Stargate525

...what... what is... what is your PLAN with those? Are you trying to initiate fusion?!

On the first question... It depends on your style. My ships tend to be around 200 parts. On the other hand, I'm sure that you can manage to get pretty much anywhere with only a hundred parts at a time (though you'd need to do a TON of docking). Comes down to your play style. And yes, game is workable anywhere. It's a simple .exe file structure, deliciously DRM-free.

They have to release while someone's 'at the helm' so they can handle it if we all pile onto the download server and crush it. My guess is some time in the afternoon, Squad local. My personal 'release date' in my mind is 'I'll be able to play it when I wake up Wednesday.' Anything I get to do on Tuesday between an afternoon release and download time is gravy. Delicious, spacey science gravy.

Of course! It was invented by a friend and I after about the fiftieth time we argued for a half hour over something, just to realize we were misunderstanding each others' definitions and terms. Agreed! Once they put out some clarification, I fully intend to write a similar PM (or perhaps an open letter, who knows) stating my personal opinion on it and apologizing for any anger I may have caused. I don't expect it to be treated like a list of demands, I just hope that I can helpfully contribute.

To be frank, no you don't. HEAR ME OUT! We're having an agreegument. I'm not accusing the people with the view you have just stated of whining and insulting. In that either/or you quoted, you are FIRMLY in the former category. I'm talking to the people who see your opinion, which tells me you are in that former category, and TELL YOU as a counterpoint that you are actually doing the latter. What I'm trying to say there is that I don't see how someone can simultaneously lump a person into the group of 'a complaining whiner who hates Squad' and 'I respect Squad and am disappointed they've fallen short of what I feel that they can accomplish.' It seems to me that some people are claiming we should hold Squad to no standards whatsoever, and simply be happy with whatever they throw us. I don't get that.

Eh. If the boosters are small, and not strutted to anything, the radial decouplers generally have enough force for me. As an example, one of my lifters has got eight 1.25m booster assemblies on detachment manifolds around an orange tank. Those get away right quick even without the sepratrons.

Do you remember how much you loved the teacher in grade school (we all had one) who punished the entire class because of one or two students? That's what they would be doing to an entire fanbase. And, I'm confused. The who feel betrayed had TOO HIGH of an opinion of Squad...? Either we have high opinions and are holding them to that, or we are complaining and whining and insulting them, calling them incompetent, etcetera.* You can't have it both ways. Pick one. *Since I've been misunderstood about this twice, at least, let me make it clear. I have utmost respect for squad. I have never called them incompetent, nor have I intentionally insulted them. I hold them to high standards.

I do on occasion. If your radial boosters need to be strutted for stability, breaking those connections cancels any outward push the decoupler gives. I use the mini SRBs to get those boosters away from my main engine and avoid a collision. Strapping a bunch to my final launch stage before the payload allows me to circularize with it and not leave it in orbit. That little bit of extra dV usually gets it into a skimming atmosphere encounter, and cleans up my orbits. I also use them for my spaceplane abort sequences to get the cockpit away from the plane which is, usually, on a flat spin of death. EDIT: Using them, put them on the same stage as the decoupler you want them to fire with. They'll fire and burn their entire duration without actually being on your vessel.

Or the orbital construction mod and build it up there!

Unabled, that's very similar to the conclusion I've drawn as well. Hopefully there will be something... er... later today that clears this up some more. This was not intended to be a resources/multiplayer thread, but it keeps getting dragged there. Pity, as I think that the other discussion is (fortunately not nearly as pressing) still an interesting and relevant one to have.

Nah nah, redesign the ball so you can drive the rover INTO it.

On that I entirely agree. And here, in this thread, I'm not on either side. It's irrelevant. As I've said about other things elsewhere in my life, I might disagree with your side, but I will fight alongside you tooth and nail for the ability of that side to exist. It spurs discussion and debate and, hopefully, a better outcome for all involved.

Closest I've ever come was a comms satellite do a 1.5km flyby while I was running docking maneuvers on my space station. Freaked me the heck out, but no damage. In-atmosphere, I've had spent return tanks drop onto my capsule's head, sail within inches of one of the windows... I've also had a booster from a failed launch careen out of control and wipe out a spaceplane I had left parked on the runway.

