Bej Kerman

And? The game isn't just played by OP, there's people who don't want to, or can't use mods as well. Wow, mind-blowing idea. I think a search feature (or just scaling up the box to take up more than 1/6th of the screen and not having it take 3 nanocenturies to load) in a game where you can accumulate hundreds of craft isn't something that should just be left to the modders to develop, and left to the people who can and want to download mods to use.

I don't get it. He's playing the game his way and inviting you to do the same. If you don't want to do that then that's fine but when half the game doesn't make sense, arguing about semantics seems like a bizarre and futile exercise. It is no wonder that the OP has chosen the name "DigitalDread". Welcome to the forums btw @DigitalDread - I think your boat is pretty cool. Christ on a bike, I was just saying that perhaps tweakscale on a public challenge may not be ideal given that it might be difficult to tell apart from stock parts.

Exactly. And sometimes we don't want to have to lag behind on big releases for mod updates.

Still, doesn't make sense if this is a supposedly 'stock' challenge. Quite unbalanced too. I mean, scaling up a 1.125m part or scaling down a 2.5m part makes them perform unrealistically given that they were made specifically for their sizes. Imagine how much more OP the Vector would be if you could scale it up to 5m rather than having to use engine clusters. At least it would be better if you had to say if your boat was stock or not.

Still, no point in a challenge if you can just attach a 5m jet to a cockpit with some fuel tanks and watch it go.

I don't think TweakScale should be allowed. You can abuse it pretty bad, and the rules already say stock parts only, so I'm not sure what makes scaled parts "stock".

Citation needed

They never said that they wanted it released soon. There's a difference between early access and release. Plus, won't early access increase the amount of people to spot bugs? Same response for you, mate. There's a great difference between early access and release. Finally, someone understands what early access means, and understands its benefits! Can't believe I had to dig through the replies for this.

Either 9 or heavy.

Why?

"Hey, can you implement this basic, standard feature into the game?" [suggesting they can't or won't download mods] "I know 50 mods that can do that for ya"

They're addressing your entire post, and I agree with the bit that says you might as well just be removing graphics options.

Okay, I'll stop @ing you. But I don't understand why you just stopped debating half way through the debate.

It's blindingly obvious that it's sarcasm, 'properly' with 50 quote marks meaning @Brikoleur's version of properly.

Look at the 50 layers of quotation marks around """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""properly"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""". Another great comment.

Then @Brikoleur comes along and says something along the lines of "But probes IRL need comms" even though someone just said that they sometimes don't have enough time for this. Brik, it's quite clear you expect a lot of players to have a lot of free time, but this isn't true. Oh, and the fact that optional features will increase ability to fix bugs even if it causes some when it is implemented. That's true.

I hate this, because I am a simple player that only wants to design and engineer. IKR. People have different playstyles, and if you're not going to let others play as they do to fix some unnamed bug that's never elaborated upon that has to do with options for some reason, then that's just not nice. A certain quote from Dagoth Ur seems super appropriate in regards to this. What certain quote? Please stop trying to be unspecific.

Why would you assume the worst in the first place? 5 seconds of silence and the world's ending. Come again, how is doing a giant space drift through the interstellar void faster than going there in a straight line? [~ snip ~]

Probably ya if it increases overall market share. You're going about this as if we're talking about EA, not Star Theory. Given the news we've been getting from them, I don't think they give care about what the publisher thinks. And since this is an already niche fanbase, the publishers will want to be careful anyway.

Their publisher. And will the publisher like it when the casual players, a large portion of KSP players, and those with time restrictions can't play the game as they want or at all and end up, well, not paying precious money?

So the devs matter more than the player now? Who are they developing a game for? Ditto.

Exactly. Said what I've been trying to say much better than me. The "This whole thread can pretty much be summed up by "I want every player to play the game exactly like I do, otherwise they can just sod off and play something else"" part is especially true, KSP is a simulation and you should be able to change the rules of a simulation. Restricting the rules of a simulation doesn't accomplish much, does it? Well, other than driving players away, which is the opposite of what you want to achieve when releasing a game. The player should dictate how they play, not the devs. Would it be at all possible for you to not gatekeep KSP? All you're doing here is telling people that they should either play exactly how you want or just sod off. Wish I could give more than one like. Taking away freedom then telling the player to go away if they want freedom is kind of a silly argument.

Ah, right, tell half of the KSP fanbase to stop playing instead of giving them more freedom to actually learn things that could help them get a job at a space agency. That'll benefit the devs.

Brik seems to think everyone should use Commnet. Except for Simple Rockets 2 which is still in its early stages, suggest another casual realistic space flight simulator. I play KSP for a reason, mate.

i never said I didnt want those in the game, but I should have the choice to disable any of them, Commnet in my case, because I don't always have enough time to play KSP """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""properly""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".