procedual everything

[The_Rocketeer]

6 hours ago, Alshain said:

I never actually said it shouldn't happen, I said two thing

1. It most likely will not happen because Squad has always been so vehemently against it.  You can say it isn't relevant, but you know it is very relevant, and I think you also know it will likely never happen.
2. If in the incredibly unlikely scenario that it does happen it shouldn't remove the existing parts, just add new ones because people enjoy the other style.

Actually @Alshain you made totally different points than this list, in a totally different order. Here's a summary:

• You can't remove the old non-procedural parts because people and/or Alshain want the piece-together style.
  • Answered by me, having default sizes for procedural parts
• But then various sizes wouldn't look different anymore and Alshain likes them looking different.
  • Answered by @tater suggesting the approach from SSTU
• Everything from Squad says this just won't happen, and
• Squad won't do another artwork redesign after Porkjet's recent updates.

6 hours ago, Alshain said:

It was you that tried to come up with reasons why both procedural and non-procedural shouldn't be implemented together and I countered those reasons as not acceptable for those of use that like non-procedural, but I never said procedural parts shouldn't be implemented, nor did I move any goalposts.

Your reasoning is off here (possibly due to a false negative). I tried to come up with a compromise that would allow you to keep the piece-together style at the same time as allowing procedural parts for those that want them. You counter-argument was based on aesthetics, which doesn't affect the gameplay issues you previously mentioned (goalposts), and then veered to a completely different line of debate about whether Squad would want to bother doing this anyway. This isn't discussing the point, it's a breadcrumb trail to nowhere.

6 hours ago, Alshain said:

As to the forum,  I am often confused at why so many people treat these forums as "I want a bunch of people who agree with me to reply" instead of what it actually is - Discussion Forums.  If you post here, expect people to discuss, if you want a bunch of 'likes' I recommend Facebook.

Is this directed at me personally? Because I find that pretty absurd. This is an internet community more or less exactly like Facebook. Some people post for likes, some people post for meaningful discussion, and some people are obnoxious prigs who post just to be obnoxious prigs. For what it's worth, I post here for a variety of reasons, often with no desire to extensively discuss, and then get drawn into muck-slinging contests with people who take it all too seriously. Whenever I post, though, I try to do so in a way that leaves room for mutual agreement and compromise, not to be so obstinate that people will tire of discussing with me or think I'm just a grouch.

Discussion doesn't mean always finding the weakness in the view of someone else, sometimes it means seeing the strength of their point and progressing beyond petty disharmony.

Edited July 9, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[klgraham1013]

I actually enjoy the lego philosophy of KSP.  That, of course, doesn't mean I dislike procedural, but a game should maintain some form of an identity.  It's why I was for lego fairings over procedural ones.

Anyway, I think the real problem is organization.  Wing parts especially.  There must be a better way than just lumping them all in a pile.

[Alshain]

6 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Actually @Alshain you made totally different points than this list, in a totally different order. Here's a summary:

• You can't remove the old non-procedural parts because people and/or Alshain want the piece-together style.
  • Answered by me, having default sizes for procedural parts - This does not
• But then various sizes wouldn't look different anymore and Alshain likes them looking different.
  • Answered by @tater suggesting the approach from SSTU
• Everything from Squad says this just won't happen, and
• Squad won't do another artwork redesign after Porkjet's recent updates.

• You can't remove the old non-procedural parts because people and/or Alshain want the piece-together style.
  • Answered by me, having default sizes for procedural parts - As I said, this does not solve the texture blandness and/or stretching problem which is one of the main reasons we like the piece-together parts.  Your answer isn't acceptable.  This is in fact point 1 of my list
• But then various sizes wouldn't look different anymore and Alshain likes them looking different. - This still point 1 of my list.  It's one of the reasons for liking the piece-together parts.
• Everything from Squad says this just won't happen, and - This is point 2 of my list.
• Squad won't do another artwork redesign after Porkjet's recent updates.  - This is still point 2 of my list, Squad isn't going to do procedural parts.

As I said, I made 2 assertions.  You took those assertions here and split them to look like 4, but it's still only 2.

6 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

• • @tater
•  

Your reasoning is off here (possibly due to a false negative). I tried to come up with a compromise that would allow you to keep the piece-together style at the same time as allowing procedural parts for those that want them. You counter-argument was based on aesthetics, which doesn't affect the gameplay issues you previously mentioned (goalposts), and then veered to a completely different line of debate about whether Squad would want to bother doing this anyway. This isn't discussing the point, it's a breadcrumb trail to nowhere.

