Scarecrow71

To me it sounds like you've got something personal against project managers. None of what you said gives any reason why or explanation for what is happening with Haveli or what their structure is going to be. None of it. Everything you said is speculation and conjecture with no substance other than "Ape not hurt ape". Don't get me wrong - the wrong people in the right position can hurt a project more than a good person in the wrong position. I don't disagree that projects need to be managed by the right people. But that is a discussion for a way different thread well into the future after we know what is going to happen here.

Anything is possible. You might not have a lot of upper tier tech, but that shouldn't stop you. If you have docking ports, you can build a craft in orbit powerful enough to get you to Eeloo and back. Just gotta think outside the box!

Eeloo. Bring your ice skates.

That's not really an indicator of future success though, is it? I mean, that's what Take Two did with Intercept Games, and look how that turned out.

They don't own the servers that the site was originally hosted on, so to save costs they moved it to servers they do own. Or at least have a financial stake in.

While I don't disagree that the devs continued to ask for more time, and they were in fact given as much as they asked for (prior to the studio closure, that is), I don't think that being given all that time was the whole problem here. Yes, they absolutely should have done more with the time they were given. And there is no doubt that it is part of the problem. But not the whole problem. Remember that they were limited in who they could talk to about KSP1 and the issues therein, as well as being constantly hit with scope creep and indecisiveness on the part of what the entire vision of the project was. Then again, I could very well be wrong here as I wasn't part of the internal discussions on what was going on. I think it's pretty safe to assume that we all would have done something differently. That is the beauty of hindsight, after all. For myself, I think I would have had Nate and team scale back the vision several years earlier, probably be removing the promise of multiplayer until core systems were online and functioning. And I don't think any of us would have released this into EA when they did. I believe one of the major issues TTI had with this whole debacle is that they were focused entirely too much on GTA. Don't get me wrong - GTA is the cash cow of all cash cows for TTI, and it deserves the primary focus. But I think they went a little too far with it, giving it all the attention and nurturing it needed at the expense of KSP (and several other titles/studios). You have to grow your golden goose, but you shouldn't do it blindly at the expense of everything else you have. I liken this to television series. Sometimes you have a great idea, put a pilot together, get green-lit for a season, and viewership is so terrible you have to cancel it. And then recycle the idea into a different TV show (or include elements of it in something already running). If KSP ever uses micro-transactions, that would be the final death knell of the franchise. There were conversations a couple years ago about potentially including them - from the forum members, not the developers - and the overwhelming sentinment in that thread was that people here simply would not play the game if it included micro- or crypto-based transactions in the game. I can't speak for anyone else, but if the franchise at any point ever comes out with micro-transactions, I'll put the entire franchise on the shelf. It's already bad enough that I've got KSP1 just sitting there not doing anything because I'm taking a break from it, and I refuse to fire up KSP2 due to how horrible it is. But I'll gladly dump both of them (and by dump I mean uninstall KSP1 and remove all traces of both from my PC AND the mod I created for KSP2 from Spacedock and Git) if micro-transactions ever appear in the franchise. That's me; I am not saying anyone else has to do that. You do you. Well, part of the bridge burning was them sitting on the franchise for several months with no communication prior to the studio shutdown, followed by several more months of sitting on it prior to the "leak" about the sale of the studio. Sitting on it is what partially caused a lot of the bad blood between the community and TTI. I'm not saying it wouldn't be better than it is, but rather that part of the reason it's so bad is because they sat on it and didn't let anyone know what was happening. If anything was happening at all.

Evolution, the board game. I am screwed. I will either be an herbivore and get eaten, or I'll be a carnivore and all other species will be protected from attack. I die either way!

I scrape the plate into the trash. Trashed hill.

Banned for altering the Fallout mascot for your avatar.

Not indicating the page is new is cheating!

Because there is no living room sink. If you open a bag of cotton balls, are you supposed to throw the first one in the trash?

Granted. You design a dragon, and then become a 2 dimensional drawn copy of that dragon. You are then shredded. I wish to be a paper shredder.

0/10 because there are all kinds of life forms that live on Earth that are not human. Or even earth, assuming you meant dirt and not the planet. In which case, that becomes -10/10 because you can't even distinguish between dirt and a planetary body. I am human because I know the difference between dirt and a celestial body.

Banned foe being squared and not cubed. EDIT: New Page.

Micro-Engineer kind of does this, but not to the extent that you want. It certainly doesn't give you after-the-fact output, but it cannhelp you with the up-front. This is actually a really great idea, especially as far as new players are concerned. Another great idea. I think this is where they were headed with the radio signal stuff on Mun, Minmus, Duna, and Tylo...but they never really got there.

While I was surprised to see it confirmed, I am not surprised that we only found out about the new owners because it was leaked. To hear that they weren't ready to tell us anything wasn't all that surprising considering how used to getting no communication we've become.

Did you intentionally skip over the part where I mentioned to try running current graphics on ancient hardware? Because that's my entire point. Hardware is a hindrance to better graphics. We can't run better graphics on bad hardware.

It's a hindrance until you have the right hardware. The literal definition of hindrance: a thing that provides resistance, delay, or obstruction to something or someone:

Apart from hardware, that is. I mean, take the graphics from a 9th gen game and try running it on a 1st gen console. Being able to improve the graphics does not necessarily mean you have the actual hardware needed to run them. Now, I agree that hardware wasn't (or at least shouldn't have been) KSP2's issue, which makes your statement true from that perspective. But you have to take hardware into account when determining whether or not it is feasible to update graphics.

