Scarecrow71

I've got a few thoughts on colonies, some of which may make sense and others...may paint me as a mad scientist without the scientist part. I don't want this to become like Civilization or Sim-City in space. Heck, even Spore in space went too far. If I say I want a colony on [insert celestial body], just drop one there. I think all colonies should come equipped with, at a minimum: Landing site Launch site Habitation modules Power generation I think that if you want a VAB, or research substation, or anything beyond that, then you should have to have the resources or space or whatever other commodity the devs come up with to place it there. And no, I don't think that every colony should have the capacity to have one of every single building type in it. Why would you have a research facility on both Pol and Bop other than to say "I have one on both"? I think that the colony update should have...no, NEEDS to have...an auto-landing function built into it. I'm not going to try manually landing a craft with a boatload of ore or platinum or whatever other rare resource is out there, miss the landing pad by 40 km, and walk the stuff from the rocket to the colony. This will get old really fast, especially if you don't have the capability of building a rover or trucks or whatever at the colony. We need precision auto-landing to insure that our goods get delivered to the right place. Every single time. Yes, I am fully aware that this then also helps non-colony landings as this effectively becomes MJ in KSP2 (at least for landings). I'm selfish. Sue me. I think that a lot of the options we've heard about for/with colonies need to be just that: optional. We have options in the game for infinite electricity, infinite propellant, whether or not to allow heat. Please don't force me into having to deal with radiation, or weather, or temperature, or geological disasters if I don't want to. Give me the option to turn that stuff on or off like we have with other stuff. At least then it's in the game and usable if we want it, but those who don't want it can at least disable it. For now, that's all I've got. I'm sure I'll think of other stuff later.

Arguable Basin

Banned for being mad and not crazy.

Granted. You receive a picture of a slice of chocolate cake. I wish the picture of the chocolate cake was edible.

Calling 911 to report that said fly ate all of the soup.

Simply being in the water is cheating.

Nope, but I bet @ColdJ is around here somewhere.

I haven't landed manually in KSP1 in years. Doesn't mean I'm not having fun, nor does it mean it's no longer a game.

I don't think it's out of the ballpark to assume a sentient species that is space-faring - and going interstellar at some point - would have programmed their computers to do this for them. Heck, IRL our airplanes have automated functions that you could state "we should learn how to do". If you want to land manually, great. But there's no reason to assume computers wouldn't do it for you.

Granted. You know a head. I wish I could erase that show from my memory. Permanently.

We are all banned because we cannot seem to get @HarvesteR back here.

I'd prefer to have MechJeb's landing utility. Click the surface where you want to land and let the computer take over.

For about the last week, I've been attempting to get a lander to Tylo to complete the Tylo Monument mission. And instead of trying to land a Kerbal there, get a bunch of science, and then try to get them home, I decided I was going to use a probe to do it. And by probe, I mean a gadget-less thing with legs that I could set down near the monument to simply get credit for the mission and leave it there. So I built a large rocket, stuck a probe on top of it...and then watched as time and again I either didn't have enough fuel to land OR I had just enough to land, but far enough away from the monument that I simply couldn't get the credit for it. What little hair I have was starting to get pulled out of my already-bald head, and I was getting frustrated with it. So I took a little break - maybe overnight at best - and came back with the idea that maybe I should use a rover instead. Something simple, with wheels, a solar panel/battery combo, and a really decent antenna so I could drive this thing all over the place no matter where I landed. The problem I have always had with rovers, though, is getting them up into space. I could never quite seem to build a craft that was decent enough to get them up into orbit and then off to wherever I needed them, primarily because rovers are horizontal and rockets are vertical. I spent a few hours actually drawing stuff with a pencil to see if I could get over that hump, and sure enough, I did. Came up with an idea, and I built it. Or, rather, a decent facsimile of it, anyhow. But I built the rover, and the payload bay...and then got stuck on the rocket itself. It seemed that no matter how many boosters and engines on this thing that I either couldn't get off the ground (not enough TWR on Kerbin at launch) or not enough fuel to make the trip to Tylo. I spent DAYS trying to brute-force this thing and, at one point, nearly said "Fuggehdabbotit, I'm gonna cheat this thing to Tylo orbit". But I stepped back, didn't cheat, and came up with a new plan. I decided to built this thing in pieces in orbit of Kerbin. Far easier to get individual pieces up and put them together in orbit. This would then guarantee that I get enough dV on the lander, enough dV for the transfer stage, enough dV to orbit, etc. So I started building Iah III (pronounced yah three) in pieces, beginning with the rover and the lander/cargo bay. A bit of digression, if you will. I've been naming craft after ancient Egyptian gods/goddesses/deities lately, and Iah simply means "Moon". Tylo is a moon of Jool, and so this one stuck. Iah, by the way, is sometimes considered to be the adult form of Khonsu, but very little is known of them as they were "absorbed" by Khonsu and/or Thot some time prior to the 16th century BC. You can read what little Wikipedia has on them: Iah - Wikipedia Anyhow, as I mentioned, I am beginning with the lander and cargo area. So here we have Iah III on the launch pad: A lovely night-time launch. For some reason, night launches just seem right, don't they? But, continuing on, here is a shot of the lander in orbit (roughly 156km) after decoupling/undocking the ascent stage: And finally, a shot to show the rover inside the cargo bay: The center cone is the large cargo bay nose cone, so it does open. When I get this thing onto Tylo, it will undock from the interior of the cargo bay and, hopefully, drive out the front. Again, hopefully. The only issue I currently have here is that I only have the medium docking ports and not the large ones. Hence, the large-to-medium structural attachment. Shouldn't be too much of an issue, but it is what it is. So now we have the first of several pieces up in orbit!

