Wjolcz

About bringing @bac9 back, so he could use his magical powers and create more of this instead of what we have now. Just look at that R&D and its particle accelerator! Why can't we have it? whyyyyyyyyyy ;_;

Ooooh, that actually explains a lot.

Will this be a necro if I say that I'm really not satisfied with how the career mode works and it's the main reason I am constantly avoiding playing the game because of the lack of sense of achievement in career? And I guess I could just play sandbox, but the only thing I do in sandbox is build airplanes. I have no motivation to go anywhere beyond LKO, simply because I've been to most of the places. And it's not the "burnt out" syndrome people talk about from time to time. The career mode feels like sanbox with restrains, a linear tech tree and random quests. It's not like you can choose your path and decide what you want do next. I want to do what I've done in sanbox many times, but can't, simply because I have to grind for science in order to finish the tree. The contracts are also too random and most of the strategies useless. Call it a necro, a rant, a whine or feedback. Just want to let know that I am not satisfied with the career mode after all this time and all the "tweaks" made to it. It needs a re-write IMO.

I agree. Any planning tool would be great for this game. Aww man, we will never agree on these two. The first one: making certain biomes have percentage bonuses won't make landing on bodies any more appealing. In fact, it will result in players visiting the biomes with the high yield only. The whole science gathering system should go right out of the window and into the trash. The second one: Yes for cool surface objects, canyons and more bodies with craters like the ones Mun has, but as stated above the science system where points are gathered is broken and will never be balanced. Unless it's completely remade, of course. I agree. The experiments are boring and repetitive. Also more experiments. I wish we had programs in the career mode, where building an actual infrastructure based around a planetary body/moon is actually meaningful (provides reputation as long as it's maintained and expanded). I think that would be more involving than just landing, spam-clicking science, warping 'til the launch window to go back home opens, landing and recovering. I actually want to care about my bases, stations and interplanetary ships and be rewarded for doing so. Right now the career feels like "launch, harvest science/complete a random side-quest, go back, repeat". That's not how a KSP career experience should look like. This would also be awesome to have.

How does that licensing actually work? Was the code really donated or did SQUAD pay money for it? Can't it be simply donated or paid for again and included into KSP? I would assume there's a different team working on KerbalEDU, but aren't both things properties of SQUAD, or something?

I feel like this one is actually caused by the lack of on-screen information that should be in KSP from the beginning (TWR, dV, burn time and all that jazz).

Aren't the thrust tweakables a thing though?

Nah, I don't think it should ever be a thing. Maybe it's realistic, but the game is meant to aim for the same expeerience for everyone. And it also sounds a RPG-ish and that's something I'm very much against in KSP. Having to deal with KXP in stock is already pretty annoying. Also think about all the ships/vessels you would build in KSP. Changing the stats of engines would probably render previous designs unusable, or at least annoying to deal with. An upgrade mechanic based on "taking some of that and giving some more of that instead" would force people to redesign projects that worked perfectly before the upgrade. It's even more problematic if there are no tools provided to automatically calculate dV, TWR, burn time and stuff like that.

