MH-planned Structural Panels should be stock

[basic.syntax]

I think the new structural panels planned for MH expansion should be made available to all players.  

I would not be picking up the expansion just for objects as simple as these, the expansion is about its historically-inspired engines and capsules. Not to mention the mission builder! These shapes are fundamental building blocks that I think every player should have, they work with any kind of design, historical or futuristic. 

[Dark Lion]

@basic.syntax I absolutely agree. These structural parts have no clear connection to the theme of the DLC whatsoever, and thus, should be available to all players.

[_stilgar_]

Why? Just because you want them? 

Making History is missions + parts pack. I don't care much for the missions, but I'll be buying the expansion for the new parts. 

Those parts aren't necessary to play the game, you can do anything without them. 

 

If Squad added parts to the base game just because people want those particular parts, there would be no reason to buy the expansion - and the expansion pays for continued development of the game. 

[Dark Lion]

3 hours ago, _stilgar_ said:

Why? Just because you want them? 

Yes, but not just.

3 hours ago, _stilgar_ said:

Those parts aren't necessary to play the game, you can do anything without them.

By the same logic: DLCs aren't necessary at all then, are they..? One might enjoy countless hours of gameplay, regardless.

3 hours ago, _stilgar_ said:

If Squad added parts to the base game just because people want those particular parts, there would be no reason to buy the expansion -

I thought that's why they themed it as "Making History," even going so far as to give up new replica part models which all share a thing or two in common. If I ask a space-flight enthusiast "what engine is this?" while pointing to a DLC engine, said enthusiast would likely be able to tell me about its real life counterpart. If I ask the same person "what triangle is this?", suddenly an enthusiast turns into a geometry teacher. What about a structural panel in the shape of a triangle or square of varying size alludes to the history of spaceflight? Seems to me that Squad wants you to miss out on those parts or whip out your wallet for it. Even though it seems very much like the same kind of abysmal over-sight as the lack of any deltaV HUD element for a sandbox game built on the pretext of space-travel in general...

 

3 hours ago, _stilgar_ said:

and the expansion pays for continued development of the game. 

But does that mean I should buy the DLC every time, just to keep Squad fat and happy? Or would you prefer micro-transactions? Maybe pay-to-play would suit you better? I understand they want to get paid their worth, but who decides what you do with your money?

[Spartwo]

40 minutes ago, Dark Lion said:

But does that mean I should buy the DLC every time, just to keep Squad fat and happy? Or would you prefer micro-transactions? Maybe pay-to-play would suit you better? I understand they want to get paid their worth, but who decides what you do with your money?

We'll be getting that soon enough. They haven't added texture swapping just for the hell of it. Especially when the system is half finished in 1.4. If the loading screen wasn't enough of a tell, squad has taken a backseat to take two on development.

as to below, shame the round-8 is now dead and replaced by a separate but identical part.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Spartwo

[basic.syntax]

4 hours ago, _stilgar_ said:

Why? Just because you want them? 

Making History is missions + parts pack. I don't care much for the missions, but I'll be buying the expansion for the new parts. 

Those parts aren't necessary to play the game, you can do anything without them. 

If Squad added parts to the base game just because people want those particular parts, there would be no reason to buy the expansion - and the expansion pays for continued development of the game. 

This is a fair counter-argument. Squad can indeed mix up the parts between the base game and expansions in any way they like. And my first poll question didn't quite capture this opinion. You wouldn't feel quite right to choose #1 'yes' but #2 'false' fits pretty well.  It was Squad's own choice to include some new parts (even if it is their choice, they opened the door to the possibility of parts developed during MH making their way into the base game, and they have responded to player feedback in the past. Although this is a really extreme example, and no one should get this worked up over a part they don't have: Squad didn't have to "save the Round-8" 

[basic.syntax]

4 hours ago, Spartwo said:

shame the round-8 is now dead and replaced by a separate but identical part.

I took a closer look and noticed the model has gotten a touch-up, the black bands around it are thinner, and of course the collision model has been corrected. (Offset into other parts should be a deliberate player choice.) The "round8" crisis was a due to the proposed switch to Xenon; tons of small LF+O designs with the round8 would have broken. I don't think players can get as worked up over just a name change. 

[_stilgar_]

5 hours ago, Dark Lion said:

By the same logic: DLCs aren't necessary at all then, are they..? One might enjoy countless hours of gameplay, regardless.

Yes, DLCs by definition shouldn't be necessary. If they are, then the game developer is cutting parts of the game to get even more money. Expansions by definition expand the game to add even more stuff or things to do. 

For example, I would have no problems if ISRU or CommNet were added as DLCs, as they add new things - but the game was fun enough without them. But, we got them "for free", so yay, more stuff for us! 

