FleetAdmiralJ

I'm actually not sure how well it would work here. I mean, of course they can post a one sentence post with a tease. But places like twitter, facebook, reddit, etc. I think are better suited to one sentence teases like that because they are, largely, designed exactly for that type of content. (OK, maybe not reddit, but I still think short teases work better there than here). I think the better solution would be just showing the twitter feed on the page rather than making new threads just to tease something.

Meh, I see twitter (and reddit) often for posting teases, devNotes for posting announcements. I'll eat a hat if there is nothing in the devNotes about the item he tweeted about. So you have to wait a few more hours to get a (probably) more expansive explanation here. It's not like they're just flat out not announcing it on the forum. Having said that, a twitter thing like what Mojang has (which someone suggested earlier in the thread I believe) would be a nice added touch. Also, I don't think it has to do with wanting or not wanting to post here (again, they're gonna likely say more in the devNotes later anyway). I think it has more to do with trying to engage different communities of Kerbal users in different ways. And to tease us (which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing).

One of the reasons I use RealChutes (almost more than the more gentle opening of chutes) is to get that stack chute. I don't know how many designs I've had to almost scrap because I wanted to put a chute and a docking port on the same node

These would all be nice, although I might disagree on point #3. There are times where one almost has to test chutes going up with some of the contracts you get. (it's also one reason I generally avoid parachute testing contracts )

1) I guess whether (and even how) the tech tree needs to be fixed is up to interpretation. I mean, in reality, most of the tech tree would already be "discovered" before the Kerbals even launched into space if one is worried strictly about realism. It's not like we didn't know what batteries or ladders or wings were before the Mercury program. But then having half the tech tree unlocked from the start kind of defeats the purpose of having one in the first place. And of course, this doesn't mention the fact that I'm sure many people have different ideas of how the tech tree could be changed. Now, one area I *MIGHT* agree with you on is making it easier to customize the tech three, or perhaps give different tech tree options at the start of the game. Although if one is talking about doing things mods haven't done, one could argue this has already been done with TechManager and the CTT 2) So we're going from mods to "stable" mods (however one defines that). So that begs the question, are/were there any mods on your previous list (KCT, asteroid mods, etc) that might not be exactly considered to be stable (but generally work)? 3) I'm not fully up on the old resources plan (I started playing right after all of that bru-ha-ha, apparently) though I did find this diagram: http://i.imgur.com/08hdJyj.png Which seems more complex than my picture of Kethane or Karbonite admittedly. It also looks very complex, which I'm sure many players would like. My brain was starting to melt looking at all the arrows, though. Though I suppose that doesn't say how it would have played implemented in the game. Of course, they shelved it because they felt that how it was turning out wasn't fun to play as well.

I suppose my answer to the grindyness of career is either: don't do career or change difficulty to make it less grindy. Sure, there are some issues with career, but I think part of the point of career is that you have to work to get ahead. So unless they do some sort of story mode where essentially you are given a mission, you do it, then you are given the next mission, and it's told like a story rather than ad hoc contracts, I'm not sure there is a way to NOT have at least some amount of grindyness to career mode.

I would say they wouldn't, which is why I wouldn't have a problem if that information was left out of the game. I wouldn't necessarily have an issue if it were there personally, but I don't have a problem with it NOT being there either. These are mods that i'm not as familiar with, but I think for most of them my point would still stand: they're about adding features or functionality, not about how you run your space program, per se.

OK, I'll bite 1) Fix career mode - how? Other than rebalancing (which they say they are doing). Also, which I haven't checked, there is probably decent chance there are mods for this, I would guess? 2) GP2 - there are already multiple mods that add new planets, no? 3) Resources - I probably don't have to say this has been modded already in probably just about any conceivable way it could be implemented. 4) The rest appear to be more improvements to how the game runs than actual features of the game (such as docking, which was your example) The point of this being, there is very little they could implement that hasn't already been modded to some extent. I mean, heck, even multiplayer has been modded (though I wouldn't call it very stable). In a way, you're punishing squad for having such a good modding community because they come out with features faster than squad can put them into the game themselves.

OK, what new feature would you like that isn't modded? Or to put it another way, is there anything squad could possibly add to the game which a mod hasn't already done? I actually haven't really used either so I can't speak to that point, but I also put "realism" in quotes for a reason. I'm not all too sure how realistic TAC is either to be told (which I AM currently playing with). But the point is that: unless you are essentially using MechJeb to fly your ship for you, you aren't playing Kerbal like NASA. You may be further down that continuum than other people, but people play the game with varying degrees of precision and recklessness. While the people who play on the precision side can fix their needs by adding mods, if you add too much of that functionality to the base game, you perhaps cut off people who want to play the other way.

