rjbvre

Saying something so condescending and negative about someone, so confidently and with such little information is absolute bananas to me. Just because some YouTube influencers did some "research" and forum members have obsessively scrutinized every pointless scrap of info doesn't mean we have any clue who's to blame. We don't know what the day to day operations were like. We don't know who was pushing for what, or who was expressing doubts. We don't know what was said at meetings. Nobody who was there can apparently talk at the moment. To publicly condemn a man and call for harm to his career based on so little, and while hiding behind a pseudonym, should be embarrassing.

Agreed. I'm still crossing my fingers for some futuristic rockets and other additional parts to be added at the end of the month. I'm not holding my breath, but a man can dream

Also just want to thank the remaining team for plugging away at it. I'm sure things are rough over there, but really appreciate you doing what you can!

Yikes. You'd think there'd be someone in the corporate structure whose job it is to clean that kind of stuff up

If they made a movie I'd go see it haha

I admit I don't know KSP1's dev history super well, but I get the sense that Harvester is to KSP what George Lucas was to Star Wars. You can't get KSP or SW without them, but at the same time they are completely incapable of making it on their own, and you need other people to steer things in the right direction and keep them from ruining it.

I hadn't thought of that. I wonder if there's anything in Steam's EA policy that wouldn't allow it since they posted those in the roadmap for 1.0

Completely agree, that's my guess too. Depending on what they already have, they might try to call it 1.0

I'm going to preface this by saying this argument is moot because I doubt the game has much of a future anyway. Steam was smart enough to give both all time and recent review scores. It's not uncommon at all for games to improve, bring their recent review score up above their all time one, and be successful because of it. Nobody cares if a game used to be terrible if it's good now. Because nobody outside the forums cares. This place has gotten way too self-important. Some guy browsing Steam isn't going to care that you didn't feel the publisher talked to you enough months before the games was fully released. If the game ends up being good word will spread, videos will be on youtube, and people will buy it. Trusting the publisher has nothing to do with it. Everyone hates EA and look how their games sell.

This opinion is pretty common on here so I'm not picking on you personally, but this just isn't how things work. If by some chance the game is saved and they start putting out good updates public perception will turn around. Emotions are running real bad right now, but that's simply because people aren't getting what they want. If they start getting what they want they'll be back to happy in five seconds flat acting like nothing ever happened.

We don't know enough to be sure unfortunately. It doesn't seem likely the game will be developed through the full roadmap, but there is technically a chance if its given to another team. We know the layoffs are scheduled for June 28th so they could spend two months slapping together what they already have and call it 1.0. I'll leave it to you to decide if that's effectively canceled. Worst case is they payed everyone their 2 months' wages, kicked them out of the office and all development ceased forever two weeks ago. Like a lot of things in life we don't know what we don't know, and those details can change things drastically.

Oh absolutely, I'm not arguing that there should be unknown planets or that we shouldn't know their mass and orbits (or other info that can be derived from them) at the start of the game. But even if we say day 1 is equivalent to about 1960, which I find more fitting, we still knew very, very little about most of the planets, and next to nothing about the moons. I am arguing that revealing additional info through exploration and/or science would be a realistic and fulfilling game mechanic. One that could easily be turned off in settings by those people who don't want it.

I agree with the basic idea of your post that it's possible and historical to know the orbits and sometimes the mass of planets fairly accurately without sending a probe there or using a space telescope. In 1769 we didn't even know that Uranus or Neptune existed though, nevermind their distance or mass. We hadn't observed Phobos or Deimos yet either so we really only knew the mass of Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn. 3 out of 8 is a far cry from all planets.

Docking is a primary purpose for RCS yes, but you missed mid course corrections, emergency maneuvers, and backup deorbit burns (there are others, but they really don't apply to KSP). My Eve return lander which I dock to a mothership would absolutely benefit from larger thrusters. And there are more scenarios than just larger ship/smaller ship. That mother ship I docked it to was constructed in orbit from relatively equal halves, both of which were sluggish and annoying to maneuver with current thrusters. Even if we leave out futuristic designs, and focus entirely on copies of current/past spacecraft we're left with ships that vary in mass over several orders of magnitude. Are you really arguing that one size of RCS thruster makes sense for this? Is there a gameplay benefit to limiting players like this? Do you think it mirrors real life spacecraft?

Are you under the impression that rcs is only for rotations around the short axis, or that any of us are currently building interstellar ships?