Jump to content

passinglurker

Members
  • Posts

    2,134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by passinglurker

  1. 9 hours ago, KerbMav said:

    I seriously see no problem with cosmetic (right now hypothetical even) microtransactions. They seem to work well for other games and do not hurt others.

    Imposing restrictions on modders would be an issue. But even the Xcom games support cosmetic mods, although official cosmetic DLCs are available.

    The problem with paying.for art assets is if you can't equal or top what modders make in your own art style then there isn't a point in anyone buying it. Some studios like paradox get around this by being very open with their business model but squad isn't that open.

    So if tt wants to make monetized cosmedics they will need to first shake up the art team and get rid of those silly "these aren't placeholders we know what is kerbal better than anyone" ideas they have, then do the rocket revamp to unify the aesthetic, and then maybe they can start shipping quality reskins without drama or backlash otherwise people won't see the point in it unless they are like on console or something.

    15 hours ago, razark said:

    Well, aside from the fact that they are probably neck deep in making the expansion, as well as the recent change in management/ownership/Satanic Overlords/whatever, yeah, there's no reason they shouldn't be well on the way to getting 1.4 ready for us yet.

    Again that's the devs being neck deep not the pr guys (cause squad as they remind us is a big team now of course they have dedicated pr guys) this is literally their job they have nothing better to do.

  2. On 6/4/2017 at 0:17 PM, TheRagingIrishman said:

    The reality of it is that at least some of the devs got a few days off after the massive effort that was the 1.3 release. There'll be teasers next week, don't worry too much about it.

    The devs don't write the devnotes any more they don't really have an excuse for not announcing 1.4 other than trying to ration and milk information 

  3. 1 hour ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

    @passinglurker any idea when MoarMk1 will be updated for 1.3.0? Does the 1.1.3 version still work? It worked fine in 1.2 and I can't fire up KSP until I reassemble my modpack because my save will melt and I'm waiting on you, @NecroBones and @Nertea before I can start again.

    No worries I'm in the process of brushing things off, finishing a few todo's that accumulated, and bringing things inline with localization and stuff.

    But to make up for the wait I'll share that the next update will definitely have the batteries, and drones as previewed before, a porkjet/C7 style inline docking port as teased on reddit, a set of gimbaled SRB's to cover the need for high thrust in the early game, and a 1 seat crew cabin

  4. 4 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

    I think that Sunkar will fly. It's basically a modernized Zenit, and it's small/cheap enough to fly commercial payloads and Federatsiya.

    The key thing to flying Federatsiya on a Zenit replacement made to use zenit infrastructure is that one of the zenit launch pads has a crew access tower already built as part of the numerous failed attempts to replace soyuz so it saves on construction. As is often the case with launch vehicles and spacecraft the cost of launch pad construction supersedes all other design considerations.

  5. On 5/31/2017 at 8:17 AM, Tykylo said:

    Um, not to be rude...but you do know who Take-Two Interactive is, right? The guys who don't know how to write most of the time? The guys who are constantly shoving GTA down everyone's throats? The guys who think edgyness=good writing? I could go on and on, but the basic point is that they'll inevitably ruin KSP in some form.

    I guess all good things eventually do have to come to an end.

    #RIPKSP

    Take two is a publisher not  Rockstar. Technically even mod friendly titles like civilization also fall under their umbrella.

    To me I don't see ksp any better or worse off than they were before if they are really better off and flush with cash then I expect 1.4 to be the long needed art and balance polish pass and I expect them to stop making comprises of quality to fit in with old parts.

    If that doesn't happen then nothing's changed its business as usual with me not buying dlc cause I'll be too busy managing my modded installs to make time for anything new they add like mission editor's.

  6. 36 minutes ago, UomoCapra said:

    Take-Two bought KSP and Squad remains independant but partnered with Take-Two. Squad and the whole team will continue with KSP development, but now we’ll have the full support of Take-Two to achieve this with the utmost quality.

    Does this include quality art or are we still pretending that programmer art is acceptable for the indefinite future?

  7. 1 hour ago, UnionPacific1983WP said:

    So, I decided to go get a class A asteroid with a probe. When I got the probe to the asteroid, however, the asteroid... wasn't what I expected it to be. When I landed I got this screenshot.

    LTq1XqW.jpg

    There's Class A asteroids. And then there's this. There is so little mass in the asteroid that there was literally no listing in its menu, it had no effect on the operation of the craft, and it clipped through the ground... plus the obvious cube shape.

    Minor bug? Probably. Why am I not putting in this in the bug report forum? Because this is such an alien event (even for the Kerbal universe) that it merits posting here.

