The_Rocketeer

The one where completing short-term goals rewards you with points you can spend on new research nodes. This could be a perfectly legitimate research concept in another game - works ok in a lot of RTS games I've played - but I don't think it suits KSP's style, it's too proscriptive. In KSP, difficulty doesn't naturally correlate to progression, so there's no balance to be struck between gamestage and power-ups/unlocks (like there is in a RTS game, where your opponents are getting tougher too). Unlocking the tree just makes the game more complete and delimits your options. To me, that's at odds with the sandbox exploration concept. I'd prefer a progression system that acknowledged and documented particular achievements more, and that allowed the player to customise their adventure without having to conform to narrow and arbitrary 'families' of progress, or else toil like an under-achiever doing fun things the boring way until the parts are unlocked, and doing the mission the fun way isn't going to be rewarded anymore.

I'd like to see a complete overhaul of the research concept. I always find it hugely hampers my game having contracts to go explore Mun right after I've just spent huge science points learning to retrieve atmospheric science reports. The system just feels badly thought through - the easiest way to get the parts to do a mission the way you want to do it (in my case the way it seems like it should be done, with permanancy, recycling and re-use in mind), is to do the same mission as a disposable one-shot using whacked-together parts that aren't really fit for purpose. And then the mission's done, and there's no reward for doing it again!!! So frustrating!

Actually @monstah I think you cut to the point here. I'm talking about strategies for dealing with those feelings, not raising any question of validity at all. I really hope I've made that clear. I'll go away now.

@Terwin I am using the word as I understand it, which would seem to be in line with both the dictionary and the etymological definition. If I am misunderstood because other people use another definition, that is hardly my fault. Case by case, to a greater or lesser extent, both senses of meaning may be applicable. There's also a real difference between controlling emotions and controlling behaviour to avoid aggravating emotions. If someone is unhappy about a videogame purchase that has no foreseeable short-term resolution, there is little to be gained by frequenting to the community website for that game in the fain hope of good news, and still less to be gained by repeatedly restating the same complaints.

Not that I want to argue with you @technicalfool, but that must be approaching the definition of entitlement. You pay, you are entitled. But look, don't misunderstand me, I'm very pleased that Squad are supporting their customers in this, and if anything I'm disappointed that they don't get more credit for doing that - there are plenty of other software developers out there that have done much less. I'm also really sympathetic to the frustration of those customers in having paid for something that disappointed them. I think we've probably all been there. What I'm saying here, probably a little cack-handedly, is that those same customers do have a choice whether to go on feeling bad about it or not. Choosing to go on minding about it is likely to cause more distress than choosing otherwise. Sometimes just walking away is the best thing for everyone. It doesn't mean you can't turn around later if you change your mind, but it does mean nobody is making you suffer right now except you.

Hey man, you pasted the new version and made me feel dated! Call it even.

It's ok, part of entitlement is being allowed to be rude and upset and irritated and annoyed. But ur game is still broke, and your misery is still more bothersome to you than me. Seriously, I'm not recommending you (and dozens like you) move on for my sake, but yours.

What will happen when you run out of patience? You'll stop waiting? Demand a refund? Forget Squad ever existed? I suggest you do that now. When the Blitworks port is eventually released, it will stand or fall on its own merit regardless of what went before and how people felt about it. If it's good, and if u're still interested in videogames in or around the genre, you'll almost certainly hear it's good, and u can decide then whether it's worth the price being asked at the time. If it's bad, you'll hear it's bad, and no skin off your nose because you already walked out on that relationship and good riddance. Alternatively you can keep complaining about that (metaphorical) broken toy you got given for Christmas that one time and how it ruined Christmas forever, and your whole childhood, and maybe your life. And it won't change a damn thing.

@invision watch this and lament your mis-spent youth.

Did you know that Bob the Builder is actually a quantum theorist, and that lately he's invented time-travel?

When the US buys a show from the UK they invariably tear the beating heart out of it and still think they made it better

Badum tish!

