klgraham1013

I wonder why they choose a hashing system over randomly assigning classes. It just seems like over-complicating the issue. edit: Maybe they wanted everyone who got Bilfrod to have Bilfrod the scientist? If that's the case, I can see them doing the same with gender. Everyone who gets Bilfrod, gets Blifrod the male scientist.

I do! KW already does it!

Extra seriousness: ...but Universal owns that particular design of Frankenstein's monster. I believe it is still under copyright, since copyright seemingly never ends in America now. Also, I don't think it's close enough to be a problem.

Really? Hmm...so many ideas...

I don't think this is the case at all. *sigh*

Yes please.

Are people asking for a refund now? A) That's crazy. I must of missed those posts. Is it a situation where one or two people said it and now it's being blown out of proportion? edit: This thread is moving to fast. I can't keep up.

I use and enjoy KW fairings, but I won't bring out the pitch fork if they go procedural.

I prefer Diverse Kerbal Heads which adds a sense of gender without relying on lipstick and eyelashes. edit: P.S. Squad, please don't rely on lipstick and eyelashes.

Space bar.

There's a fine line here. I'd say many of us have provided valid "feedback" as to why KSP is not ready for 1.0. Labeling it as a hissyfit is demeaning to many of us with valid concerns. If you'd care to critique my concerns, that's fine. Being high-and-mighty, and making claims that we shouldn't care won't sway any of us to your side of the argument. - - - Updated - - - The jump from 0.25 to 0.90 was fine in my opinion. It was merely a statement of intent to move beyond alpha and into beta. The jump to 1.0 seems very drastic, as it seems to have come so suddenly. The impression I got from the Beta Than Ever blog, was that beta would last for some time. Not four more years, but, perhaps, as long as a year. 1.0 has very definitive connotations to the average consumer. If expectations are not meet, it can lead to the perception of KSP being tarnished.

It could possibly be a budget concern. If that's the case, I think the community would understand. It would just take Squad giving an honest statement on the matter.

Most of the rocket parts in my game are KW. My space program prefers not to use oil drums to hold fuel.

You really don't care if the game continues to succeed? You actually don't care? A game that embraces science; that embraces intelligent play. (most of the time) This game is utterly unique compared to 99% of the market. If it succeeds, that means so much. The possibility of KSP2 on a custom engine, tailor-made for the game. Kids growing up with KSP and deciding to build a future in science. ...or is it all about what's best for Slashy?

I apologize for wanting the game to succeed. From here on I'll think only about myself.

If they came out and said, in all sincerity, that the reason for this is a lack of budget, I would understand. Otherwise, there is no logical reason for KSP to go gold. I've been very forgiving talking about KSP to my friends and have even gotten Squad at least 4 new costumers. If they insist on moving to 1.0. I can not in good faith recommend this game. There will be no more excuses for poor tutorials, un-intuitive UI, an unbalanced career mode, and a lack of necessary information given to the player. I will not be able to recommend this game without including a list of mandatory mods and a link to Scott Manley's channel. That is unacceptable.

Because the perception changes to the outside audience; to penitential buyers and reviewers. Some may say reviews don't matter, but perception does. If KSP becomes known as an interesting game, hampered by bugs and a poorly built career mode, that can only hurt the games future. As well as any chance at a sequel.

I do believe that their hearts are in the right place, but some of what they're trying to do may be beyond their skill and experience at the moment. I'm specifically talking about career, which could really use an experience tychoon developer to bring it home. edit: I don't know. Maybe that statement isn't the most productive. Squad have done a good job learning what they've needed to to build the game they've wanted to. It's just, maybe a more experienced developer could have really helped the development.

I'll give this a thumbs up as well.

KSP is one of the most rewarding games I have ever played. Playing ironman mode and having a mission come to fruition. The planning, the engineering, the execution. Add the extra difficulty of life support and RemoteTech, and KSP creates a sense of accomplishment that is higher than any other game I've played.

Squad can tell the forums that 1.0 isn't actually final, but what about when KSP pops up on Steam's front page with a big 1.0 on it? Surely the majority who see that will think it's a finished product.

Tell me, besides looking outside of the game, how is a reviewer even going to know to do a gravity turn? ...or are the tutorials covering that now? - I'll take another look at the tutorials just to have my facts right.

Completely agree.

I don't play to many early access games, but no. For me, it's not that KSP isn't close to being done. Yes, I wish some of the features I want were included, but I can understand Squad may have different designs. What I'm worried about is a serious lack of polish in UI, tutorial, and career that will get KSP hammered by reviews.

Final Frontier and Texture Replacer have gone a long way to making me care about Kerbals.