Jump to content

TheoBrandt

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TheoBrandt

  1. I don't know much about the irl engineering on the subject. Though I think to get into that kind of misses the point. KSP is clearly a game aimed at a young audience, trying to turn it into a true to life simulator kinda distracts from its roots and the cartoonishly bendy rockets are a key part of the games' character. Having said that, us adults who also fell in love with the game want a more mature simulator experience and there's nothing wrong with that either, why can't it be both? If rigidity is something easily tweaked in configs anyway, couldn't we have a "sturdy rocket" option in campaign creation so that those of us who want more rigid physics can have them?

  2. 15 hours ago, Drakenred65 said:

    They already shot that down. After all what's the point of upcoming interstellar drives that take years of in-game time  one way if we're just going to intanyly teleport all over the place

    Unless you have to go to the other gate, build a colony to build the supplies and infrastructure to power and maintain it before you can use it. Carrot meet stick.

  3. I agree with the majority. A solid game release that works and is polished is a priority. But I think it would help a lot of peoples patience if we had even a sliver of more clarity. @Nate Simpson I don't feel like you're being disingenuous, or rattling off an excuse, but your post boils down to "game good, another year" with no tangible crumb to hold. You can go into detail about problems you're facing without specifics, the dev diary about distance calculations between solar systems was really good. More of that please.

  4. I too play career, and agree with a lot of what's being said. I see career mode like this:

    KSP is a private space program, companies employ us to fulfil their orbital tasks. KSP could be a public space program, funds could be delivered via a "3 month budget" type system that increases as we achieve things, like a crewed Mun landing or Duna drone capture, or it could be somewhat proportional to science rewards (as exploration is about learning things after all).

    This means you could properly throttle income, and it does allow disadvantage for just time warping to the next budget, because that might mean you miss a transfer window anyway, but it also means you're not left with an unplayable career because you accidentally "dissambled" all of your early rockets.

    It could have a hard cap as well, which would leave you with a nudge to go build off world, use ISRU to build rockets yourself rather than buying them because the money isn't just lying around by the millions for your interstellar drive.

    I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with funds, it just takes the right approach to feel satisfactory for the player and not be an arbitrary hurdle, which is a fine line sometimes.

×
×
  • Create New...