78stonewobble

I'm sorry, but I don't think it's fair to compare a game that has been developed for 11 years with 4 full years of those spent in early access with one 3 days into it's early access (and a troubled start due to corporate shenanigans and a pandemic). That said, it's absolutely valid to want to opt out of the early access and wait til it's more to ones liking as I am doing too and also did with ksp1.

Well, I think 3 days after first early access is a fair comparison to 3 days after first early access. Certainly more fair than the comparison of 3 days after first early access to 6 years in development (with 4 years in early access before full release). Especially considering I don't know what corporate shenanigans have taken place plus pandemic. Maybe that's just me... O.o but it does seem like I got my expectations more right than others.

I don't think ksp1 had much of that within 3 days of it's first early access (free or not), so I think that's a reasonable point of comparison. And that's not for me, which is why I waited til much much later in ksp1's early access to buy it. That makes sense to be and you may disagree, but then we can ask, which of our 2 different approaches to managing expectations lead to the most realistic expectations. And apparently that was me and I don't have to mess with refunds or buyers regret. Ps: But make no mistake I would have loved if everything promised, insinuated, dreamt up, shown in a trailer etc. Was available right now and running on my old comp., but I genuinely think that's an unfair and unrealistic expectation.

Ah, well I never really trust people that try to sell me anything as a kind of principle. In any case. All I'm saying is that the current early access is about what I would expect for early access and about comparable (not the same, but comparable) to the earliest ksp1 early access. Edit and ps: I think that basing one's expectations on intentions and month to multiple year long predictions from years ago is a recipe for unrealistic expectations, especially if one ignores more up to date information for the sake of essentially wishful thinking.

Well, when it says early access I fully expect bugs, lack of features and poor performance and indeed no guarantees. O.o I don't know how or why anyone else would expect anything else.

I didn't buy ksp1 until it had much more game in it, than it's earliest releases and that was the right decision for me. I didn't mind it being available for others with more patience for bugs, lack of features and poor performance. It's the same for ksp2 for me. Ps: Also I do think 50 $ is a bit much for early access, but that's a take it or leave it kind of thing. 50 $ would be too much for early versions of ksp1, but much more reasonable at arond eg. Ver 0.9 of ksp1. It's not for me yet, especially with my aging computer, but I don't mind it being available for others. [snip]

It's absolutely fair for people to not want to take the risk of early access, which implies bugs, lack of features, low performance and/or a 50 dollar price tag for it atm. It's also completely fair for others to choose to jump on to it already. People have different temperaments and taste.

It's not what I hoped for, but what I hoped for is also not a reasonable expectation. I don't know what corporate shenanigans have happened over the last few years, pandemic and what not, but the current early access is about what I would expect for earliest access. Which is to say, not for me, with my hardware. And that's fine. I also waited to buy ksp1 til there was alot more game in it, than ksp1's earliest releases, because that fits my temperament and taste. I don't have a problem, with it being available for others with beefier computers and more patience.

The first English TV channels became available here in Denmark in the early / mid 80's (sky channel and a bunch of great cartoons like transformers). So that... Ended buying books in English including books on submarines the year before we had English school, which was around the 4th or 5th grade. So 92/93 Iirc. PS: Here's the book... Getting all nostalgic now: https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Submarine-Warfare-David-Miller/dp/0517646471#aw-udpv3-customer-reviews_feature_div

Well, the easiest, albeit not most immersive, way would be to just abstract missions. Eg. You design your first orbital vehicle Y and launch it manually X number of times. After launching it X times you can "automate" launch and you just start with the capsule in space. So you can "automate" every mission as long as you've done it X number of times with a proven vehicle. By automate I mean just spawn eg. The orbital capsule in orbit or spawn the resources into the space station.

Probably not... But I was talking games in general. While I love mods and the creativity it brings, sometimes it's just nice to have builtin options that just work (although some games are behind mods in quality and doesn't "just work" either).

