Wallygator

No. Just Plain No. Any further embedding or extension of the existing poorly constructed experience/role/reputation system should be squashed. The entire construct needs to be rethought and reimplemented. Perhaps somewhere in 2.0 and beyond.

I think people need to disassociate behaviour on the forum with the KSP development cycle. Whereas these two things are naturally related, they do not necessarily indicate or predict behaviour between each other. The forum is driven by high rep contributors, fanboys and newbees alike - there are always ebbs and flows where new and old contribute to topics which strike each of our nerves in unique ways. From my perspective, I find the majority of new threads to be mindless. Occasionally there is intelligent debate. This to me indicates a condition within the forum community - not KSP. A positive intervention here would be more open communications from the Dev team and a more engaged and visibly constructive community management process (not just closing threads). That said, Early Access is coming to an end, so any expectations of a continuation of the status quo should be hedged.

I sense that explosions in KSP are like the "BOOM" and "KAPOW" in the 1960s Batman series. They should not be construed as real. KSP to me is a cartoon representation of real physics. The sad reality is that a meme has developed surrounding Kerbals and destruction. The two are not necessarily linked. Squad is making a poor decision to support contining the meme in absentia. Just my opinion.

Having lived in Bath, I can tell you that it is pronounced differently IN Bath vs the rest of England ;-) must be the West Country accents!

Same issue here. Regarding the above comments on progress on fixes and reporting bugs... I have abandoned all hope. Any bug report is usually followed by an echoing reply of "out of memory". There is no in-game crash report auto collection capability. The bug tracking processes appear to an outside observer as poorly designed and managed as well. I know it sounds sad, but I no longer report defects and crashes. Great credit to squad and the participating community for a fantastic game (I really want it to be a success) but the dev and support processes need further immediate work also - long term sustainability of KSP depends on it. I could be completely wrong on this, and if so then there is a complete breakdown in effective communications by the devs regarding bugs and fixes. If the situation continues I predict that the active community will shrink to only hard core fanboys as everyone else will just quietly give up trying. TL;DR ---> it's not just game bugs that need attention.

Uh? Wha? Ok, this is a random comment. I am unable to post a vote to the poll if that is any help.

As referenced in the latest dev notes, they are finally setting up a dedicated OSX test system. Hopefully by the next release we will have some relief regarding our unique OSX issues (assuming they are not Unity specific).

I had an account when it was first released - a charter account which allowed me to play free forever. Then it went free anyway! what a waste. I have now since forgotten my login details - Oh well. My flagship was the USS William Shatner. Because clearly, STO needs MORE SHATNER!!!

The short and long answer is yes. They can then refer to the original forum post when they repost on reddit or other social sites. Continuing their current practice risks fragmenting community and communications effectiveness. Another option would be for Squad to immediately post a link on the forum to any other social thread when it goes up. Oh and BTW, There is still no Reddit link on the social media tab of the forum nav bar... Go figure. What was that line from Cool Hand Luke? "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Public Service Announcement: This game is under early access. Squad benefits from having us kick the tyres and give them critical feedback. This applied to not only the game itself but to any communications regarding it. You can love the game and pledge your undying love to it and Squad, but that should not prevent anyone else from doing their duty to provide constructive criticism of game mechanics and brand management. And just because some people haven't coded a game doesn't mean they are clueless about what makes a game better. I'm done with this this thread now, as it seems to be spiralling off into the aether. Hope Squad gets the points made earlier here and on Reddit. And hope they centralise primary comms through their own managed community site (the forum).

Kerbal recruit: Hi I want to join the space program. KSP Management: OK, you are an engineer. Kerbal Recruit: Wha?? How, Why? I haven't received any training yet? KSP Management: Don't worry you will figure it all out when you get back from where ever we are sending you. Kerbal Recruit: Do I get any tools? KSP Management: No. Kerbal Recruit: How about a slide rule? KSP Management: No. Kerbal Recruit: But I can do basic math with a pencil and... KSP Management: No. You are not allowed to do any math until you get back from where ever we send you. Now shut up and go sit in the astronaut complex. Kerbal Recruit: Can I do something else? KSP Management: NO! You are an engineer. FOREEEEEVERRRRRRR! Kerbal Recruit: BUT I HAVENT BEEN TRAINED!!!! KSP Management: What IS your problem? Why do you not understand!?!? You will be given magic spells. You do not need training. Kerbal Recruit: (shuffles away, shaking head...) I blame myself... EDIT: hey just trying to lighten the mood a bit... ;-)

I see where you are going with this, but it does raise a couple of questions: - Who is it that computes the discrete dV burn value at a Manoeuvre node (like we have today)? Or should that information disappear altogether unless an engineer is on board? - What is the difference between an engineer with no experience and one with some experience? Which one knows math and can operate a slide rule? Perhaps we should rename engineers and start calling them "Mechanics" (Seriously - no snark intended) and let them focus on just fixing all kinds of bits and pieces.