    I renamed the asteroid "The Glitch" for obvious reasons.

    Thoughts?

    Ok but [excrement]posting aside seriously what is going on here? I just checked the parts/misc/potatoroid folder, and the only mesh file is Cube.mu yet the part.cfg for the asteroids points to a potatoroid.mu

    Has anyone else gone asteroid hunting in 1.3?

    Edit: Oh and I brought Cube.mu into blender and its definitely just a cube

  8. 3 minutes ago, PocketBrotector said:

    There's definitely something there where the stock parachute used to be:

    It's also definitely small enough to have been hiding under the mk16 chute this whole time so yeah clarification is needed

    EDIT: also the ambient occlusion around it suggests it's part of the vostok mesh, and not a removable piece

  9. 17 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

    Cool... I was wondering about this :D

    Here I even have a visual aid incase anyone is still confused :wink:
    Khc2Ppp.png
    The invisible bit where the arrows are coming out is the node object I mentioned. Assuming the docking functionally of the voskhod airlock is the same as what we have in stock now then it should work the same way.

  10. 19 minutes ago, John FX said:

    So they don't move? How does that work then? Will they need to be activated to work like antenna?

    As people have been saying its like the inline docking port. Instead of referring to an attachment node in the config dockingports like this are pointed to separate node object in the parts mesh. This node object is then animated to move with the rest of the part and only activates when the part is in its deployed state

  11. Trying to streamline this to a yes/no list is a waste of time any worthwhile modpack/modpack curator needs to be able demonstrate that they can dedicate the time to add value and provide support for thier pack otherwise they will be met with the same rejection every other modpack effort has met in this community outside of a select few like realism overhaul. That means they actually need to talk to the mod authors.

    The concept of modpacks largely appeals to the users that bring them up as a means of getting internet points via low effort content. Afterall Kerbal is more robust to mod than something like minecraft, or a bethesda game where such packs are very popular, but because of this robustness there really isn't a need to merge mods for compatibility in kerbal. Things more often than not just work, and that means a mod pack curator will need to put in even more effort than other games to justify thier packs existence. The curators who realize this soon quit modding or step up to add value/make original mods of thier own. The curators that don't realize this inevitably release a buggy pile that draws the ire of everyone involved making them even more hostile to the idea of future modpacks.

  12. 3 hours ago, John FX said:

    This will be every weekly from now until the console version has improved to the point where complaints drop below the threshold for action, after which it will be `works continue on the DLC`.

     

    Called this months ago, before 1.3 was called 1.3.

     

    You watch, there will be no mention of 1.4 in the weeklies...

    They said in the past they had an internal roadmap and there isn't a wave of departures like after 1.2 so there really shouldn't be a reason to delay telling us what comes next assuming there is something coming next.

  13. 32 minutes ago, LegendaryAce said:

    I doubt this very much. I rarely play PC games (with the exception of DCS World), so I can't say much about that area. 

    But I've extensively written and applied mods to a variety of my Xbox 360 games, including Just Cause 2, Fallout New Vegas, Skyrim, and GTA V to name a few. It's not hard to do so if you have a little bit of knowledge in coding and scripting.

    And as for Bethesda, at least when they project a release date, they actually release near it. They said mods would be out in May of 2016. They were officially released on May 31st. That's still technically achieving their deadline.

    As for your issue with map mods, are you familiar with how hard that is to modify maps? Adding a new mesh and texture for a weapon and applying a reload script is quite easy. Adding a whole new section of map, adding terrain mesh, hitbox, interactability (shooting it and a bullet hole appears), navmesh, etc. is a helluva lot harder.

    And Bethesda has continually updated the G.E.C.K. to provide modders with better tools for modding. Don't forget that Bethesda has to accommodate new mod makers as well as veterans. So the tools might not necessarily be top tier.

    I'm not talking about pusedo-mods like cheat menus and save hacking that make modding a dirty word. I'm talking true mods that add new content.

    also the map issue I refer to is how in recent titles you can't change one thing in a cell (say add a weapon spawn, or a door to a new map) without overwriting the whole cell making it hard for modders to operate without stepping on each other's toes. Bethesda isn't accommodating every new title makes it harder to mod than it used to be they are just making a token effort to milk their reputation, and they've dragged their feet cleaning up mod theives on their official repository too.

    It's not a high bar to find a company that communicates better than squad but Bethesda ain't it. 

  14. 16 minutes ago, LegendaryAce said:

    Honestly I think Bethesda is a great dev to learn from. They have excellent communication with their customers, excellent PR and compensation, and are more than willing to listen to their fans and experiment.