You're right, I'm not paying 60$. But I haven't paid 60$ for a non-AAA game in years. That is simply not the price point for this game at all, even in a finished state. I paid nineteen, if I recall rightly, which is on par with other similar games that ARE complete. I knew the state of the game, but I also knew that this was constantly being updated, to turn into: 'a game where the players create and manage their own space program. Build spacecraft, fly them, and try to help the Kerbals to fulfill their ultimate mission of conquering space.' That is their own statement on the front page. You're telling me that I and other purchasers don't have any right to decide whether they have fulfilled that or not? I'm not 'in on' anything. That would imply I have some sort of development control. Which I don't have. What I think they said was 'we have this game concept, and this proof of concept beta. We take your money to help get it finished, and you get access to our development betas.' Funny, I'm not calling your opinion pretentious B.S. Please try not to sling mud. I. Am. Not. ASKING. For. A. Boardroom. Seat. I am asking who the devs are accountable to, if not the community that has funded them these past two years? So we go back to the status quo of every other consumer industry. I'm confused why you think we're supposed to hate that. After all, they seem to have an excellent track record. There's a difference between 'not happy' and 'could be happier.' I'm looking forward to .23, and I will, no doubt, keep playing this game. What I'm primarily sick of is this notion that despite having contributed materially to this game's development, the community is supposed to simply sit down and shut up and ride along. Fair enough. I'll try to explain it better. I don't think that they need to make every dev decision a popular vote. Nor do I think that they can take money on a beta product, ignore feedback, and produce whatever they want at a whim. I do not think we are at either of those extremes. I don't expect to agree with all of their decisions, but I do expect to at least see a rationale. I'm more than happy to wait for said thing. What I'm primarily trying to do is make the case that that expectation is actually something I can be expected to... expect. I have no argument with this. This was not supposed to be a multiplayer/resources thread, as you know. I am trying to jive the idea of pre-paying for an in-development game with any other form of consumer market, and whether we have any authority, as consumers, do decide whether promises are made or implied in a pre-purchase like this. Since the investment analogy clearly blew up in my face, I'll try another one. Let's say we bought a sofa from a furniture maker, a new style they hadn't done before, and have no floor models of (a game concept). They've showed us the framework and their facilities to prove they can actually make furniture (the beta and demo). They offer us a discount if we buy now, and as a bonus we get to watch them make the sofa (play said demos). Now, assuming that that analogy holds. Do we have the option, as the buyers of that sofa, to point out that this sofa is beginning to look awfully like a dining room table, complain that they seem to have left out the left arm of the sofa, or should we be content when other buyers say to us 'well, they never really PROMISED you a sofa, you know...' I'm not asking that they do. At this point you can either relax and wait for Monday or Tuesday for the added details they said were forthcoming.

This is what this thread was originally about. Are we a playerbase, or are we a massive pool of beta testers? Yes, but what they HAVEN'T been doing is asking us to pay for it while they're still developing it. Since they are, they have NO product to show us except these betas and their eventual vision of the complete game. That is what they're selling us: the promised full version. So what are we, then? Can you honestly say that this game would exist without the playerbase having bought in from .13 onwards? In the past, this cost and risk was assumed by the publishers and game companies. Now, it's being assumed by us. Should we not get a little bit of the oversight that they enjoy? I don't think anyone is arguing for Squad to turn the game into an open-source democracy. We aren't demanding they get our approval, just explain themselves and what they're doing with our money.

The same thing they mean on Earth. MONEY. I doubt you'll get to mine Kerbin, but you blast to the moon to get the materials you need to sell to finance your mission to Duna. OR You blast to the mun and build a place to refuel, so that you don't have to keep launching 400 part monstrosities or a dozen refueling trips from Kerbin, wasting you time and money in launches. OR You blast to the mun and build a permanent science station, which is run by the stuff around them and never needs to be resupplied. OR You blast to the mun and build another launch pad, which lets you get to Jool and all that science that much easier. Or any number of other reasons.

From another thread: Does this mean that resources are gone completely? Why is this out of your scope, but something you had said for two years was not only out of scope but IMPOSSIBLE, suddenly a main focus? As for EULAs... They're to prevent frivolous lawsuits and have a questionable track record in court. Because they can do something does not mean that they should, and the only thing that 'we never promise updates' term in there does is prevent customers from suing them over broken dev promised updates. That does not mean that 'look at this stuff we're making' does not imply that it's actually going to show up in the game.

Wouldn't water be the most ideal? Split it out, and you send the hydrogen into the engine and the oxygen into the crew compartment. Then, couldn't you shove the 'used' oxygen (in the form of CO2) into the engine as well? Obviously, graphite and all, regular oxygen would lead to Oroborus of the NERVA, but CO2 is already chemically stable.

This. A thousand times this.

mine was probably shaking Dudfry off his eva seat, getting his helmet stuck in the rigging, and being dragged straight into the side of the VAB.

I'm not trying to make policy, I'm disagreeing with a decision and saying so, hoping that I'll be heard. Then in that case I'll shut up. How should I have gone about it?

And listening to the video that was linked here (I admit the only thing I watched of the Kon was Kurt), I didn't see anything that says that resources aren't in the 'once we finish career mode.' I'm with you 100%, and still curious whether the initial gut feeling I had of a betrayal was justified or not, assuming that what it was caused by is true.

Yes! This! I cannot wait to be able to make my science rover-plane actually be able to move around a bit without having to jury-rig rover wheels to be useable but not pop on landing.

...Alright, fine. Personally, I want resources in the game. I'm disappointed that they aren't being added (if they aren't, which I'm also finding more and more unlikely), and believe that I have every right to make that opinion heard to the devs until they make an acknowledgement. I also find their announcement of multiplayer so soon after a mod finally gets it to work, and that they first announced it on PCgamer to be suspicious. IF they have abandoned resources in favor of multiplayer, I consider that a betrayal of the tacit promises made in their dev logs regarding the direction of this game. The ONLY thing of the above that's relevant here in this thread it the second half of the second sentence. Namely, do I have that right?

I started it to get it off the resources thread, and to get a clear answer on what we are to Squad. No riot intended. I'm not saying they are. I'm wondering why when a group is trying to give their input, they're labelled as trolls and bickerers and malcontents. I'm glad you think me capable of such cat-stroking evil, but I'm not. My honest intent is in the very first post. What people see their role in KSP is, how big our dissent or suggestions should influence the game, and whether we as a community have any right to call them on flip-flopping, pandering, or breaking the vision of the game they have sold us in their dev reports. Let me re-iterate, I am not ACCUSING them of doing any of those in this thread, regardless of whether I think that they have or not.