MDZhB

Members
  • Content Count

    175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

310 Excellent

5 Followers

About MDZhB

  • Rank
    Eighth Margatroid

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,922 profile views
  1. Why not do what magnemoe said? Would this not work:
  2. 1. I fail to see how MP will create a blanket of conformity, when KSP 2 will support mods better than KSP. You have said it yourself, that people who want more features in KSP can simply install mods to get what they want. This is how it has always been, and this is how it will continue to be. Life support? Mod. Telescopes? Mod. More airplane parts? Mod. Fancy game-breaking sci-fi engines? Mod. Conformity and open moddability are not compatible. 2. Generally speaking, exploits are not "charming little quirks," and generally speaking, people do not play video games for "charming little quirks." People play video games for solid design in mechanics, story, art, and other aspects. Most people do not play KSP so they can build infini-gliders and kraken drives. Even if there are some people who do this, such bugs have been removed in the past and have not caused issue. infini-gliders do not exist (or at least not the way they used to) anymore, since we got atmospheric physics updates. I didn't see anyone quitting because they could no longer exploit the game engine. 3. Taking away "charming little quirks" will not turn KSP 2 into Orbiter. Less glitchy ≠ more realistic. If this were true, all good first person shooters would be hyper-realistic military simulations. They are not. KSP 2 is not a MUD, it is not a MOO, it is not an FPS, it is not an RTS. This is not Rogue, this is not Half Life, this is not Quake, this is not Age of Empires. It is a creative space flight simulation video game. Do not compare it to things that it is not even remotely similar to. I 100% agree with you here. I seriously doubt that the owners/developers of KSP 2 will sanction any kind of PvP gameplay. Therefore, it is a completely moot point. If the community wants to hold PvP matches, we will do like we have always done, and come up with our own rules and limitations. In fact, I completely fail to see how letting players fly their own airplanes in BDA competitions would make them somehow worse. They are already well regulated without any kind of help from SQUAD. 0. Yes, let's forget it, because it's not something that will ever matter to the KSP 2 devs. 1. We already do this kind of thing here on the forums, in case you haven't noticed, and it works out pretty well in single player. 2. From what we have seen of previous multiplayer mods, they play similarly to single player, because others are usually too far away in space/time to do anything to you. If this is how KSP 2 multiplayer works, I think it is reasonable to expect that challenges will not be too significantly different from how they operate now. 3. However, without knowing exactly how KSP 2 multiplayer will look, it is impossible to say what kind of challenges will exist, and therefore it is impossible to know whether these challenges will work out well. We simply do not have enough information to be convinced about anything either way. This is completely absurd. This hypothetical challenge is so poorly designed that it would never be officially supported. Why? Because it is inherently unbalanced, exactly as you have already pointed out. I do not know of a single time that a game community has willingly designed and played an awful variant of their game, then forced the developers to change the game to support it. There is no way the KSP 2 devs would rebalance the game for such a low quality community forum challenge. On that note, the KSP 2 devs will not redesign their game for their own challenges either. The challenges will be designed around the gameplay, not the other way around.
  3. sure, but the rest of the coffee tastes awful. I wish i could be a nicer person
  4. I am glad to see that you recognize that people want different things out of a video game. For example, I would like to be able to play collaboratively with my friends. I know this may seem strange to you, but if you don't like it, you can just not play MP. And, if something about MP changes your experience in a negative way, "get the mod for it and let everybody else enjoy the game as they see fit." After all, KSP 2 is supposed to be even more moddable than KSP, so you should have no issues. Right, because no one ever argues about how KSP should be balanced despite being single player only. In fact, taking a look at the Overwatch subreddit ("Overwatch" is one of those violent shooter games that harms society - very toxic) you can clearly see that all of the posts are indeed nothing more than endless whines and rants about gameplay balance issues. I sure do feel sorry for all the Overwatch players who just wanted to have it their way... Wait, what are these forum posts I found in just the first 2 pages of the suggestions subform? (why