps might have difficulty with this unfortunately.

Oh, I know it might be too early for an implementation of such a thing before gamebreaking bugs are squished. A few cheating bugs happened to me in XCOM as well that made me rage. I just haven't encountered the feature anywhere else, and wanted to suggest it in case the devs didn't plan it, but naturally it should be implemented when 1.00 arrives.

You've made valid points sir, I yield Still, I'd like to have options whether to have winning conditions, so you can literally make your own, but I guess the difference is minor.

The file editing is true, and so is unbinding the quick-save button for "selfcontrol", but you still have revert to launch button upon smashing the craft, and without the manual quicksave, the autosave doesn't save often enough for Ironman mode to work. Making it save after an important event (Entering an atmosphere, leaving it, something explodes, etc) would make it just fine. Well, you can't actually appreciate a game being able to have game-over without it having a final goal at the same time, but I guess it could work without one as well. Prevents you from fully clowning around in career mode.

I first encountered this in XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and I loved the mode. It's for the folk who like their games even more challenging and unforgiving. Basically it takes away your control of game saving, you can no longer save manually, you have only one save file which is saved automatically at intervals, ESPECIALLY when something bad happens. This way you can't undo your mistakes, you have to live with them (Like in real life, duh). So no saving before a difficult orbital maneuver or a landing, no reverting a failed launch because you forgot to release the clamps on time, no nothing. You screw up, you pay the price. Now if implemented in career mode, this limitation wouldn't mean much if you could actually not have a game-over, and to have that a game also must have victory conditions, which career mode doesn't have yet, but it could some day, such as full technological advancement, exploring every celestial body, or completing a number of preset missions each more difficult than the previous. Game over conditions could be to loose too many Kerbals (stranding them for prolonged periods also counts), not completing missions on time, or simply not getting anywhere with your program (earning less than 10 science points over the span of 5 years for instance). All of this could be optional, you could select your own loosing and winning conditions, or have none at all (at which point you might as well play sandbox, but hey, whatever rocks your boat)

Banned for the greater good of cosmic balance.