Superfluous J

That is, sadly, probably accurate. It's very accurate, though it's not sad unless the if statement is true. I'm hoping it's false. If it is, I'll be buying and finally playing the game. If it's true... well I won't then.

While true, buying something without looking into its quality is a recipe for ... well the kind of anger we're seeing all over the forums these days.

That's how I knew it was broken.

How many of them will base their decision on the current or historical numbers of others playing?

I was a major opponent of the Part Action Window. I argued that it should be entirely nonexistant in a perfect game but understood that maybe it had its place for rare functions. I will die on the hill that just tossing every new feature into the PAW is a huge mistake and should never have happened. I have also not played KSP2 (C'mon science update) so I don't know the exact way the PAM works (or even what it stand for. Part Action... Module?) but to me, it seems like they said "Okay, SupesJ hates the PAW so let's take all this stuff and put it in this new thing that works similarly but worse" (Yes I know no one listened to me specifically. At least, I HOPE so because I rarely know what I'm talking about)

Because your life can change in an instant. Or a few decades. Mine has, several times.

Okay this didn't happen to me, other than falling on the floor and having to pick myself up upon learning it. x% of y is equal to y% of x So for example 4% of 75 isn't really easy to figure out at first but if you switch the numbers to 75% of 4, the answer is 3.

Let's see, 1.2 had the comms network and kerbnet. 1.3 added localization and I can understand an English speaker (I'm one myself) not caring about that too much but it's a big deal to a lot of people. 1.4 didn't have a big groundbreaking change, you've got me there. 1.5 revamped the burn timer which seems small but I remember it being a big improvement. 1.6 added delta-v information which IMO is the biggest improvement in the game since the atmosphere rework in 1.0. The next few versions didn't add much but that ended with 1.11's construction mode which again is a huge change. Then 1.12 itself had the maneuver node creator. So no, 1.12 was not all that different from 1.2 if you spoke English and had Remotetech, Better Burn Timer, Kerbal Engineer, Kerbal Attachment System, Kerbal Inventory System, and Precise Node installed.

Not with that actor we won't.

You know HarvesteR was the main reason KSP1 didn't get delta v readouts until long after release? They ruined the "magic," he said at the time. Thank you for taking the risk of being lambasted for describing the video. Also, sorry that my asking you to describe the video was immediately met by people lambasting you for describing the video.

NGL I was hoping for some text here.

Which you are starting as if it's in question.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You seem to be arguing both sides of the issue. One post, you don't want the micromanagement that you are afraid will come with colonies, and the next you are afraid colonies be way too simplified unless they're more complex than a game where all you do is build cities. Personally laying out zones and letting the Kerbals build what they want sounds awesome to me. So does placing each building myself, making sure it's exactly how I want it. Hopefully both will be possible.

I think this can be described in its entirety with this Urban Dictionary entry https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=That+will+be+a+future+me+problem

But it's not. The part must contact the water, so the base must be built near the water or there must be heat piping between the base and the water cooler. Or water must be pumped I suppose but anyway. So long as the water cooler part must touch the water, nothing tangible is gained in the gameplay by forcing it be submerged a set amount. Now that I know what the first picture represents then yes I agree in this case it should matter as it adds interesting design considerations (I.e. Gameplay)

I don't understand the first picture, what it's intended to convey. For the 2nd picture, let me ask you this: From a gameplay perspective, why do you feel those two instances need to be different? I understand it from a "don't try this at (your actual physical) home" but when you're building a colony and need to put the water-cooler-part in the water, what benefit is there to make sure the part is at least x% in the water but not more than y% in the water? Why not just have a "it's touching water" flag and assume all is well?

Cities Skylines 2 is my #1 anticipated game this year. I played so much of the original it's crazy.

As the creator of Kerpollo I both wholeheartedly recommend it for your situation and thank @jost for mentioning me Another "Experience the whole game in one career" challenge I made is the "No Contract Career" challenge, which is easier to define than Kerpollo, but much harder to do

You don't need permission to decide what you believe --The 21 Jump Street Theme Song (no, really)

Sounds like bad luck. You will get the missions over and over but the more you do, the more different available missions there are so the less you see of a specific type. Anyway "get science" missions aren't very lucrative. Take the "put a satellite here" missions they're money farms. And if you put a relay on them you're getting paid to set up a communications network.

Is it in Eeloo's SOI only? Eeloo's one of the most friendly worlds for doing interplanetary transfers the "wrong" way of leaving the SOI, then when in interplanetary space doing your transfer burn. Because it's so far away, the burn home isn't that much more expensive. Also, you don't have to reserve fuel for coming home as the atmosphere can do the work (heat's still off right? ...right? )

I know it's annoying but it's literally not game breaking. You can continue playing that save after the bug happens. If the game caused Windows to crash every time it happened, or it corrupted the save file so it was unplayable, that would be game breaking.

But you can't. I mean you CAN, but you'd be wrong. There is an inherent difference between the "difficulty" of doing something new *to you* and doing something actually new, that no one's ever done before. The very first people who tried to set up fields in Egypt probably didn't just have unexpected delays. They probably died. Cars are ridiculously easy compared to software. In fact, the only thing that my 8-year-old car has had to go in for was a fix for its software (and it's due another now). Students take 13+ years to teach and that often goes horribly awry. I'm sure it was difficult to DESIGN the FIRST can of whatever soda was first canned, but right now it's so simple you don't even need people there anymore. Yeah it's hard to make money, but that's a different scope. The rest I won't speak on as I've never done them. But there's a difference between doing Call of Duty Insert Several Words Here, or Madden Roster Update And More Polygons 2023, and creating a from-scratch system for your from-scratch game with ridiculously lofty planned features. Someone mentioned FedEx not being able to pin down the time, but being able to pin down the day. That's how most games are. And movies, for that matter. KSP2 is more like if someone slapped a FedEx patch on Lewis and Clark and asked them to make sure they get that package to the Pacific Northwest by 5am on Thursday.

Sheer poetry.