Value for money is key. It's a subjective thing though I think satisfying like 75 percent of people is a reasonable success criteria. Parts seem so essential to the game experience in Ksp, that I'm loathe to see those sold piecemeal. The term pay to win comes to mind. A full set of historical parts for those historically interested would be ok imho. I'm OK with them selling eg. skins to those interested in such for a fair price (let's say around 1 dollar).

As I always say in these discussions... There is nothing wrong with DLC (inherently). The problem is either cheapscape customers wanting stuff for free or cheapscape companies providing too little value for money. In yeh olden days DLC was called expansion packs and they most often cost money. Of course enough value for money is subjective, but it is possible to satisfy it for a majority of people. Examples of expansions that cost money iirc possibly almost up to full original game price. Half life opposing force, blue shift, homeworld cataclysm. Probably many more. If a company makes good dlc that provides value for money. Great, I'll buy... If I don't get my moneys worth I won't... It's my (our choice)... Choose wisely. Ps: And for the cheapscape players... Part of being a grown up is you pay for three things you get. Grown ass men don't need handouts.

Probably already mentioned once on each page. Reasons to do Eva (beyond Eva report and surface science)... Something akin to KIS/KAS, that let's us repair / upgrade / shore up external components.

Personally I really dislike "shaky cam" and motion blur in games. .. In recent years its begun to make me dizzy and if at all possible I turn those off. Though I can don't mind it in the small IVA feeds. Otherwise... The more options for everyone seems to be the way to go. PS: colourblind options?

It's a moot point. I can't play either without admitting my windows 3.11 has faults... Or in the words of Ted Mosby: "sometimes spiders gotta die so trees can grow". No, more seriously and fundamentally you can't both change things and have them stay the same. One or the other, not both.

Personally this... Optional is fine, but as said, it's a big part of the challenges of space travel.

Off the top of my rather sleep deprived head... Doing and using things leads to improvements.. Using the first engine x number of times leads to newer, more efficient and bigger engines, which then after use leads to better one's. Using the first parachute leads to bigger better parachutes, which leads to... You know... So not a flagpole leading to engines, but engines leading to engines. Maybe in the case of eg. Nuclear engines you need ore and material samplings as well.

I still stand by that there's nothing inherently wrong with microtransactions. The problems we see are the result of: A: Too greedy devs or publishers. Charging too much for too little. B: Too greedy players. Wanting too much for too little (or free). C: Players with more money than sense. Rewarding devs / publishers charging too much for too little. Back in the day with eg. The original halflife, there were some free quality of life updates and added value in eg. Team fortress classic and half life death match, but expansions like opposing force and blue shift you had to pay for. Opposing force was relatively well received despite costing money, but whether blue shift provided enough value for the money was a subject of debate. Offcourse value for money is quite subjective, but certainly there are extremes that most can agree are eg. Too expensive or too cheap. Personally I'm not a big fan of too much free stuff... If you put in work and I think the work is good enough to use then I think I should pay for it. PS: This also goes for modders BTW. and this is a place where I think microtransactiocs have a place. Straight to good modders. Microtransactions (or macro transactions for bigger things like expansions) overall hinge on devs / publishers providing content worth its price to most players. Don't be greedy and that goes both ways. Then I'm with you... If you get too greedy I won't play.

Lots of good suggestions. Weather effects certainly sound intriguing. Personally my wishes are: 1. More time spent with space challenges as opposed to game engine challenges. While the game engine challenges did provide very entertaining situations... This time around I'd prefer space travel related challenges (stuff breaking, communication line of sight/delay, life support, hostile environment, redundancy etc.). 2. Ingame tools and engine support to manage multiple concurrent flights with a high degree of automation of executing premade flightplans. In other words I don't wanna have to take control of a ship just because it crosses a sphere of influence or needs to execute a simple maneuver node. When I as a player needs to take control its because something exciting or dangerous is happening. 3. Some sort of production time (and refurbishment time for ssto / spaceplanes) for career mode... I do find it a little silly to be able to launch things instantly. Add some sort of production facilities and their planning to the base. But nonetheless I'm very excited for ksp2.