Unfortunately, the answer is "no". In fact, it was stated that they are actually REMOVING things they are working on from the KERB reports.

Banned for not saying...

Which they claim to have been doing since the game dropped a year ago. It really is time for the team to take the community seriously and work on the stuff we have been complaining about the most. A year for the downgrade at maneuver nodes is simply uncalled for.

Nothing said about the game to this point is more true. While there are fun things to be seen and done in the game, and while there are some limitations that are fun, there are limitations in the game that are not. Core gameplay bugs and camera issues, as examples.

This. All day, every day. The game is going to be different things to different people, and the only way to know if someone thinks it is "worth it" is for them to buy the game, spend 2 hours playing it, and then decide if they want to refund or not. For me, there are both things to like and things to not like. I bought the game day 1 and, although I wished at times I would have refunded, I am glad I did not. If I had, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to see the game evolve into what it is today. Granted, we are still a long ways off from it being completed, and there are still a ton of bugs present (like that stupid one in the VAB that recenters your camera without you telling the game to do that). But to me, it was worth it.

Really? Because you stated: Now, this might not directly be you stating "Hey, they are doing this to kill the game". But based on your other responses in this thread, coupled with latching onto what even Dakota stated was one small comment in Shana's response, it can be reasoned that you do in fact think this is happening with the intent to kill the game. Again, I've asked you to detail what plan you think you've figured out, and you haven't responded. Which means your statement is nothing short of doomerism/the-sky-is-falling hyperbole. Don't get me wrong - I'm not happy with the release schedule either. I fully believe that, after a year and change, we should be getting updates far more often. And I still can't believe that there are issues present in the game that have been there since day 1 AND are part of the core gameplay loop AND don't exist in KSP1. But I'm not a game designer (although I am a software/automation jockey), so I won't proclaim to know how difficult it is to get this stuff working. I don't think it should be all that difficult what with using event/variable watches and poring through code all day long. And it certainly should take precedence over implementing new systems (which means CODERS should be working on this and not working on colonies or interstellar). But intentional? That's a bit out there, even for me. So again, I'll ask: what plan do you think you have figured out here?

It makes all the difference who said it. You are trying to take a comment made by one person out of context and then pin that on someone else. And you also failed to indicate exactly how this is the organization telling us they are intentionally spacing releases to kill the game. You said it yourself - you think you have figured out their plan. So tell us where you are getting this spacing comment and what their plan is.

And if you can tell me why it is called a thagomizer without Google...you'll still get banned.

Shana said that, not Dakota. And I fail to see how this is somehow telling us the company is intentionally spacing releases or stringing us along.

I love that the simple answer anyone ever gets is "You are playing the game wrong". In a game that is all but explicitly defined as being able to play any way you want, making a comment about what someone perceives in the game is simply playing it wrong. Forgive me for not wanting to take 10 minutes to slow down, or that I'd like to have a higher TWR. My bad for thinking that the DSM engines are pointless due to their low TWR. I'm fully aware that a higher ISP in a vacuum means more dV. None of that means I should blindly just agree that the engines are awesome and should be used. I spent 2800 science points to get them; they should give me some benefit that makes me want to use them other than "You may get some fuel efficiency out of them, even though they are heavier and have lower thrust". But, you know, I'm playing the game wrong.

Side Effect: Only in a very specific alternate dimension that you have no way of getting to. Superpower: I can travel into and out of any alternate dimension/reality.