 

5 hours ago, Dark Lion said:

But does that mean I should buy the DLC every time, just to keep Squad fat and happy? Or would you prefer micro-transactions? Maybe pay-to-play would suit you better? I understand they want to get paid their worth, but who decides what you do with your money?

No, you should only buy DLCs that add stuff you want. Sure, you can also buy expansions you don't want, just to support the developer, if you feel like it, but it never should be an obligation. I like to point to Crusader Kings 2 as an example of the DLC model done right. The game was published in 2012, they probably planned to make 2 or 3 expansions if the game was a success. It was a success, it now has 14 big DLCs (I'm not counting portrait packs and things that don't change behaviour of the game), 15th is in development and the game is still actively supported now, in 2018, 6 years later. Even without DLCs, the base game evolved into much better game, but it was only possible with the money Paradox got from paid DLCs. 

 

I wish KSP had the same amount of support CK2 has. 

5 hours ago, basic.syntax said:

And my first poll question didn't quite capture this opinion. You wouldn't feel quite right to choose #1 'yes' but #2 'false' fits pretty well

Well, the problem is that "false" groups people who will buy MH regardless of those parts and people who won't buy it. 

 

5 hours ago, basic.syntax said:

Squad didn't have to "save the Round-8"

Yes, I remember that. Good developers listen to the players. The best developer listen to the players, but know that they don't have to do everything players wants, because players themselves really don't know what they want. And people who are fine with the game often don't go to the forum to post things (the vocal minority problem). 

[Spartwo]

5 hours ago, basic.syntax said:

I took a closer look and noticed the model has gotten a touch-up, the black bands around it are thinner, and of course the collision model has been corrected. (Offset into other parts should be a deliberate player choice.) The "round8" crisis was a due to the proposed switch to Xenon; tons of small LF+O designs with the round8 would have broken. I don't think players can get as worked up over just a name change. 

It's not a name change. They've done the same thing as with the large tanks. This is a new part but just identical in purpose.

[panzer1b]

Although i understand why they put it in the expansion (obviously they dont wanna give us any new parts in 1.4), but i agree that that particular part, the triangular and new square panels should be in stock and not in MH.  They have absolutely nothing to do with historical anything, and unlike stuff like 5m or 1.8m sized rockets (which is a completely new thing that i feel should be exlusive to the expansion as it currently is), the panels fit much better in stock alongside what few structural parts the game ships with.

Maybee its just me though, but i really think stock 1.4 should get a few things, and honestly, id have prefered they kept the parachutes as expansion only since its not something that is required to play the base game and we have been managing without it.  Ofc i know thisll all fall on deaf ears, since its prolly already set in stone, but itd be seriously appreciated if the panels (the only part of MH that i believe should be stock) were put into the base game and MH actually stuck to being what it outta be, the mission builder, with a historical parts pack alongside to help make those missions authentic looking, and not a random collection of stuff that has nothing to do with history but limits people like myself from using them in stock vessels (cant exactly upload anything using MH parts since not everyone would have that expansion).

[Rocket In My Pocket]

You want the parts in the expansion? Buy the expansion.

You can't just cherry pick parts of it and say it should be free to everyone. Where does it end? At what point do we draw a line and say "no, that actually belongs in the expansion." What if I feel a new command pod or engine is more fitting for the stock game? This is so subjective, how can it be measured?

Also, let's get real for a second. Any player seasoned enough to know what do with those triangles, or get any actual use out of them, is buying the expansion anyways because they are hardcore into KSP. It's not even something a casual player would need or appreciate the potential of.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[basic.syntax]

3 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

You want the parts in the expansion? Buy the expansion.

You can't just cherry pick parts of it and say it should be free to everyone. Where does it end? At what point do we draw a line and say "no, that actually belongs in the expansion." What if I feel a new command pod or engine is more fitting for the stock game? This is so subjective, how can it be measured?

Also, let's get real for a second. Any player seasoned enough to know what do with those triangles, or get any actual use out of them, is buying the expansion anyways because they are hardcore into KSP. It's not even something a casual player would need or appreciate the potential of.

Clearly we disagree, and that's fine. I drew my line pretty clearly at structural connecting parts: building blocks. Nothing more. As it stands, Squad went farther than I'm suggesting, and elected to give the base game a few functional parts developed (I expected) exclusive for MH: the Mk1-3 capsule, and a couple new surface attach tanks. 

[HebaruSan]

3 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

You want the parts in the expansion? Buy the expansion.

If I was SQUAD, and I wanted to sell DLC, and I saw people posting about what parts of the expansion they really really wanted to be given for free, I would put those parts at the top of my "definitely keep in the DLC" list.

20 minutes ago, basic.syntax said:

I drew my line pretty clearly at structural connecting parts: building blocks.

Let's say for the sake of argument that that's mainly what you're into, building cool replicas out of structural parts of various shapes. Would you really rather be arguing that the DLC sucks because it doesn't have anything you like in it? I think it's reasonable for them to try to appeal to many diverse kinds of play styles with the DLC content.