    PFFT AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You've never seen the convoluted hoops people have to jump through to mod thier games have you? Imagine a big game that's rough around the edges the writing has some holes, the balances is sloppy, and its not the most stable pile of code either but its big selling point is moddability. Now imagine that game despite advertising this selling point providing no official tools until over 6 months after release, The toolkit is only compatible with expensive pro level software, and there is absolutely no documentation, and the game doesn't handle map changes all that well to boot...

    Bethesda is worse in virtually every way.

  15. 2 hours ago, KSK said:

    Maybe ignore the near future stuff since KSP already includes that in the shape of high thrust ion drives,

    This wouldn't be the case if they finally took the time for a polish pass. Another reason I refer to old parts as "place holders" is because thier stats have hardly changed since they were added in early access and its not because they got it right the first time. The Ion engine in particular suffers from inflated thrust because some one stated the xenon tanks with an arbitrary poor mass fraction that makes even the ant engine+fuel a better choice in all but the most impractical long burn scenarios. Make the tanks lighter and the ion engine's thrust and isp can be curbed to more reasonable levels while still maintaining usability.

  16. 2 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

    I just thought it would be a bit of incentive for SQUAD to do a vamp if it was financed a bit, might just speed it up a little and make people happy.

    Another reason I push for development transparency is that given the controversies, desires, and expectations surrounding the "vamp" I think squad would have an easier time selling unrelated DLC while advertising that this pays for them implementing the vamp gradually as a series of free updates. Personally if I were to buy in I'd want these better assets to be for all not just dlc buyers. 

    EDIT: Also I'd be less reflexively picky about the art that's included in a free update
     

    6 hours ago, KSK said:

    one of the development team (I forget which, apologies) plainly stated that Squad are well aware of their game assets and do not regard them as placeholders. Again, this term seems to be a creation of the playerbase as a shorthand for 'old art assets that we wish would be improved'. Which isn't quite the same thing.

    Personally I found this clarification deeply offensive as if players and @NovaSilisko can't recognize excrement when they see it. Most users certainly aren't as picky as me but with every art preview the common response is "This looks/sounds great! Can you please please please please please apply these same looks and ideas to the old rocket parts?"

    The developer created notion that the old parts are fine and aren't a priority only feeds the speculative frenzy because a unified production quality and aesthetic is such a fundamental and obvious step in development its hard to fathom what they could possibly consider a higher priority after 1.3

  17. 5 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

    10-20 bucks would be far to much for a few textures. I would say make it 5 dollars max.

    I think you are underestimating the amount and value of work that would be involved in this. 
     

    5 hours ago, KSK said:

    Besides, this notion that we're in any way entitled to this ongoing stream of information about an officially released product is a bizarre conceit and one that seems to be peculiar to gamers.

    Then let no one say they are buying DLC to support development. Just like calling certain parts "placeholders" Its "misinformation". It gets people thinking Squad will make kerbal better with this money but in reality there is no hard commitment.

     

  18. 10 hours ago, KSK said:

    That's certainly my experience on gaming forums. The more information players get the more they demand and the louder they demand it. And no matter what the developers say, it never seems to stop players reading what they want into those statements - and then pitching a hissy fit when the finished game fails to match up to their overblown expectations. In a rational world, @passinglurker's comments would be correct - but gaming forums are rarely rational.

    That varies by community there are plenty of examples of communities that enjoy more open development without unmanageable drama, and considering this isn't some big money riding e-sport I think KSP would be safe.

  19. Just now, Vanamonde said:

    You are not reading the same internet I'm reading. People who want to speculate will, no matter how much information is or is not available. 

    There will always be some degree of speculative "background noise" due to all communities haveing thier share of bright eyed newcomers that think they're the first ones to come up with some obvious unimplemented idea like multiplayer, or terraforming, but those who stay and become active in a community learn to do better sooner or later. The fact of the matter is that more information discourages speculation to a degree and the withholding and teasing of information encourages it.

    Personally I can't think of a happier time here than during the development of 1.2 before the developer exodus it was probably some of the most active and candid communication this community ever got from the devs, and emulating that would go a long way towards stopping speculations from turning into expectations.

    1 hour ago, KerbalSaver said:

    It's always fun to open up the Weekly thread and find that people are arguing about the exact same thing for the 4th week running. 

    I'm confused I thought the last 3 weeks were arguments about art previews not the fundamentals of speculations, what causes them, how to to curb them, and whether they should be curbed?

×
×
  • Create New...