You're not wrong on this - with the nerffing of the probe cores and ASAS it leaves the very early moments of career mode quite problematic for very new players. It's like it needs to come with a health warning whereby you are encouraged to play in sandbox until you feel comfortable with your piloting skills. Regardless, its all about flight practice and effective mission planning. Good luck out there!

I've had a few moments to think about this (AKA cup of coffee and a "fortified" breakfast drink)... Here is my perspective on this and some of the subsequent underlaying matters at play: 1) There are no "Engineers" in space. Where as there are "space-going" engineers who are trained (on the ground by the way) in engineering, they are not permitted to do any real seat of the pants engineering in space except under the precise supervision of ground based engineering teams. The space guys convey observations about the situation to the ground guys who come up with any plans for repair, etc. It is called "MISSION CONTROL" for a reason. 2) [off-topic] I feel confident that a sensible person can make the same argument against scientists and pilots but let's let that one go for the moment - with the understanding that the "Kerbal Role Train" has already left the station ---> (theme from 1970s Soul Train tele show playing in the background please..) 3) The exhibited comms behaviour by Squad is such that an intelligent person can easily interpret the entire Role and Experience elements of KSP as being designed "off-the cuff" so to speak, with no overarching "Systems Thinking" model which can be reasonably deduced - rather individual subsystems which require "Balancing". Balancing is a natural component of an properly integrated system - reinforcing and balancing loops contribute to systems finding natural harmony or spiralling off. 4) Regardless of whether one wishes to Role Play their Kerbals through an experience tree or not, it remains THE PLAYER who is in control of the game, the space program and all missions. As I have mentioned in other threads and posts, using experience to artificially introduce limited player information (including important dV) should be considered a negative, synthetic, and ultimately "immersion breaking" concept. It does not enhance game play but rather detracts from it. You may all disagree with the above, but that's my position. 5) TL;DR = Kerbal Experience and its effect is as dumb as the current aerodynamics model.

You are correct. It has nothing to do with showing dV. Almost simular to how an engineer should have nothing to do with unlocking/showing dV calculations. (Apologies, my self-imposed snark filter failed there) Seriously though, at what point will some level of sense be revealed here? The communications plan and execution by squad on these matters is only stirring up the scene and creating both confusion and distrust in the dev teams ability to logically plan a game system. Thank heaven we have the kerbal engineer mod.

Senseless. Nuff said. Both career and experience are completely synthetic and poorly implemented "features" which have drawn away precious dev time from addressing core issues.

Fair enough, and valid point - but I would like to clarify my perspective to include that IMO the "in game" LES should not be considered a fix for "out game" bugs which still remain to be fixed. ;-)

The LES assumes that something might go wrong. There is no reliability component in Stock KSP, so except for player design issues, there is no use for the LES - its just eye candy.

He did a great job, best of luck on his next adventure. Does anyone have a timeline of community management events since the start? Just curious...

IMHO the game should not end, but rather enter into a sustainable model. One wherein you attempt to maintain funding to support more massive and long range missions while holding your reputation at a desired level. Funding from harvesting science will dry up once its all obtained. Which leaves only contracts -> testing and many "do over" missions to plant flags for every agency/contractors. How boring will this ultimately become? From my perspective, its about as boring at it gets after about 3 "go back to Duna and plant a flag" missions come up. Or the constant replicant "survey missions" which while they pay well, are usually way too time intensive or precise for more spontaneous play. Building stations for no purpose which become non-reusable for following contracts. Fine Print added substantial breadth to career, but not a lot of depth. SO... you ultimately get to a point of frustration and boredom, you get tired of these endless repeating types of contracts and either start a new game or just quit and revert to sandbox play only. The balancing of career mode to enable sustainable, non-deterministic play will require a complete "do over" of the Rep/Funds/Science relationship. (For example: an annual budget based on your rep level or, perhaps science points may respawn in biomes over time.) I'm sure there are many other levers which can be designed and aligned into a proper behavioural systems model which responds more intelligently to player actions and faults. I feel Squad really needs to totally rethink what I interpret as a narrow and simplistic implementation of career mode. This is probably my only long term soap box so thanks for listening.

Nice one. Fully support this. Rep to you sir!

I would make this Caps. Completely agree.

OMG I almost spit up my Martini when I read this. Well done sir!

I would reverse this. bug fix and unity focus first, then aero, then parts, heat and balances. Keep the female Kerbals to the end and let them be the messengers of the final production release.

This is now starting to remind me of an old software support guy I worked with back in the Late 80's. He supported our enterprise applications on an old DEC VAX under VMS. His scripted series of responses to any software issue or support request worked like this... 1. It should work 2. It works for me 3. Well, person X has been using it forever and has no problems 4. It is clearly working, but not properly 5. Nobody else has your problem, so we will ignore it until we get more complaints He also never washed his coffee cup and loved to bowl - not relevant, but made me chuckle upon reflection :-)