Draemora

I like to pretend that at some point it will be viable to have multiplayer battles in space with BD armory so I keep designing and tweaking ships to have more armor and firepower with relatively small part counts. As for what I did today... I built a 100t long range laser cruiser and tested it against a heavily armoured 50t destroyer. Cruiser wins at 1.5K+ metres while the destroyer wrecks the cruiser inside that range.

Imo, squad should make one more final optimisation/bug check with all of the new features being added.

Agree with Vanamonde.

Lazy and bad design is not revolutionary.

And less precise sas/rcs would screw with new players at the start when they need it the most.

Because a generic 5% boost to thrust is SOOO much more exciting, new, and revolutionary.

It's a physics simulator sandbox according to steam classification. It has more simulator elements than game elements.

Why don't you perform a good experiment and try to publish the results?

He even put a sarcasm disclaimer man! lol The "citation needed" bit hints at his statement being a classical assumption that's seldom verified as well.

Didn't know KSP was an RPG. Steam tags it as space, physics, simulation, science, and sandbox. Apparently they also have a history system now. Not killing your kerbals with cool achievements is an incentive. Honestly, nothing is better than arbitrary increases to thrust or ISP. It's boring, at its weakest it's unnoticeable, and at its strongest it messes with the physics and simulation aspects of the game.

Gimping SAS for new players and new careers seems shaky to me. Or I can put a probe under my capsule and get both. lol

Exactly. That's why the system is dubious in the first place.

This makes the game intentionally harder for noobies.

It's good for the basics. What is DV, why you burn sideways and not up, how to get to other bodies, orbital speed not depending on mass, etc. It's a great hand-on tool to FEEL these things. Nevertheless, it doesn't model gravity properly. For example, the planets are on rails, Lagrange points don't exist, the aerodynamics are really shoddy, etc.

Kerbal history should stick in sandbox. It's a cute little detail for those of us who prefer it. Now, if you change ISP through Kerbal exp, that would change the "max." That sort exemplifies the weirdness of this. A good discriminant could be whether or not you would have to alter something in sandbox to keep a part as maxed relative to career mode with a certain Kerbal in command.