Well, yeah, I think I got carried away a bit there. It certainly isn't "broken" or "unplayable" but it's really hard and, at least for me, not enjoyable to play it without having all the displays and options KER and KAC offer. That's pretty much what I've been doing since 1.0. There's a reason for that (at least in my case): I've been to most of the planets/moons in KSP's sandbox mode (before the career update) already and I would like to do it again, but I'm not satisfied with the quality of the career mode. I would simply like to explore the solar system again, but the career mode doesn't offer a proper and enjoyable way to do it. I disagree and I actually didn't mean it that way. I feel like I was misunderstood, but it's also my fault as I didn't express it correctly and used the wrong words. dV and TWR display is actually a tool not a new shiny part. It enables everyone WHO WISH TO LEARN using it to enjoy the game and build structures otherwise challenging to build (space shuttle for example) without going through the frustrating process of trial-and-error which becomes even more frustrating when performed in career mode save. I feel like it's the main reason why the career is so forgiving and not as interesting as it could be with a few simple tools like dV/TWR displays and some sort of alarm clock. Regarding the "old game mechanics": What I meant here was the career mode and the way it works. IMO an addition of the aforementioned tools could enable drawing a clear line between the sandbox and career modes. There are also a few other things me and others would like to propose and can be found here. I didn't say that and I actually wouldn't. What I meant is that during the 1.0 "release" the game still lacked a proper and enjoyable career mode and the look of the parts was clearly not consistent. Not to mention at least simplified KER and KAC tools. And yes, I know some players won't apprieciate having them, but I would. Anyway, they would be there to either be ignored or used. Choice of playstyles, I guess. Eh, no more talk about KER and KAC, I swear. And I'm going to disagree on this bit too. The so called "bones" are not what I would call bones. If I were to refer to biology a bit more I would call the science and career mode a bunch embryos of ideas bouncing around. They are simple, don't have any bones and can't be easily distinguished from each other and also I feel like I went way too deep with that metaphore. Well, yeah. I don't want to sound like a whiny and ignorant child, but I think there's still room for improvement and I wouldn't mind if some things were almost completely scratched and rewritten (mainly talking about the career mode). I was actually very, very happy about that. I don't care my saves got corrupted. It was a good change. It was a very Ragnarok-like experience. I would really like see another update like that focusing on redoing the career mode this time. First - hard to say. Been playing since 0.11. I also don't always play on Steam (that's why I can't check, but the last time I saw it was like 150 hours, or so since I've transfered the game to the platform) because of multiple game copies on my PC. I think it's enough if I say I consider myself a KSP veteran. Second - 15 USD. Might not be much in the US, but where I live you can feed a family of four for two days having for that amount of money. I don't want to sound stingy, but yeah, there's your anwser, I guess. I don't feel like it's the matter of that though. It's a great dev team and I enjoyed the game so far, but I'm a bit worried about the future. Someday the game will stop be profitable and will be abandoned. I am aware of that, but I have a feeling the development might end prematurely and the game will never fully bloom, which would be a real shame and a sad thing to witness.

I actually don't. I think they are doing great, but they are not focusing on the right thing. As if they didn't have any long-term plans and the idea of how the game should look like. The Goliath engine looks great, but the career mode not so much. That's what I'm doing all the time in the S&DD subforum. Simply adding new and shiny parts to a broken game won't make it finished. And that's what's been happening for a while now. A finished product is when the basic idea is fully implemented and made playable/usable. The game is nowhere near playable in stock. I guess we could discuss about if playable means "going interplanetary" or "guessing, building and exploding". Well, it certainly is. If you don't want to go interplanetary or know the exact dV, that is. Most KSP players don't even go interplanetary, because of the lack of basic information (there's the thread somewhere about it). I guess we all could just yell "Do the math like I do!" at them, but the problem is they won't. It's easier to download KER and KAC. I know. I'm one of them. And again: simply releasing new things without fixing the old game mechanics doesn't make a game "better" or "finished". I thought that 1.0 meant that the game is "feature complete", but appearantly I'm wrong. I just don't want KSP to become the second Minecraft, where the dev team got reduced/replaced and features that were previously worked on abandoned. Simply adding MOAR STUFF instead of finishing and fixing what should've been fixed won't make the game anywhere near good. I regret spending money on Minecraft and I don't want to regret spending money on KSP.

I feel like I lost the clue about what we were talking here. Is that a personal opinion? I'd like to know the actual number of people who play with KER/MJ installed and the ones who don't. Also how many of those who never did still play the game. I am fully aware of that and don't think it will ever be possible, but the fact is the game is still unfinished. I'm just curious how much time did it take to implement that in KerbalEDU and if the code of the "basic" KSP differs so much that simply "copying-and-pasting" that part of code is not possible. I mean, it probably isn't, given there was a complete UI overhaul (code-wise, as far as I am concenred). If so, then I'm ok with waiting 'til 1.5. Mainly because an unfinished product is being released to a platform which doesn't include the ability to modify the game, thus rendering it difficult to play, because of the state it is in. Though I guess I might be mistaken. Maybe the console release was simply rushed because there a demand for it. I just don't want to see devnote saying "There's the dV and console version for you! Our work here is done!". I really, really hope it's true and nothing unusual.

I must have missed them then.

I really hope it's true. I haven't seen the new team in action, though. That's what fuels my concenrs about the future of the game.

Very poorly implemented. It's OK. It sure is better than it used to be. Meh. Never asked for it and still wondering why it's being implemented. I'm sure they are, but the game still leaves many (including me) wishing for a proper overhaul. Oh, really? I thought the exact same thing, but then saw this. All I'm saying is I'm concerned about what's been happening recently. Not trying to bring chaos to the forums, nor spread false rumours.

