Jump to content

FlickAndSnorty

Members
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

35 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

268 profile views
  1. I've found it's pretty reliable to be honest. In the process of building a station at 200km above Kerbin, and so far it's been great! Only challenge I've had so far is the overheating of items within a fairing. I'm only doing about 600m/s at 30km up and I'm having docking ports on my coupling module exploding which is fairly frustrating... Suppose I just need to use a heatshield on the front while we wait on a few tweaks to the thermal mechanics....
  2. Not expecting this to be planned anytime soon, but what's the likelihood of native HOTAS support by the time v1.0 releases? Any ideas on when we could expect support, if it is already in the works? Obviously a low one on the list, but I think there's already quite a few posts on Reddit and other forums asking about mod support for HOTAS to bridge the gap.
  3. This is a genuine question... What do you think they develop and test with? This isn't branched versions in a repo I'm talking about, I mean, how many working release and staging builds with differing combinations of features (and therefore code) do you think a game dev studio have at any one time? They've been playing in-house with Multiplayer for what, over a year now? they absolutely will still be putting together features in the release build that are more refined in other branches, but Dev cycles aren't as straightforward as multiple developers working off a git repo and pushing to prod when they're happy with it, QA and UAT is often the most time consuming part (when done properly) from my experience. No doubt there are core features (like the manoeuvre planner) waiting QA and UAT testing for different iterations. IQ would have likely picked the most stable one off the shelf when assembling the EA release build so they could meet Take2's demands.
  4. @RockyTV I feel at this point, you're intentionally ignoring all of the evidence that counters nearly everything you've said. Yes, IG was created by T2, but T2 still sets the deadlines, sets the prices, and does the marketing. The studio only produces the game and works with what they get from the publisher. Their owners/founders have no bearing on the working relationship between publisher and studio, perhaps only other than budget and talent from other publisher owned studios getting poached. Like absolutely everyone else has said - They were likely given the deadline with marginal notice and no game ready to ship. Developing a stable release build for an early access title is a massive task. Combine that with the hype the publisher has built around the game, and you run in to what we have got. Interviews with Nate show he clearly knows of the current dev build state that they have in-house, and is genuinely proud of it. That speaks volumes about what the studio has done, versus the hand the publisher has dealt them. Publisher profits have often always been the root cause of bad launch states. Feel free to take a look at the information pulled by the dataminers: Click to open the full posts. No one's saying the studio is to blame for delayed patches, certainly not at the same volume as people ignoring the significance the publisher has played in this games launch state. Delayed patches? They're not delayed at all. They've said pretty much on day 1 to keep an eye out for upcoming patches. Nate has even said they're keeping them to every few weeks to ensure the patches are thorough, and have sufficient time to QA test the patches. The devs are also human beings coming out of a release crunch. Give them a chance to recover and spend time with families.... This just reads disingenuous. Rushed release date = Crunch to put together something to launch. Watch Shadow zones interview, with Nate the week before launch. They obviously knew about the bugs, and obviously already had their minds set on patches. Why wouldn't they? They've engaged very frequently and publicly with the community, and have channels with content creators to feedback prevalent bugs as well. I don't understand why you think IG have done anything other than their very best. They haven't "Dropped an F-bomb to fans" they've explained everything clearly, quickly, and are working relentlessly to fix this If you're able to give examples of where IG have been dishonest to us, please do share. Currently, the evidence and general consensus of so many other users responding to you, is that you've got blinders on because you're upset. That's absolutely fine - i've got about 2k hours on KSP 1, I grew up playing it, and launch day annoyed me. But seeing all of this work from IG coming to the surface, I have absolutely zero reason to believe they're doing nothing short of the very best they can following their publishers decisions.