Yeh, unfortunately the 'more fun things to do, more effort on planetary surface detail' pleas are very old and very ignored, or worse overwhelmed by the 'market forces' argument (at this stage it would cost too much for too little profit), or the 'it wouldn't work anyway' argument (a boring planet with a volcano on it is still a boring planet), or the 'don't change my game for me' arguments (not everybody cares about planet surfaces, and they have their own preferred improvements). And a bunch of other arguments. But feel free to carry the torch for a while. You'll find it makes you a target and casts a light that illuminates an awful lot of ugliness.

Actually Bob the Builder says says 'can we fix it', and in stock KSP, the answer is "nup, let's just get a new one". Anyway, both of them losers are just sidekicks to the mighty Jeb (and equally-but-differently mighty Val). I mean, imagine Maverick from Top Gun, and then team him up with Leonard and Howard from TBBT. Nobody cares.

*put's on best Irish accent* This thread's been a real trill.

I'm guessing legal reasons. This whole console release has been a really bad experiment for Squad, and its hard to imagine how much worse it could have been without the business going bust. On the other hand, they haven't given up yet, and there remains real hope for redemption. As frustrating as this has been for console players, they can't claim they've been abandoned with shoddy product, and that I think speaks volumes about the sort of developer Squad wants to be.

I like @pandaman's suggestion. Research Specialist contracts could completely replace tourism afaic. Conceptually, space tourism is philosophical madness anyway.

Hmm... well there was a time when it was possible to reach 1000m altitude on an antiradial trajectory while still doing 2 or 3km/s. Of course surface contact with the ocean in that scenario is hardly likely to result in a requirement for buoyancy calculations... Perhaps just nobody has really thought about this in a while.

I learned of the barn some time ago, and while I love the 1950s cropduster aesthetic, I also think the whole bringbackthebarn business was just a storm in a teacup. The released aesthetic was simple, but clean and straightforward, and I find it really hard to envision downgrading the facilities fo the point where they are made up of trailer parks and a big red barn. Even the tracking station is just a hobbyists telescope-observatory in barnland, not a satellite dish to be seen. And what, KSC getting rid of renewable wind turbine generators is somehow an upgrade? I think the barn belongs to a pre-KSC era of kerbal development, somewhere after fixed wing flight but before the MK1 Command Pod. I'd love to see these assets turn up in a meaningful way somewhere, somehow, but I do think the Barn KSC concept is dead, and rightfully so.

If I'd never seen this thread, I would never have known KSP had an EULA. I mean, sure, in theory it probably had to have one somewhere, but in 5 years of KSP I've never seen it to know it.

Wishing everyone great safety. However (and I qualify this by saying that I'm a private person writing from the safety of the UK with no first hand knowledge of any earthquake ever, nor of Squad's business or personal locations in Mexico)... assuming the business has been somewhat affected, I think it unlikely that we'll hear much of anything from anyone at Squad for at least a few days. Frankly there will be more important things to be doing than checking in with the forum. Assuming nobody at Squad has had their personal safety or that of their families threatened at all, there remain the sustained problems of structural checks, power cuts, transport infrastructure issues and broadband failure are likely to be a problem. Equally if anybody has been seriously affected, Squad are hardly about to make a public service announcement about it - it would be disrespectful. I think this is a great place for well-wishers to offer sympathy and concern, but I recommend avoiding conjecture or starting rumours at this point. An official statement will likely follow at a suitable time. Retracted - somehow I missed the other thread!

It would probably be considerably easier to add variants of the parts with lights facing the other way, or have a separate "undercarriage-light" part, than have a dynamically tweakable lightsource built into the wheel system. I would in favour of an undercarriage overhaul. I find the shape and size of the landing gears quite unsatisfactory, particularly the length of the struts on the larger ones, forcing you to mount them high on the craft and deal with the consequent clipping or else face high-CoM instability issues. I also would prefer to see side-stowing and rear-stowing gears, and more options for fixed undercarriage - roverwheels, it turns out, are incredibly heavy and draggy. But none of these things are gonna be very high on my hitlist of things KSP most needs, and all of them are covered by mods. So.. agreed. But meh.

After all that... it really didn't work out good did it.

Watching it is mesmerising. It makes me think of this thing:

I can't wait to see the car truck tank er... power station..? ...you're putting this in.