[basic.syntax]

15 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

Let's say for the sake of argument that that's mainly what you're into, building cool replicas out of structural parts of various shapes.

Hehe; I'm a casual player who has yet to visit every planet. My builds are usually min-max'r functional, with plenty of inefficiencies, but I tip my hat to good counter-arguments (both of them in your post) on DLC strategy   

I'm impressed by the hours some players put into intricate designs whether replica or unique. These can also serve to advertise and promote the game to a wider audience, when they are shared, up-voted, re-tweeted, and perhaps end up in front of Scott Kelly. This kind of benefit, derived from giving something away, is difficult to quantify. 

[DoctorDavinci]

So those panels are the same shapes and sizes of many of my DCK Aircraft Armor panels ... Perhaps I should make some adjustments and make them no longer invisible/transparent?

So tell me, why would you pay for parts when you can get them for free?

Edited March 11, 2018 by DoctorDavinci

[eldi]

What I'm missing more than structural panels are engine plates, as I use clustering engines more than structural part. 

On 11. 3. 2018 at 5:41 PM, DoctorDavinci said:

So those panels are the same shapes and sizes of many of my DCK Aircraft Armor panels ... Perhaps I should make some adjustments and make them no longer invisible/transparent?

So tell me, why would you pay for parts when you can get them for free?

I find your mod when I was looking for missing engine plates and structural panels in 1.4 as I haven't bought the expansion yet. I bookmarked it for now for later use.

[basic.syntax]

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 10:52 AM, HebaruSan said:

If I was SQUAD, and I wanted to sell DLC, and I saw people posting about what parts of the expansion they really really wanted to be given for free, I would put those parts at the top of my "definitely keep in the DLC" list.

Poll is closed... I made my case, agreed with some fair criticism, and didn't bump the thread. Looking at the lukewarm interest this post / poll generated, I'm thinking the suggestion might pass your test: Players were NOT clamoring in any significant numbers, to get these parts for free.   I still believe in the points I made & hope Squad might add these simple, fundamental building block parts, to the base game, in a future update.

[DoctorDavinci]

1 hour ago, basic.syntax said:

Poll is closed... I made my case, agreed with some fair criticism, and didn't bump the thread. Looking at the lukewarm interest this post / poll generated, I'm thinking the suggestion might pass your test: Players were NOT clamoring in any significant numbers, to get these parts for free.   I still believe in the points I made & hope Squad might add these simple, fundamental building block parts, to the base game, in a future update.

Well with over 2000 downloads in the past 26 days I'd say that KSP players are interested in free structural panels

 

[klesh]

On 3/11/2018 at 12:41 PM, DoctorDavinci said:

So tell me, why would you pay for parts when you can get them for free?

 

For me, the value is in the guarantee that they will be functional with all future versions of the game. 

Who knows when you might disappear from the community, and its a diceroll as to whether you mod would get maintained by someone post-departure.

[DoctorDavinci]

9 minutes ago, klesh said:

 

For me, the value is in the guarantee that they will be functional with all future versions of the game. 

Who knows when you might disappear from the community, and its a diceroll as to whether you mod would get maintained by someone post-departure.

Ummm, it's just parts ... no need for maintenance

The only change I made was to make them visible instead of transparent/invisible

[klesh]

Right.  And when/if/potentially they change how drag works, or re-balance masses, or any other type of change required... and you or any other mod author is gone, and no one chooses to maintain the mod, then what happens?

[DoctorDavinci]

18 minutes ago, klesh said:

Right.  And when/if/potentially they change how drag works, or re-balance masses, or any other type of change required... and you or any other mod author is gone, and no one chooses to maintain the mod, then what happens?

Sorry, not interested in an argument over what may or may not happen

However, my reply above was to the point that was made about " Players were NOT clamoring in any significant numbers, to get these parts for free." to which I responded:

23 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Well with over 2000 downloads in the past 26 days I'd say that KSP players are interested in free structural panels

 

So, as you can see, whether a mod will or will not work in future updates really has nothing to do with the subject matter of my original post which was a response to the OP's post above it ... If you prefer that panels should be stock then that is your opinion and if you prefer to not use mod parts then that is your prerogative

As I stated above, I'm not interested in arguing over a persons personal preferences as that is a persons choice on which I do not have an opinion ... I feel is a waste of both my time and your time to discuss it

Edited April 7, 2018 by DoctorDavinci

[klesh]

Yeah I read that part of the thread as well.  I addressed your initial question by quoting just that.  You asked why I would pay for parts over getting them for free, and I answered.  You further clarified your question, and I answered with the conundrum of what happens with non-payed-for parts.  I was simply discussing,m but if that's what you call an argument, then okay I guess?  We can be done.

I don't care if the panels are in stock or not as I bought the expansion (pretty much just for the parts).