  5. I think it's fair to say the scope of what they can say, is by what they're doing now to prove dedication the video game, now that Take Two have got the EA build launched. I'm also not too sure if take two would be that concerned about negative press over punishing the devs for speaking out about launch condititions. It's well known the crunch on the lead up to any release is brutal on the devs, and publishers continue to push those unfair deadlines on devs just because they can eat the negative press with the profits they set from such high prices like we have with KSP 2. I don't think it would be too far of a stretch to imagine they wouldn't be afraid to push the big red self destruct button. Take two are a company that's already sacking its admin and other pre-release staff in the current employment market, and are known for their unethical practices. I'd also reckon that due to treyarch having such a well known reputation for being top shelf developers for the CoD franchise, that they would be able to 'get away' with a lot more than intercept, who were assembled for the purpose of making this game. That said, I think Intercept are handling this with a lot of grace. Think it's even more telling that they're just rolling with the punches and proving the point that this game is going to be a cult classic come v1.0 without throwing anyone under the bus. they're handling it with class, despite a lot of the unfair comments they're getting from likely just uninformed players that expected a lot more than what they got. I think you're absolutely spot on. Take Two really aren't a good publisher. Rockstar is fortunately big enough to work around the flaws of Take Twos leadership. You don't need to look hard to find out how poorly the 2k games are going either... NBA 2k has been just a copy and paste with additional monetization thrown in for years now. I don't doubt intercept will manage to produce a fantastic v1.0 when the time arrives, it's just a shame they've had so many of the flaws at launch reflecting on them as a developer, and not on Take2 as the publisher. Maybe we'll get to learn more about the internal discussions before launch one day.... I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall in some of those meetings.... *Take Two set the price and deadlines, Intercept are doing what they can to fix their publishers errors. Give them time to do so instead of kicking them while they're down. Honestly.... that was the first and only game I've refunded as well as I can remember... Think it's safe to say EVERYONE learned from that mess of a launch
  6. Fair point on Discord Think the way the information has been presented as well, has been brilliant. They've not gone "here" *slam* read this wall of text about everything done with the game. It's been routine posts, clear information, minimal jargon unless necessary so more users can understand, and their community management allround has been spot on. At least there weren't any canvas bags or custom bottles sold as merch.... that would've gone down well /s
  7. RIght, so let's compare games. KSP 1 EA - You had Kerbin. That's it. just kerbin. - You had awful performance, - noodle rockets and no struts to try and compensate, no mod loaders on Day 1 to open avenues for early fixes by the community, and the pre-alpha UI was objectively awful. - I think we had fewer parts in EA KSP 1 than we have fuel methlox fuel tanks in KSP 2. - vanilla graphics are incredibly dated even on the most recent build. KSP 2 EA, You have: - The entire Kerbol system, - VAB/SPH combined, - Reworked building process to support future features and a massive building area, - Redesigned UI (Yes it has significant flaws, but the approach to this rework isn't benign), - Evidence of most of the game being built, - Incredible vanilla graphics, - I honestly think better performance for Day 1 release. - You have an entire games studio working on this, not a 1 or 2 man indie team building it as a bit of fun. That means faster turn around for patches, as already being demonstrated by the intercept team. The biggest factor though, which is why there's such bad reception for KSP 2, and what you're very clear about, is the build that got released. This wasn't intercept that set the deadline for the game, nor the price of the game. That was set by the publisher - PrivateDivision who are owned by Take Two. This is a vast company pushing insane deadlines for a brand new studio. I get you're frustrated, but your frustrations sit with the publisher, not the studio that very clearly have built most of the complete game already, have demonstrated phenomenal community interaction since day 1, Have given an estimate on their Update for the 16th (next Thursday) and more importantly, are human beings with lives outside of work. I wouldn't appreciate it if I'd spent three years of my life on a project I was a huge fan of, get crunched before release day, knowing what will happen, and then still continue to produce patches whilst there's an onslaught of low quality feedback and cheap punches about the state of the game. Would you appreciate that? Let them do their work, and refund the game and buy it at full launch if you're not willing to put up with game breaking bugs in an early access build.