I have a feeling that this game is either going to be soon abandoned by the devs, or getting a MASSIVE and very needed overhaul some time soon. Here's why: -The original team has been disappearing for a while now, but some time ago we witnessed 3 members leaving (one of them lead dev). Maybe they know something we don't and they decided that it's time to abandon the ship, or maybe it's just a coincidence. If it's the "abandon ship!" scenario, then they probably didn't want to be associated with a game that is soon going to be abandoned and never finished. Who would want a coder with such a thing on their resume? -The game has been released on consoles. To me KSP is no console game material and is probably nowhere near playable with a pad. Yes, they were always saying they wanted to release it on as many platforms as possible, but the console release almost overlaps the leave of Ted, Harv and Dan. That means it's either a "grab the cash 'n' leave" scenario, or a coincidence again. BUT! what it can also mean is the game is going to get an overhaul. Why? Because the console players are not able to install mods (unless it's actually possible. I don't own any of these next gen consoles so my information might be lacking). What that means is all the needed, essential and most popular stuff will finally become stock (hooray for KER, Strategia and Kerbal Alarm Clock!). So to conclude: don't get me wrong. I try to be rational and I'm not a "Rocket fuel can't melt I-beams" type of guy (who am I to judge that, though? Maybe I've just become one by posting this?). It's just a feeling I'm having right now. Maybe I'm wrong and nothing happens, maybe the devs will keep adding things and listening to the community as they always have.

Really?

I don't need them, but if they become can become a thing then why the hell not?

An electric prop engine would be great to have in stock, besides it's more realistic than RAPIER, simply because it already exists and is fully functional.

Wouldn't that cause grind though? If programs are unlocked with rep you need to rise your rep to unlock them instead of performing previous programs. This means that if you want to make the good ones appear you would have to grind for rep, as they only appear when a certain amount is achieved? Though it might be a case of simply balancing it, I guess.

There's something I think we forgot to discuss: Surface Bases and Space Stations. Let's say there's a program that asks you to build a base on the surface of Duna. The program doesn't end with simply placing a base there that can hole up to X crew members. The last mission would be to bring the crew back. The problem with this is the reward decay may cause some problems if the game doesn't take phase angles into account. So let's say the base lands and the crew is brought down to it. Now there are a bunch of filler missions to be completed before they go back home (drive a rover there, pick a sruface sample over here, bury the rtg on a top of that hill, etc.). After some time the planets align and the crew is sent back home in their mothership. Now the problem here is: if the reward decay drops with time you either do the filler missions (I assume each one of them bumps the program's rep reward back to 100%, or so), or you don't do them and accept the minimum rep reward for the program (50%?). There's also a problem when the crew is on their way home, where they can't perform any Duna-related missions. If that is the case the reward drops even though the Duna Surface Base Program was a complete success. That's why I would prefer @monstah's rep bar idea, where the rep can't go below a certain level when a program is active. EDIT: IMO the programs should be unlockable (instead of being based on the amount of rep), akin to how the tech tree works (branch out). That way they are always available. By tying them directly to reputation you have a chance of losing your REP by killing your crew, thus losing current programs. Then you would have to go through the previous ones to unlock them again. EDIT 2: Done editing!

A proper career overhaul perhaps? I like some of your ideas and the things you've pointed out. I feel like the main problem with this is the way the career mode works. We have a linear tech tree and no reason to build a real infrastructure because of reandomly generated contracts. You go to a place once and then there's no reason to go there again. If we were able to research things without going through the ridiculous steps we are offered by the tech tree there would be more freedom + setting our own objectives and goals by picking long-term programs would give even more freedom and influence a unique playstyle. But that's kind of offtopic. I'm not saying weather effects wouldn't work well, but maintaining surface bases, rovers, outopsts and whatever the heck can be landed and maintained should be a part of the game too.

This. I'd love to see KAS-like ground anchors (or pylons? the concrete ones that are buried in the ground, not sure what they are called). They are great for building bases.

I'd prefer KAS

You would want a proper career overhaul for that. There are so many ways to make planets and moons so much more interesting by setting specific task on the surfaces of planets. The problem is we have to deal with random contracts instead of setting the goals ourselves.

The lack of a proper career mode.