tetryds

Estou jogando IronMan mode. Muito bom, o Jeb ainda está bem vivo. Nunca pensei que fosse algum dia fazer um sistema de abort em um foguete, haha. Ainda não precisei usar, mas tá lá.

Download finished!!!! Omg im gonna die

Updateeeee

Its commminggg

Its comming!

But they already do that.

Eu sei como pode ser ruim não ter respostas, mas nesse caso eu estou esperando a história toda pra ler de uma vez só, daí não preciso esperar. Parece muito boa.

Yes there is, it's called bankruptcy. And that's exactly what we are suggesting. You can't "fail" as an individal, but a business can.

We are not requesting it now, nor that it should be forced, we just want it.

I could not agree more. Never underestimate KSP players. As I quote myself: "If we feared failure we would not be playing KSP." All I want is please, let me fail. edit: plus the fact that simply by leaving the quickload option activated you could rewind the mission which can have led you to a unfixable disaster.

This^ Just bringing this up once more: You can take the risk once, and fail. Take it again, and fail. Take it a third time, and fail again. Then you get on a situation where you can't afford a fourth fail. There, you take your risk for real, or go for something easier. Fourth was an example, the best you are the more "fallback rep" you would have.

So, KN_Namida, what you want is not "planned features" but "considered features. And see how if you don't see some of them would make you disapointed? Now if they openly considered something else you would expect it, and if it ends up not being in the game then you would get disapointed.

I am pretty sure that modding is not a waste even if what's in the mod gets added one week after it's release. Just note how DMP is still being developed even knowing that official KSP MP will come. That does not justify. We have heard about scope completion for this 0.24 update, there is nothing else that game changing other than multiplayer to stop any modder from doing anything. Also, having more parts don't make mods that adds parts useless. Having the development like this, and without release dates have pros and cons: Pros: We get the releases right after they are set as releases, and don't have to wait much longer. We don't know what to expect and let them impress us. They don't have hard deadlines to follow thus droping the quality. Anything can be changed for fun. Cons: People think that this is a non-professional approach, but still want them to show more of what they are doing (?). Possible delays on planned release dates even when they are not explicit. The more you openly tell what is being done, the bigger impact when the feature is changed/droped. Also, we always knew we would have missions. We always knew we would have more planets. We always knew some day multiplayer will come. But if any of that was changed it would be okay, the way it's being done. From a business perspective, the development is already too open, IMO. You never get "we fixed bug X today" from most games development (if any). Edit: you won't break a promisse if you don't make it. We were not promissed anything when we bougt the game other than what was on it at the state it was.

I agree with stupid_chris, we have more to lose than earn with this. It's not because it's an indie game that it has to be totally open for everyone to see what is going on. SQUAD is a company that offers us a product (that is awesome), not our mates. The community management and devblogs are great, and I like to know what is going on, a lot. But aparently it gives the false impression that they should be more open. And I cannot see anything further than that being beneficial. They already tell us what they are working next, and which steps they are taking, we knew money would come since ages ago. But it's not of our consent to know which bug are causing the delay of the release. Also, the developent seem almost unpredictable, for the size of the game it's required that every update tastes like a finished game, then move on. So, continue posting your ideas and help with the development that way, we already get what we need.

Omg no posts here, did it update???

KSP never failed on reaching that balance, I would not be worried about that.

Yeah, we can't wait for KSP 2.4.502

Nothing is fast enough that can't have moar boosterz added.

Here: http://steamdb.info/app/220200/history/

That's why I think Science mode is more suitable for learning.

Yes, but it's not one failure and you are doomed either, making failure possible doesn't mean making failure easy. But letting you decide how hard you want to pull it for profit seems reasonable to me.

Crap, I broke my F6. Your turn, F7. Dem macros.

Yes, what I am trying to mean is that "taking risks" should be what it stands for. If you have almost nothing and are too ambitious, and fail, you should be severely punished for that. New players will go for easier missions, the star system makes clear how hard a mission is. So, if I start a game, pick something with three stars rather than something with one star and the game trows a "GAME OVER" at me, I will just retry and try an easier contract.