  8. This isn't just directed at you, I promise, but I've seen this exact comment from so many people on almost every post from the devs, talking about the Day 1 build, the price, and all asking Nate "Why?" and it's boring now, so prepare for a rant about why comments like this are so unnecessary, and finding the first two answers, are nothing more than a quick google search to find what a publisher does versus a game studio. Take Two ( the guys that own 2K and Rockstar) also own Private Division, the publisher of KSP 2. When I refer to either TakeTwo or Private Division, just know I'm using them pretty synonymously in this. The publisher (TakeTwo) set the deadline. There are many more moving parts than "this is the deadline". - Publisher takes out funding to pay for salaries and other costs associated with the development of the game. - Developer bids to win the game, and begins developing it on the budget and deadline initially allocated by the Publisher. - Publisher has a deadline set by its funders to give them a return on their investment, and so forces a deadline for release. - Developer cannot realistically hit a new deadline as their entire development cycle will have already been planned out (We also kinda had a global pandemic that screwed with a lot of this). - Developer is now forced to produce an EA build that they're not happy with - Publisher now sells this EA build at a price they, the publisher sets. In this entire process, not once does the Studio (Intercept Games) get control over pricing, marketing, sales, budget or deadline. They may be able to advise the publisher on realistic goals, but the publisher makes the final decision, not the studio. Again, Publisher sets the price. Not the studio. I get it, you're frustrated. As was I on launch day. I've got 1.1k hours on steam for KSP 1, and another 1k on modded versions. This game has been a part of my life since I was a child, and will continue to be so for hopefully many, many years to come. Is an apology necessary from anyone at Intercept though? absolutely not. They're acknowledging players frustration every time they make a post. There's 0 need to kick someone while they're down. Offer them a hand up by submitting helpful feedback on their feedback form, engage in the discord and forum threads, and be a part of the what transforms the game into the vision the community shares with Intercept. Intercept also very clearly have their hands tied. They can't outright tell everyone "Hey guys, the folk at take two that own our publisher, and have funded this games development set unrealistic time scales for the budget they gave us, and also rinsed you for $50 are at fault, here's footage of gameplay on our dev build that shows what's coming". They'd get dropped instantly by TakeTwo and the game would be given to a new studio, or worse, would just get dropped entirely. This is also, again an EA build. If this is v1.0, then get the pitchforks out. I'd be right with you. But it's not. it's a day 1 build and will be so until Thursday 16th (unless anything changes). Hopefully anyone else looking to add to the dog pile about the price, state of game and ask for an apology about the game, decide to direct it at Take Two and Private Division, instead of the developers who are doing everything they can, and are doing so incredibly publicly. Nate, and everyone else at Intercept, keep doing what you're doing - Keep the communication and honesty going, and keep the feedback channels open, I'm sure the first few updates are going be tough, but the turnaround time for what you're producing is nothing other than phenomenal!
  9. Take the rose tinted glasses off.... I too got it in early beta from the ksp website. It absolutely was this bad. With the caviat that you vould only orbit kerbin, no mun or anything. The devs built ksp2, completely scorched earth in a new engine, and effectively replicated the functionality of a game that had 10 years worth of updates done to it. Bad performance and bugs is to be expected in early access. Either I won the silicone lottery on a 3050 and i58600k and have fluked 25-30fps, or you have unrealistic expectations of what you were getting.
  10. Im curious if theres a plan to display a list of triaged bugs that we can have visibility on? Seems a large volume of the community is eager to know what has at least been confirmed as a bug/change that will be worked on? Not to say these fix lists aren't a fantastic way to keep us in the loop (they are, and i think theyd be fantastic to maintin over the first few months of Early access at a minimum), but additional visibility on the 'hit list' you guys are working on, might help to also quell some of major complaints, by showing an objective list of what you guys are tackling. I think many more players will begin to appreciate that some of their expectations of fixes aren't realistic to expect in this first update. (Definitely not just flipping a few switches!)
×
×
  • Create New...