Jump to content

Derpiesaurus

Members
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Derpiesaurus

  1. That is, unless you're using Unreal Engine 5! Though.. you're still right, since you did say "even in the best looking games on the market"
  2. @VanamondeJust purely if it would make it easier to moderate, by removing this as a potential source of needed moderation. But completely up to you. If it doesn't really make a difference then I think it's good to keep unlocked as people may still want to chat about it
  3. @VanamondeI'm kinda surprised (even though I probably shouldn't be) that this post had comments that had to be moderated... If you'd like you can delete the post or hide it (if it's possible to hide it?) so it doesn't have to continue to be moderated, as people have nicely answered my questions, so there's not much need for the original post anymore, for me at least. So it's up to you, if it would make it easier to moderate. EDIT: You could also lock it if you want.. Which I only just remembered you could do.. Would probably be a much less destructive way than the other suggestions...
  4. @SnarkVery well written! I absolutely agree now that it would be easier to deal with, and are likely to receive better feedback from a carefully selected group of people. However I'm still not sure anything can beat a whole crowd for finding bugs (maybe not reporting them though), which in my experience tends to be what remains when a game launches. There aren't usually any deep technical problems with the vision of the game, or the general function of things. It's usually just small bugs that are found through rigorous testing. So I think some type of open.. something, would be useful, but yeah the way I explained one of the possibilities, it wouldn't be very viable. I still think though, after all the answers here, that polling the community on things for KSP2 would be a good idea. I've definitely narrowed the scope of the polling in my head after reading everything, from whole features, down more to what I'm about to explain here: I think they could still use polls to ask some questions (these are examples rather than things that might actually work) like "How long should it take for a new KSC to be built when colonising?" and then giving options like "2h", "4h", "12h", "24h", for people to choose from. It could be a good gauge of how long the general community is willing to wait and be satisfied with things like that. Though I'm open to being corrected about that too! It does appear that Intercept has already been pretty open when they want community feedback, as said by someone who commented here. So with the issues that occur with open betas in mind, they pretty much are already quite close to the ideas I had in the original post. Coming back to the example of the Minecraft snapshots that I used in a reply.. I reckon something like this is exactly what all games should do. I originally said it may be worth trying to be this open before the game is launched, but then everyone would hoard to the test game and scramble the bug reports and feedback like you said. I now realise that the only reason this seems to work, is that Minecraft's core playerbase seems to be kids, that are less likely to be up to date with snapshots, or even care about them. These snapshots are also specifically updates, not a new game, so there's less hype there as well. So the end result is that the users that are testing the snapshots, are usually adults, that have a good amount of knowledge on Minecraft and usually are "savvy" enough to file good reports. I think KSP 2 should employ a testing method like this, after they release the game, as it truly seems to be a great method. So all in all, pretty happy with what they're doing, development wise, and I very much expect there will be some sort of NDA covered closed beta regardless, so my only hope now is that they do something like snapshots as I think it could be great, but I imagine they'll have a good method anyway.
  5. I think this is a big part of the "delay", which is actually more of a pushback, than a delay, that people misunderstand. There is a good possibility they're just pushing the game back to really polish it, than because they have to. I have never once in my life seen such a positive community when it comes to "Take literally as much time as you need, give me a good game". I think the development team really understands that, and are taking their time because of it. I have very little doubt that we'll get a good game at launch. And anyway, a bunch of funky bugs in a game like KSP is fine imo as long as they're ironed out in a couple of weeks, because they usually make it funny for about that long, before they get tiresome.
  6. I may have to do some digging because conversations about that sound like a really fun read. Yeah, especially with the great answers you've given me, I do think now that it's the least risky way of doing it. And because they've already sort of asked for feedback on things that are necessarily going to be added (or I assume that's the nature of them), that's pretty much good enough imo to answer the question about posting ideas for feedback. I hope they just do a decently large sized group of people for a beta test, rather than only select Youtubers and stuff, as famous != great tester necessarily (Unless you're Scott Manly that is, he's legendary. Which reminds me that I think we need a petition for him to be the voice of the tutorial.. but that's a whole other topic).