Life Support isn't an issue of adding stuff on top to make it a new game. It's nothing more than a mechanic for seriously hardcore players that will punish new players (and players like me who don't want that functionality). I don't know what's so difficult about making it an option. Like, if it has to be added, why can't we have a setting where we can turn it off if we want to? Yes, Colonies can be looked at exactly the same as stations. Just on the ground. Ok, so we will only add the things you want, like Life Support and Radiation, but not anything you don't want, like Colonies. The rest of the user/player base be damned. Got it.

I cannot stress enough how this would wreck the game as a core mechanic. New players are going to be turned off by the complexity of having to learn this and deal with it while also trying to learn orbital mechanics and engineering and math. It exists as a mod in KSP1, and that is all fine and dandy because then the people who want it can have it. But as a core gameplay mechanic that can't be turned off? A section of the community would never agree to wanting this, and some of those people - myself included - would never pick the game up again. Our community is small enough as it is; we don't need reasons to scare people away. Resources have to matter. You touched on electricity/power, but I was honestly hoping the game would go further into "You need to unlock this technology so you can mine this resource so you can create this part/fuel/whatever". Kind of like Civilization III (as an example, and which I'm spending far too much time with lately), where you have to unlock The Wheel so the map can show you where the Horses are, at which point you need to have them not only in your controlled territory, but then have a road to them so you can use them. This is something KSP2 was sorely lacking (although I recognize there were a host of other things that needed to be fixed/dealt with before they got this far). Again, this is too hardcore for new players. "You mean I can't do a Jool 5 because all of the Kerbals on board are going to die of old age and we have no way of replacing them mid-mission?" Think about that for a few seconds. If your Kerbals die mid-flight due to your own piloting error, that's one thing. Randomized non-gamer errors such as radiation or old age? That's punishing players for not out-smarting the game. I'll take this a step further and say the game should remove parts that are no longer needed or outdated. There is no point in showing the Ant when the Spider is better, especially if you are always going to choose the Spider over the Ant. Now, I can see an argument for not doing that because some players are going to use all the parts no matter what they have unlocked. But if we could at least have the option to hide the outdated ones based on tech unlocks? That would be keen. I'll take this one step further. If I have 2 tanks stacked on top of each other, say a pair of T400s, I think the fuel should drain from the top tank FIRST before any fuel is drained from the bottom tank. On planets you have gravity that acts to pull the fuel down from the top, but in space you'd have pumps to push the fuel from the top of the stack to the bottom where the engine(s) reside(s). And when transferring fuel, I should just be able to select the stack and drain it all at once, not have 1000 open part windows to transfer the fuel. Or just have 1 window so I can select the tank to go into and the tank(s) to come out from. At a minimum Colonies could have been used as extra-Kerbinular launch sites. Windows would be way different if you were going from Duna to Dres (for example), but the fuel requirements would also be far less than coming from Kerbin. And opening the ability to launch from places outside of Kerbin itself - which you can do with mods in KSP1 - would have been pretty neat. "Ok, so on Kerbin I need 3600 m/s to get to orbit, but here on Laythe I only need 3200". Again, as an example of launch requirements. You could then also use the colony as a refueling site, reducing the amount of fuel and weight you need to get to your final destination. Are you thinking of doing a Jool 5? Would be keen if you could stop along the way and refuel. Or pick up tourists/extra crew. Or perhaps you damaged your command module along the way and need to repair it?

Yeah, I worded it badly. I should have clarified that if you wanted better parts to make it easier then you need to do X. But if you can pull it off early, go for it. My bad!

@Mr. Kerbin That is simply punishing players for no reason, though. New players will build a rocket, see the fuel, and go "Hey, I can ignore feeding them". And then, as soon as they get hit with a penalty to science collection - even if warned about it ahead of time - they will get angry and quit. I am still a firm believer that if it can be toggled on/off, then add it. But please don't force its use on us. That will simply turn off a large portion of the community from the game.

I've got a few things I would like to see. Some of these @Pthigrivi touched on above. 1. Strip out multiplayer. It just really unnecessarily complicates the entire development of the game as all systems have to be created with this in mind. I know that MP is wanted by a lot of people in the community, and maybe at some point one of the nods from KSP1 could get a treatment here. But to actually get the game created within reasonable expectations and dates? I don't think MP is possible. 2. Overhaul Science mode. We can all agree that what was implemented was a dumbed-down version of what KSP1 has. Which didn't go over very well. What i would like to see is a tech tree based in accomplishment, not clicking a button and getting a non-zero point total to spend. For example, if you want to go suborbital, first you have to do X flights in the atmosphere. OK, now you want to go to the Mun? First you gotta do X orbital flights. And you can apply the same thing to newer pieces of tech. You want wings that reduce drag better than what you have? Maybe fly a weather balloon and take wond speed readings, or put specific wings through wind tunnel exercises. These are examples, but you can extrapolate. 3. Overhaul Missions. As pointed out above, going from "Launch a rocket" to "Land at this exact spot on the Mun" in a couple flights was just way too fast. And landing on Tylo immediately after Duna? A lot of people never even leave Kerbin's SOI, so this is just a major stretch. Slow things down a bit. Get people to explore. Don't force flights to the Jool system right away. In fact, there aren't any missions to the inner planets (or is there one to Eve?). Or Dres. We have a while system to explore. Let's go explore it. I have to disagree with adding Life Support. I think it just overly complicates the game, especially for new players. I can honestly say that if this was in KSP1 I probably would have never played more than a flight or two. Imagine a player new to the game wondering why their Kerbals all die all the time, and then realizing they need to deal with that on top of everything else.

Well, it technically is in orbit of Kerbin, insofar as the Mun is in orbit of Kerbin, and the satellite is in a suborbital flight of the Mun. Unfortunately, them's the breaks. Sucks, really. This is why I always use the Tracking Station to see where potential contracts are before I pick them up. Your best bet is to hope it survives impact.