spinomonkey

The contacts are currently a bit over bearing, as usually there's twice as many tourist contracts to any other. I don't mind them (not that I have any desire considering the low payout) but the average number in the contracts need to be lowered.

A color overlay would work, so would a temp popup over the the part (like how the engines show they're overloading) but on the actual part itself.

It would be nice if there was just a temp gauge somewhere indicating overheating of parts.

While flat areas would be nice (my Duna base is sitting on the side of a hill) I'd like to see some canyons too. I mean, mountain aside- isn't Mars known for it's amazingly huge canyon network?

I agree and I would be a little surprised if Squad didn't already have this thought. While the early game updates were rightly about getting the game up and running- now that we're hitting Version 1.0, it's time to start filling in the details and start player gameplay tracking. EDIT: In addition, I hope the science review panel gets re-worked. At the moment all the data on what I've collected is overbearing. Too much information without a lot of payoff. It's a good start, but really needs to be expanded and reworked in a way that cuts all that data down to what's important to the player.

With the atmospheric mod is a close call. Entering Eve's atmosphere is awesome because its so thick- it adds to the tension. On the flip side, Duna has a better landscape imo. Plus leaving isn't an issue. That's a plus haha.

Mind. Blown.

Yeah- I'm on the same page. Hopefully with .91

All in all a great update! .90 Cons: As a whole the game needs to be balanced further. Kerbal Experience isn't explained in enough detail. (I had to search the forums for further answers) Space Center buildings are of poor model/texture quality. Contracts lack any form of context. The differences between Agencies is nonexistent and interchangeable. Too many Kerbin Contracts in general. (Early game is one thing, but I wish they'd taper off rather quickly- or alternatively, provide credits but minimum science) New Biomes are awesome. Landscapes still look unimpressive (I realize this may be a later change. But its worth noting) Building Upgrades aren't offering enough incentive. I dreaded the upgrades due to cost vs rewards. By adding probe cores to any vessel, pilots become fairly useless. With contracts really amping up the entire resource system (credits, science, rep) the admin building could really use some data for the player. Not just spending trends, but hard data on successful return trips, times landing on the planets, average use of different rockets, kilometers explored by rover... Ultimately, the game has made some awesome strides forward. The gizmo's alone are amazing- in fact even with my complaints everything is moving in the right direction! Very excited as always-

I agree. A few sliders during the build for fine tuning would be great. Along with a method of transport- they look all kinds of wonky riding on your rockets currently.

I'm with you. Rovers are still kind of a fringe element. But seeings as Space planes, satellites and Space Stations just took a leap forward- it gives me hope Rovers won't be too far off. As Srpadget said, speed is a little crazy as it is- but I'm willing to let that slide if one element was simply fixed: stability. Unless you build a super wide and long rover even on Kerbin, it has a tendency and almost desire to flip over. I had a 6t Rover going 20m/s flip over itself yesterday just because I put on the brakes. I was a bit sceptical that was realistic. Unless the Joker was driving it.

I just learned about this. I really want to go to Moho now!

If I'm reading your post correctly- I think can be solved by including a proper probe core?

3 on Duna, about 7 trapped in Kerbin Orbit.

I'd really like to see a dynamically interesting ice planet/moon. Perhaps this is a bit bold of an idea: but with layers. Cracks in the surface that lead into ocean caverns. Ice would be a cool surface to land on- in fact it would be nice if your wheels/lander legs in general reacted differently to surfaces. Going a step further, it would be nice to get some particle effects from landings and such too- like kicked up dust from the Mun or scorch marks from landers on rock. UNRELATED: Why does the ocean cover all of Kerbin? Ever notice when the camera slips below the surface you can see the ocean below? I realize this is done to create a 'universal' water level across the planet. But it seems like a very large waste of memory usage having to render the water level below the ground level. It's basically like having 2 planet models for one planet overlapping.

I agree- though the last update helped in getting new people a bit more acquainted to the game, there's still a long ways to go. A simple management system in the contracts would help. Not sure who said it- but I also tend to agree that early contracts should act as a sort of 'tutorial' for getting new players headed in the right direction. Old players could ignore them obviously, but to new players it may prove invaluable.

All the planets need some lovin in terms of landscape quality. Beyond atmospherics, it's one of my most eagerly awaited updates.

I agree- but I've always thought it would be cool if when you select a flag, it remains that flag until you change it again- rather then always reverting back to the original you selected. The logic being a certain 'group' of missions would be under one flag, another group under a different flag. But alas- I overall agree.

This falls in line with the fact that all the planets need to be fleshed out further. Both in creating more dynamic landscapes and labeling aspects of them. Perhaps with resources coming this will become a bit more apparent.

Summary: One of the issues I have with contracts are how interchangeable between Agency's and random they all seem. What I purpose is organizing the different Agencies into various long term Contracts. These would be large goals (made up of numerous smaller contracts) that would follow a particular path. Outline: Perhaps Kerbal Motion's Goal is to Colonize Duna. (This would include satellites, space stations, land bases, resource collecting...) This Goal would have a massive payout (in comparison to current contracts), as it's not intended to be completed easily or in a single mission. Though there would be a time limit just like a normal contract. The majority of the contracts from this Agency would be in a direct relationship to the Agency's goal. No more random contracts mixed between random agencies. Taking on multiple Agency Goals would be fine. However, failing would mean no more Goal related business with this Agency. Example of failing might be too many Kerbal deaths, not finishing the goal within the time limit or other factors that the Agency may not appreciate. Reputation would have a larger role. Some Agency Goals being simpler in nature make for good early/mid game goals (Colonizing the Mun perhaps, or exploring Kerbin). Achieving these early/mid game goals would boost your reputation and thus open the door to new and bigger Agency's becoming available. Other Thoughts This would create a sense of different Agencies competing against each other and bidding for your attention (or avoiding you depending on your rep). Obviously Colonizing Duna is a pretty cliche example, but with the dozen or so Agency's we currently have, there could be some really interesting Agency Goals. Not to mention, this creates a very long game if you choose to achieve every Agency Goal. It just seems weird to me that all the Agency's currently have no method or goal in mind. It's just a mixture of repetitive contracts between randomly selected Agency's. This would see to end that. Thanks-

Though I agree it would be odd to spend rep like money I also think it's a good idea. Rep doesn't do much at the moment and personally I only collect it to eventually convert it into science or cash.

Eh. I think rather then new parts they need to balance the current ones better. Meaning moving things like landing gear earlier in the tech tree.

So an update: I've been playing with optimizing a rocket for an orange tank delivery. Seeings as the destination never changes I've been optimizing the staging to use solid states when possible to cut down on the costs. At the moment I've transfering about half an orange tank for about $150k, though I'd really like to do a full tank without going over $250k. I'll be playing with the mk3 parts tonight. I haven't used the cargo bays before, so that'll be interesting.

Though another planet would be nice. I think there's still loads of work to be done to the current planets. Fix whats already here, then add more. I'm also all for discovering them with a observatory. Seems weird you have instant access to so much planetary info yet your kerbals can barely make orbit lol.

I agree with the original post. I'm a bit more seasoned so its not a huge deal. But that's not to say I wouldn't love to have some data charts tracking how much I've spent on what, how much return I'm making in recoveries, that sort of thing. Feedback would be great. Not to mention this once again highlights that the game has no context at the moment. Other then to finish the tech tree players are left with a very open ended question of what to do? That's especially confusing for new players.