  7. Yeah this is a good point. I can see how it would be pretty easily get flooded with all sorts of opinions on things; though that's why I think polls could work so well, because they can still choose x amount of options, but the community could help choose the generally agreed upon best. Though, balancing and predicting the PR nightmare that could potentially occur from stuff is a good enough reason not to do it to me. This is one thing that I thought of that could've been a problem, which is why I tried to word it the way I did. But for the most part, in my gullibility, I trust when companies that I know well when they say upfront and directly "We will not store this data". If it's hidden in terms of service under article 532 page 73, then yeah It's kinda sketchy. But I do think that this may not be a popular view on it. (the spaces are in relation to your's, rather than quoting each bit, to save space I realise this doesn't really save any space, so it's kinda unnecessary but I've already done it so meh) Very true, and I can't think of any time they asked (just bad memory.. or I haven't seen it), but it's pretty cool to know they have asked for feedback already. I think it might make more financial sense to go with what the people that are likely to buy the game want, but that could easily lead to a better theoretical experience, but a worse playing experience; so yeah, risky... I definitely could be wrong, but I don't think it's a bad idea to show a wider community the game before release, for feedback. They definitely wouldn't have to, proven by the success of games that don't do that. But if you look at the snapshots they do on Minecraft, it gives the community so much time to give feedback and bug reports, and the updates come out brilliantly and at a very acceptable amount of bug free. (Answering this with the assumption you're talking about the mention of Battlefield 2042, so do correct me if I'm wrong). Bare with me since I know Minecraft is another mention of a multiplayer game. I 100% get that all games would need differing feedback and testing - and the reason BF2042 did that is to test servers and player interactions like you said. I think finding bugs and feedback of gameplay loops would still require the same sort of testing though (giving out temporary stripped down copies, or full copies for testing), just maybe not directed towards multiplayer. It's more the practice of the testing that I'm looking at in the BF2042 example, rather than the specifics, which is why I mention Minecraft above. I don't mean anything specific about it, just that they have people test for months and months, and as far as I know, always have had a great reaction to updates.
  8. Genuine question to try to understand why they might not do this, as I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be purely positive. If they're sure about features like multiplayer, colonies, etc, why don't they just show off their current implementation and read the comments on the forums. Or even better, make a poll that needs some personal identification like a phone number for a verification code (without them storing it obv, but to avoid bots) and asking the community what they think about the feature in it's current implementation. If they're making the game to serve the community that is most likely to enjoy it, what downside would there be to asking them what they should change to make the most people happy? A poll for feature implementation could be very easily seen as just development and subject to change (because possibly changing it is the whole point of the poll) and would be hard to twist into a promise and fact that people would get angry doesn't actually happen. Beta tests would give them great data on all sorts of different system specs, play styles and a much larger team of bug finders. It could even be incredibly limited, to just even a single feature, as to not basically give the whole game to people for free, for however long. All of this would go to further guarantee a good experience for money at launch. I don't see how in a hopeful future of decades for the game, it could be a bad thing for a couple of months prior to allow a couple hundred / thousand people get to beta test, or vote for polls on features. The few early months of exposure to the game would be well worth it in the long run, and give people significantly more confidence in pre-ordering and just buying in general. This would all be assuming they did it early enough in the time remaining until release to actually change things, unlike Battlefield 2042 for example, where I don't believe they got the information early enough, and didn't seem to try to act on it at all - that's why that game is a failure (EA even said it, not just me). Just to restate: I don't mean this post in any sort of argumentative, rhetorical way, as to push for them to do this - I am just genuinely interested in people's opinion on as to why this might be a bad, or good idea.
  9. I'd consider early 2023 to be a time within spring, which extends a bit further, but yeah it's not as much new info as I initially thought it could be. I suppose it does guarantee it's before March 31st, and that allows me to concentrate my hype on the time rather than be hyped without knowing how long I will wait (which makes me want to bang my head against stuff). Here's for March 15th!
  10. In the earnings call it says KSP2 is launching in Q4 of FY2023, which from my search means a time between January 1st 2023 - March 31st 2023. Going to a 3 month release window, from a 12 month one, seems pretty good to me. And because they're likely to grab all the time they can get, it's pretty much guaranteed to launch in March - so there's also sort of a release month. All of that is a lot more specific than "Early 2023", as well as official, since it came from the earnings call. There's also up to about 10 months more development time that they've got. Given a guess of about 2 years of development prior to announcing in 2019, that's a total of about 5 - 6 years. Idk how they could delay again, so my hype train is going good.
×
×
  • Create New...