So here's my thing with that: where is the harm? If Engineers can show you remaining dV left in flight, how does that impact your ability to play "smart like NASA"? At worst, you just continue to use KER and that's that. On the flip side, if one likes to play recklessly, but the game essentially gives you dV info whether you want it or not, they're shoehorning you into a way to play, at least unless they give an option to turn it off. Would I be angry if they gave us KER default in game? Not really. I understand why they might not want to, however. And one more thing about this: this is on top of the fact that even having dV information doesn't mean much unless you actually have a number or target to compare it to. That's where having an Engineer giving you that data in space is actually useful: you can compare the dV required for a burn vs. how much you have left. However, even if they gave us a KER display in the VAB, it's rather meaningless unless they also tell us how much dV we need to get places. Are they going to give us a dV map in game too? Well, given that the stock game mode is essentially "Reckless Kerbal Space Program" mods aren't really needed to accomplish that. There is DangIt, I suppose, which one could argue is in the pro-reckless camp as one could argue it simulates Kerbals launching with shoddy equipment. But generally the game has more realism mods vs. "recklessness" mods mainly because the game, at this point, is premised on them essentially running a reckless, ill-informed space program. But speaking of realism mods, KER and KAC notwithstanding, I would argue many have little to do with playing "NASA style" vs. playing reckless, and here is why: Let's take five of the biggest "realism" mods: FAR, TAC Life Support, Deadly Re-entry, RemoteTech, and Kethane/Karbonite Two of those: FAR and Deadly Re-entry, are what I would call environmental mods. They change the environment kerbals fly in but otherwise don't impact HOW one runs your space program (other than making it easier to die if you run it recklessly, perhaps) The other three - TAC, RemoteTech, and the general resource mods - add functionality and realism, but I would argue are agnostic on affecting the way one plays. You can play just as recklessly with TAC installed as without (though you obviously add more ways to kill your kerbals by doing so).

Have people completely forgotten that these are Kerbals and not NASA? I thought part of the point of the game - and part of what made it fun - is that they are recklessly going to space, whether they are prepared to go or not. I suppose that is up to each person's interpretation of how Kerbals do things. But then the disagreement is about a matter of opinion (Kerbals are smart and do things like NASA vs. being reckless space explorers) in which case there is no particular "wrong" way for Squad to implement the game. The people who are on the side that Squad chooses NOT to follow, I suppose, would be upset that their side of the argument wasn't chosen.

[Removed by the moderation team]

Tell that to someone who has burned tomato soup before (me) lol

This is what I don't get. "How dare squad give us an option to tell us dV in game!" *goes back to using Kerbal Engineer* It's kind of like people - I think i've seen it at least twice up to this point - bashing the aero system when we are literally getting a new system in the next update. At that point it isn't telling squad to fix it, it's bashing them over it for the sake of bashing them over it.

Of course, the total combined things in the history of the entire history of the universe that Squad has done that you think is a good idea is zero, so, you know, I apologize if I don't see criticisms as anything other than "nothing squad ever does is ever good" which is essentially what you say in every comment ever. (and makes me wonder what you're even doing here)

No, I don't think it's been nerfed. But my rule of thumb has always been 8000 dv Minimum - 4.5 - 5k to get down (I know it says 3k but c'mon, who are we kidding) and 3 - 3.5k to get back up into a decent orbit.

All the checkmarks being checked simply means that all the conditions to properly run the test have been met. In part test contracts, you still need to actually test the parts. All parts that can be staged (engines, decouplers, parachutes) can be tested by staging the parts when all check marks are green. SOME engines (usually later tech ones) will have a "run test" button you can check if you right-click the part. Assuming you are in the early stages of the game, you will probably have to stage the part in question. Note: Just having the engine in question running when all the checkmarks are checks is not enough to complete the contract. So if you're testing a T-45 engine, just slapping one on the rocket and launching it and having it running when all the checkmarks are checked will not work. You will need to have the engine in it's own stage that you can stage to when all the check marks are checked. When a contract has been completed, the entire contract in the contract window will turn green, the notifications icon will animate and if you hover over it you will see a green checkmark which, if you click on it, will give you a notification that the contract was completed and what you received for completing it.

Kerbal, indeed, does do release candidates on every release as part of experimentals as far as I'm aware. It's just it's a release candidate to a more limited audience than the full release.

There will ALWAYS be things being found. There has never been a game released where things weren't found. Expecting zero bugs is a ridiculous bar in any game - heck - any piece of software release. I think the big questions are: 1) Do the new features work well within the game 2) Have things been properly rebalanced 3) Are there any major bugs that would significantly impact gameplay If the answer to all 3 of those are "yes," then my answer to the poll in the thread is "yes, it is ready."

So basically your argument is they should hold 1.0 for another release "just in case" not because it would actually be necessary, correct?

It seems the main complaints I see are: 1) "My most wanted feature isn't implemented yet" (Meh, too bad. It may be eventually but wasn't part of the original plan) 2) "It's not Unity 5 yet" (so you want them to delay release solely to wait on another company to release a new version of the engine that may or may not work as well as we hope it will?) 3) "Changes haven't been tested yet" - this one may be the most legitimate. But then again, Squad has QA and Experimental testers for a reason. I've never got the impression that they've intentionally used general players as debuggers, although I'm sure players have helped them with that. My view is this: Unless there are some glaring new bugs, I don't see why it wouldn't be ready. I think it's probably been ready for a while. KSP, despite being "alpha" and Beta have had a lot fewer bugs than a lot of gold games that I've played. And I think people seem to be holding up KSP to a near impossible standard of "IF I FIND A SINGLE BUG I WILL DECLARE IT NOT READY FOR 1.0" which is, of course, silly. - - - Updated - - - How is it being squandered, exactly?

This is, in theory anyway, why they have QA and Experimentals. I don't believe it is ever their intention, necessarily, to have general users be bug testers, although some end up acting as such.

That's not the basis squad is using for whether the game is ready, though. I'm sure they would like to make the game work well with mods, but if the game works and is (relatively) bug free in stock, that will be their goal. If mods add additional bugs, that's the problem of the mods, not the game, no?

In what way do you mean? - - - Updated - - - My problem with this view is that we literally don't know exactly how things work in 1.0 or how buggy it will be, so we literally can't give any sort of fully educated opinion on the question. We can tell you what we THINK the answer MIGHT be. We can't tell you what we think the answer actually is though.

I guess we'll find out if it's ready for 1.0 when the new update is released, won't we?