|
Post by illectro on Nov 7, 2016 18:10:57 GMT
I actually made a point of beating the game using just the stock ships, because it seems far too easy to exploit approximations in the weapon physics and make the game too easy, so it's a deliberate decision.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Nov 7, 2016 18:48:52 GMT
I actually made a point of beating the game using just the stock ships, because it seems far too easy to exploit approximations in the weapon physics and make the game too easy, so it's a deliberate decision. If you mean that every single design in the boards that is better than the stock ones is bugged, i don't agree really. There are some genuinely puzzling design decisions on the stock ships, for example I wholeheartedly dissagree that the main powerplant should be at the rear. Yes you save a little bit of radiation shielding but it makes you hideously vulnerable to missiles. It does make sense on a civillian ship but not on anything that will be shoot at. This is not really a critique to qswitched , I mean a lot of those things came from extrapolating on the reality but that doesn't really mean that they make sense in the game. Some materials in the solar system are much more abundant than on earth - boron for example. I don't understand why it wasn't used more on the stock ships. But this is all talk... why don't we organize a contest... for making improved twins of the stock ships, without exploiting anything that we know is bugged?
|
|
|
Post by someusername6 on Nov 7, 2016 19:32:31 GMT
I disagree with replacing the stock ships, from a gameplay perspective.
A great part of the fun for the game for me has been modifying and improving existing designs. If the stock designs were much better, someone new to the game would have much more difficulty improving upon them -- and would not have the same experience I had.
I *would* like for user created designs to be easier to share, maybe just posting config on the forum, maybe with a built-in online workshop of modules and ships. But not as a part of the core game.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Nov 7, 2016 19:39:24 GMT
I know , I like to do it to... so why not share it ? I do not purpose replacing just showing everyone the improved versions.
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Nov 7, 2016 20:09:34 GMT
If you mean that every single design in the boards that is better than the stock ones is bugged, i don't agree really. There are some genuinely puzzling design decisions on the stock ships, for example I wholeheartedly dissagree that the main powerplant should be at the rear. Yes you save a little bit of radiation shielding but it makes you hideously vulnerable to missiles. It does make sense on a civillian ship but not on anything that will be shoot at. This is not really a critique to qswitched , I mean a lot of those things came from extrapolating on the reality but that doesn't really mean that they make sense in the game. Some materials in the solar system are much more abundant than on earth - boron for example. I don't understand why it wasn't used more on the stock ships. But this is all talk... why don't we organize a contest... for making improved twins of the stock ships, without exploiting anything that we know is bugged? Yeah, a pretty consistent thing I do is put the powerplant in the nose, where it can be protected by a small armored nosecone. However, I think part of the reasoning for the stock ships' powerplant placement might have something to do with a system that isn't modeled in the game: plumbing. The reactor is put in between the radiators because that would minimize the amount of plumbing needed to get heat out of the reactor and into the radiators. But the game doesn't model plumbing, so we're free to put the reactor and radiators at opposite ends of the ship with no consequences even though doing so isn't necessarily realistic.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Nov 7, 2016 20:47:07 GMT
Yeah, a pretty consistent thing I do is put the powerplant in the nose, where it can be protected by a small armored nosecone. However, I think part of the reasoning for the stock ships' powerplant placement might have something to do with a system that isn't modeled in the game: plumbing. The reactor is put in between the radiators because that would minimize the amount of plumbing needed to get heat out of the reactor and into the radiators. But the game doesn't model plumbing, so we're free to put the reactor and radiators at opposite ends of the ship with no consequences even though doing so isn't necessarily realistic. That makes sense , thanks for clearing it. It also makes sense in the context of my words "makes sense in real world , doesn't make sense in the game as it is". I'll be happy if we get more systems simulated , but even with plumbing , I'll still avoid placing the reactor next to the engines.
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Nov 7, 2016 20:51:43 GMT
Engine, propellant tanks, reactor, propellant, crew, propellant, propellant, propellant?
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Nov 7, 2016 21:12:50 GMT
yep something like this sounds good... mine currently is more like engine - tanks - reactor - crew - ammo - reactor - tanks.
|
|
|
Post by boomertiro on Nov 7, 2016 23:06:46 GMT
He's not saying all of the custom designs are bugged. He's saying that if he started doing his own designs instead of limiting himself in some way he'd just take advantage of the bugs in his quest to make the best possible designs. He wants to be the very best like no one ever was.
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Nov 7, 2016 23:20:44 GMT
Well, I hope at least that once he's done with the campaign, he starts making videos about his custom designs. After all, that's the fun part of the game.
|
|
|
Post by dpidz0r on Nov 8, 2016 0:12:01 GMT
Just watched part 5. For main belt extraction, burning straight at the encounter from a few minutes out to increase the intercept speed might have worked better. Literal last minute course corrections are what win or lose the actual engagement. I'd rather spend 2 seconds tanking unanswered railgun fire in order to have 8 seconds to melt the radiators with my lasers than 20 seconds of tanking it for 80 seconds of radiator melting action.
Then the vesta overkill strategy was interesting. Seems kind of like a cheese strategy, but then I could also imagine having rules of engagement about not pounding the nearby gravitational body into dust with hypervelocity weapons. Considering the campaign fluff, using civilian infrastructure as a shield seems like something the protagonists side might do.
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Nov 8, 2016 0:15:42 GMT
yep something like this sounds good... mine currently is more like engine - tanks - reactor - crew - ammo - reactor - tanks. You running an mpd or using big tanks? Because you seem a bit short of propellant. I mean, most breakdowns of ship construction ought to sound like somebody substituted the word propellant for spam in that one monty python skit. "Engines, propellant, rtg, crew and propellant. Engines propellant, propellant and payload. Engines, propellant, propellant and propellant." [Suddenly Vikings burst into song]
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Nov 8, 2016 4:54:37 GMT
yep something like this sounds good... mine currently is more like engine - tanks - reactor - crew - ammo - reactor - tanks. You running an mpd or using big tanks? Because you seem a bit short of propellant. I mean, most breakdowns of ship construction ought to sound like somebody substituted the word propellant for spam in that one monty python skit. "Engines, propellant, rtg, crew and propellant. Engines propellant, propellant and payload. Engines, propellant, propellant and propellant." [Suddenly Vikings burst into song] It wasn't proportional , the song sounds good And yes , I'm aware he might not have ment what I feared, if its just to get more experience with the stock designs more power to him, I'd be interested to see the results too.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 15, 2016 1:57:08 GMT
Just to toss something out there...
We should thabk Scott Manley for increasing the visibility and following of this game, not to mention discovery of correctable nuances.
With publicity comes participants, who discover issues (myself included) that are correctable so that we can enjoy a more realistic simulation.
My advice for Scott Manley is to continue playing the game, discovering issues, and presenting COADE to new audiences. And continue KSP to boot.
As an unrelated aside, while overseas serving in a combat zone, KSP was my relief. You'd be surprised the impact that one man can have.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Nov 4, 2017 17:17:56 GMT
I see older discussions and older YTs referring to (and showing!) these distinctive "homing" buttons. When, why, how were those removed?
|
|