 

No false negatives from what I can see.  You did try to come up with a compromise to my compromise of adding both, but your compromise won't work for the reasons I outlined.   I mentioned no gameplay issues at all before stating aesthetics, which are very important, go back and take a look.  I said there is part of the community that likes the piece-together parts, I didn't say why until after you offered your 'compromise'.  Both the construction and the aesthetics are the reasons why, FYI.  However I never went into that detail before you offered your compromise.  So it's not possible for me to have moved a goalpost that didn't exist.  Adding additional points (as Squad not wanting proc. parts) is part of discussion, which I covered later.  You seem to not understand what discussion is.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Alshain

[Waxing_Kibbous]

5 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

I actually enjoy the lego philosophy of KSP.  That, of course, doesn't mean I dislike procedural, but a game should maintain some form of an identity.  It's why I was for lego fairings over procedural ones.

Anyway, I think the real problem is organization.  Wing parts especially.  There must be a better way than just lumping them all in a pile.

OT but I agree that plane parts need their own new category, there are a ton of them.

[The_Rocketeer]

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

No false negatives from what I can see.  You did try to come up with a compromise to my compromise of adding both, but your compromise won't work for the reasons I outlined.

If this ^^^ is what you meant then this (my bold):

14 hours ago, Alshain said:

It was you that tried to come up with reasons why both procedural and non-procedural shouldn't be implemented together

is a false negative. I didn't come up with reasons why they shouldn't be implemented together, I came up with a method by which they the could.

You actually did indicate gameplay when you refered to 'piece together' parts, and you did not mention aesthetics at all until after I had suggested something else. So, you could argue that you made 2 assertions, but in reality you made one, then applied expo-facto conditions to it that you hadn't even indicated were part of your view beforehand, and then made a completely different point that had nothing to do with the first.

I think I've said all I have to say. If there's a lesson here, I think it's that people shouldn't express opinions unless they're going to say what they mean.

[Alshain]

59 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

If this ^^^ is what you meant then this (my bold):

is a false negative. I didn't come up with reasons why they shouldn't be implemented together, I came up with a method by which they the could.

No, you tried to give a way to make procedural parts behave like the piece together parts and I told you why that wouldn't work, plain and simple.

 

59 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

You actually did indicate gameplay when you refered to 'piece together' parts, and you did not mention aesthetics at all until after I had suggested something else. So, you could argue that you made 2 assertions, but in reality you made one, then applied expo-facto conditions to it that you hadn't even indicated were part of your view beforehand, and then made a completely different point that had nothing to do with the first.

What exactly do you call them?  Piece together parts is what I call them, I've heard them called lego-like parts also, but if I had used that it would have been the same.  I described the parts so you would know what I was talking about, not their gameplay functionality.  I never mentioned any specific reasons why they were preferred till after you made the suggestion of merging the two.

 

59 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I think I've said all I have to say. If there's a lesson here, I think it's that people shouldn't express opinions unless they're going to say what they mean.
 

I'll express my opinions if I feel like it, and you have no right to tell me I can't.  If you fancy yourself some kind of teacher, you are really bad at it.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Alshain

[The_Rocketeer]

@AlshainProcedural fuel tanks are a great idea, and they'd still be brilliant if they trampled all over the toes of every player like you who doesn't want them. In fact, I hope they introduce them for that reason alone.

[Claw]

45 minutes ago, Alshain said:

I'll express my opinions if I feel like it, and you have no right to tell me I can't.  If you fancy yourself some kind of teacher, you are really bad at it.

15 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

@AlshainProcedural fuel tanks are a great idea, and they'd still be brilliant if they trampled all over the toes of every player like you who doesn't want them. In fact, I hope they introduce them for that reason alone.

Stop, now. There are perfectly reasonable points being made by either side. You guys don't need to interlace your valid points with personal attacks, and I don't want to see more threads locked due to third parties having a row at each other.

It's perfectly fine to have opinions on something: "X is bad because it causes Y, which I don't like." But if you guys can't stop attacking each other, then this thread is going to get cleaned out.

[The_Rocketeer]

Yes daddy. Sorry daddy.

[VITAS]

i think there are two types of build: in atmosphere and space vehicles.

while its easier to get away with the approach of putting stuff where it fits in space vehicles in atmosphere things need to follow areodynamic laws.b

if i apply that to ksp my wish for more flexible parts mainly applies to replicate in amosphere vehicles and not so much to rockets.

 

regarding the tank descussion: everyone keeps talking about the pros and cons of static vs flexible tanks. but i think its more about the implementation.

 

imagine having procedual tanks that not only can alter texture but model too.

if you want the lego style maybe some mod or even vanilla could implement some hardcore mode where you only allowed to use certain sizes. for me that sounds like it could be added to career mode where you start out with view possibilities and expand it by unlocking stuff on the tech tree.

 

so what i want to ask you:

if you where forced to implement procedual parts HOW would YOU do it to add to your playstyle?

 

[pandaman]

35 minutes ago, VITAS said:

So what i want to ask you:

if you where forced to implement procedual parts HOW would YOU do it to add to your playstyle?

 

Mainly, by using single part longer fuel tanks i would reduce part count, though not as critical now as it was pre 1.1, and get rockets that don't flex as much due to there being fewer Joints.