does that subforum even exist - no one should have to argue about balancing a single player game, right?) Indeed, Korbell Shooter Program is such a competitive game. I cannot wait for them to add voice chat so I can hear whiny 9-year olds on their XBox microphones boasting about how they headshot me from across the map, and complaining about how I have wallhacks. Also, when games have single player and multiplayer modes that are nearly identical, they always divide into two fanatical factions. You would not believe the holy wars I have seen over whether the ammo display should be on the the right or in the middle, because it is different between single player and multiplayer. And oh lawdy, don't even get me started on how ridiculously divisive the Minecraft fanbase is! Wait, we are talking about Korbell Shooter Program, right? You know, I never noticed how right this is. I have never ever played a multiplayer game with an active and positive fanbase. All multiplayer games (especially those that are open to community modding and involvement like KSP) are dull, bland, and toxic. Multiplayer games, by their very nature, can obviously only accomodate one kind of player for some reason. Games like Minecraft, Team Fortress 2, and Garry's Mod are all awfully boring one-trick-ponies that are only played by mindless children. Single player games can avoid this because - despite having player bases just as diverse as multiplayer games - no one ever is in the same game together! This solves all issues! Ok, snarky sarcasm mode off. This sounds like you are describing some kind of competitive first person shooter, which KSP certainly is not. Any kind of multiplayer will (almost certainly) be collaborative in nature, so there is nothing to "level." Everyone is on the same team, no one can be "over powered." Your rocket exploits glitches to operate? So what? Of course, we don't know how multiplayer will be implemented yet, but there are many, many ways to do it that will not turn it into a competitive griefing-fest like you seem to imagine it will be. Any multiplayer game is only as good as its community. You can either give up for some reason, or work to accept change, work to push the boundries, and work to accept outside points of view. Too often, internet communities get stuck in the mindset of "hey we're pretty good, let's keep it that way," and end up dying off because they don't produce anything new, and are unfriendly to "low quality" outsiders who don't think like them. KSP 2 will have a great community, multiplayer or single player. I intend to be part of it, and you are always welcome too.
  5. With Valve helping to push the ever-improving GNU/Linux gaming scene, hopefully we will have it from day 1.
  6. I'd like to think it would be some kind of co-op mode with a party leader or something like that. Each player is restricted to a single kerbal in IVA mode, except for one who is a controller. Collaborative craft building would be cool to see too. Edit: This picture is called "Multiplayer.jpg" and it is at the multiplayer part of the promotions page. It might just be a generic image, but it might also mean that this is how multiplayer might work:
  7. How many floppy disks will I need to use for installation?
  8. A few thoughts: 1. I don't really mind microtransactions as long as they're not in your face and don't affect gameplay at all. Purely cosmetic stuff is fine to me. Maybe I play too much Hat Simulator Team Fortress 2, but I really don't care as long as it never gets in the way. Preferably, if such did exist, it would be tucked away in a visible but not glaring button on the main menu that says "store" or somesuch. 2. I am afraid that by advertising high modding capabilities, they will stop releasing major content updates for free and instead put it all behind DLC, because they think that modders can provide enough free content to keep people satisfied. While this is probably true to some extent, I really don't want official new content to be behind a paywall. This also reminds me of TF2, where actual content comes in free updates, but hats and whatnot actually sustain the economy. I'm not saying that that's what KSP 2 needs to do, but I hope we still get extensions of the base gameplay mechanics outside of DLC. 3. Hypothetically, even if KSP 2 had all the worst kind of microtransactions, what would stop someone from modding free work-alike look-alike replacements and releasing them for free? Are we going to see a change in TOS here on the forums forbidding that? Even if those kinds of mods existed and were banned from the forum, they would still be popular, and I don't think they would be illegal (would they?) I don't really expect this to happen - AFAIK it hasn't happened with any current DLC, and it's not like writing a good mod is easy - but depending on the nature of the microtransactions and the reaction of the community I guess it could be a possibility.
  9. I downloaded KSP again for my new GNU/Linux install.