In my humble opinion and based on purely personal preference. I would find a near future dlc, a spacestation/base/colonization dlc and maybe a far future dlc interesting... Offcourse newer, better and more efficient parts need a bit of balancing, which could be in the shape of: Lifesupport (educational opportunity?) Solar flares that mess with probes Rebalanced tech tree Actually producing rocket parts A rescale of the system distances Edit: possibly other star systems? ... Another rebalance to the other side again, if there's increased complexity of continually resupplying spacestations/bases/colonies and so forth, I think the game needs some sort of automated launch, autopilot and resupply to avoid having to do the same missions over and over.

1. If a recruitment policy discriminates based on gender it is systematic sexism (as one of the few actual examples of such things) and if it is discrimination against men and picking women over men, solely on the basis of their gender it is female privilege. 2. And I stick to it... 3. So you are in favor of discrimination? 4. You are not arguing in favor of equality of opportunity, you are arguing for equality of outcome. In regards to NASA's astronaut application, there is equality of opportunity, since both genders can apply. However if you combine NASA's astronaut stats and combine it with CSA's numbers, then there is not equality of outcome for the individual, since women are preferentially selected, which is discrimination. 5. Yes, the outcome of nice equal graphs, while apparently simultaniously exhibiting sexist discrimination towards men. That's not a step forwards... that is step backward. 6. No, I have never said NASA should implement a recruitment policy, which pays attention to criteria I think are important. I'm saying that putting the criteria of gender into the recruitment policy is sexist and it is... per definition. And the goal of eliminating gender from recruitment policy is for NASA to not be sexist. 7. It can be a criteria, but not by perpetuating sexist policies against the individuals applying... If you want gender balance, you'll need for more women to want to become astronauts and I don't think that's NASA's responsibility. Personally I think gender balance for the sake of genderbalance is a silly goal. Gender balance is only about having a graph look nicely balanced for people with a weird need for graphs to look nicely balanced. Making sure individuals can apply for eg. becomming an astronaut and be selected to do so, irregardless of gender... Now that is fighting sexism and being universally fair in regards to gender. 8. And apparently supporting sexist hiring practices. 9. And that is why noone said that, but you strawmanning others. The original statement, that women, on average, are less inclined to risky behaviour and men, on average, are more inclined to risky behaviour, is supported by the CSA application numbers and eg. how many young men die in traffic. 10. Because, if all applicants, on average, are equal and we have no reason not to think so, then it suggest that women are preferentially selected to become astronauts, solely because they are women. 11. It is an irrelevant point, without compairing those numbers to the number of male applicants. 12. You are right, the KSP forums are not... but you brought it up, by misreading and misrepresenting someones post. 13. Once again... Noone said that it should be like that... A person mentioned that men are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, which is backed up by numerous surveys and statistics and applied it to colonizing mars. 14. It's not offensive, unless people have a problem with accepting objective reality, that one average, men and women do exhibit differences. What is offensive... is if NASA preferentially hires one gender (men or women) over the other gender (men or women), solely because of gender. Which is sexist hiring practices and something we should have left behind in the 50's. And I would think it equally offensive, if in some other area, there would be 70 percent female applicants, 30 percent male applicants and, if everything else is equal, 50 percent men were hired, solely because they were men... and everyone genuinely wanting equality for individuals, rather than pie charts in the sky, would agree.

No, I didn't say equal gender representation... I said equality between men and women. Equality between men and women in this case would have the ratio of astronaut recruits following the ratio of applicants. If one group is then disproportionately represented according to the relevant demographics, they are then privileged. If there is a system in place to guarantee, that women are picked preferentially over men, solely due to gender, then it is systematic sexism. If gender representation or indeed any kind of representation is not following the relevant demographics, you are inherently saying that eg. 1 X = 2 Y, aka. discrimination based on gender. Which is text book sexism.

Well, if it's that quick... then yeah.

I believe in treating people equally. Sexism is sexism and I'll call it out where I see it. Preferentially treating one gender over the other would be pretty offensive and that's what CSA and NASA numbers put together suggest.