Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stoup

  1. I think what (for me) can be taken away from this thread, after a lot of consideration here, is that I've developed a much clear picture of what I don't want to see from their communications: Any kind of buildup of hype or reliance on player speculation as a means of driving interest. I just want to see them stick to facts and facts alone, and not leave us to draw our own conclusions about the way of things. The vague nature of a lot of their comms has definitely been a sore spot for me. I'd hate to say that I would rather see them say nothing than to hear them say 'it's gonna be good, get excited!', because I'm all for more comms, but... I think I've made a similar point before, but I feel at this point they should definitely be careful about keeping it black and white: this is feature X, it does Y and Z, please give us your feedback! I'd also say that it would be good to hear that our feedback in threads like this isn't just screaming into the void, it would be nice to hear some comment about what community management thinks about all this! It occurs to me that good communication should be a two way street. I'd like to feel more of that in some form!
  2. I wouldn't even say we need to see content in progress, because that comes with its own set of complications. Honestly, I want to see effort being made to showcase the game as it currently is! Since many players have indeed proven that some fun CAN be had with the game in its current state. I want to reiterate that I definitely feel that the way development has gone has been less than stellar. There's no sense allowing that (or peoples' reactions to that fact) to stop any reasonable level of communication. EA should be about building the game alongside the community. I can say that, while there is some level of engagement with the community challenges, I just feel like they're... token efforts? Like it's being done without enthusiasm behind it. And I don't say that as a condemnation, but instead I hope to open dialogue about how creating feelings like this can be avoided
  3. Just curious, is the root part of the entire vessel the main probe core? Would definitely make sense to me that the designated root part have top priority for the command function
  4. Well, it's wandering into off-topic, but... They had many years to work on this game, and it seems to be that (while you can argue that there is quite a bit of content in the KSP2 EA release) NOT rushing doesn't leave us with a mechanically sound structure either. To get more to a reasonable point, maybe some of the community managers could spice things up every now and again and give us their attempts to fulfill the challenges they put out, or engage with the community in some way by playing the game and sharing it! In whatever form that may take. I feel sarcastic saying that given the state of the game but I do mean it genuinely
  5. I concur entirely, building hype is the least thing they need to do. I just wish, quite honestly, that I didn't have to feel that way Also, on an unrelated note, Dyson Sphere Program is pretty great! One of those titles I put on a shelf because I wanna experience the full glory of the 1.0 release instead of starting over multiple times
  6. I think there's a difference between trying to build up hype, and talking about new features they have already finished creating. Talking up hype would be like interviews and content before EA release, where they went on at length about how KSP2 was going to outperform KSP1, and just generally be better in just about every way. The kind of talk I would like to see, might be for example, even one screenshot or short video of something not analogous to a system we've used before. And we've gotten some of that for sure, it's just that it feels to me like it simply gets moshed in with generic screenshots of assets that don't tell us anything we don't already anticipate. Instead maybe these newer features could be put front and center where a little bit of further explanation can be given about their specific context. I'm just trying to run ideas out, honestly. They've said they want to improve communications, and I'm trying to help brainstorm how that can happen. Because I hate to see that they're stuck with the same feeling that they know they have to improve communications even though, between the two statements they've made on the matter, they definitely have TRIED to do so
  7. I think what people want to see more, is how NEW systems are going to work. We already knew science would have parts, we already knew it'd have... some kind of mission control system? Or rather, we knew science would have some kind UI from the KSC to manage it. I don't think we knew there would be cranes, but on the topic of communication... what's the context behind some of the images like that? Will we use that for building assembly? Or is it just a backdrop piece? If it's just a backdrop, why drop it along a supposed display of new features without explaining at all What we've yet to see, is much of anything about systems that we have not played an analogue of before. Stuff that KSP2 science will do, for example, that KSP1 science never did. There's been a bit of talk about that, but no show unfortunately.
  8. I want to do what I can, to give them feedback that might help them make a better KSP2, because I hope that one day the game might approach the heights they've laid out a plan for. I won't ignore the incongruity of the things they've hyped up versus what they've produced, so my practical expectations are not high. What can be done to match hopes with expectations? Since most talk is discarded out of hand, what talk do we feel would be appreciated? I for one would love to hear some reasoning behind their very specific 'Fridays are communication days' kinda idea. I get that they want to have a regular predictable report, but it becomes a pain point when some Fridays pass and there's no word on what progress was made, for example, that very week. Just as an example. Trying to get the ball rolling on that train of thought
  9. I mean, I'd think it'd be tragic if they allowed people who fit that description dictate how their communications go altogether. Part of the stated purpose of even the early access is to get player feedback, and unfortunately there's a lot to criticize. But that doesn't mean there isn't still work to be done to build the best possible version of the KSP franchise we all want to see. I know it's said often that they should just clam up, get to work and come out swinging with the fruits of their labor rather then words. I can only say how I feel, that that strategy has not worked for them so far, and that people can only be asked to wait for so long. We waited a long time while KSP2 was apparently in pre-dev, perhaps now is time for a different strategy
  10. I feel like they said the same thing about wanting to revisit their communication strategy, several months ago. Kinda feels weird to just hear that apparently there's not progress on whatever that tangibly really means? I know things like the KERB have popped up, but I don't really feel like that scratches the itch
  11. I think it's still alt+x, but I have no idea how you'd find that out from in-game
  12. Yeah, I think at this point it's less about whether or not the game is actually good or not (cause it's in a bad state right now for sure) and more about the fact that many people feel so burned off of trying to invest in playing the game. And if we're not playing the game, we can't discuss how things are going in the game, the things we create there, the stories we have... a lot of the things that make up a good community vibe. I wish there were something more to be done about it, but it definitely leaves me feeling grateful for people who are powering through the grit to keep making content. I've enjoyed watching that thread about circumnavigating Ike, and it's nice to see people like Socraticat keeping a KSP2 channel populated with a fair bit of content! I know we have weekly challenges, but maybe one way communication could be improved could be more direct interaction with, for example, community managers? Like, maybe livestreams playing the game, or short mini-challenges throughout the week, that kind of thing. I'm sure SOMETHING more can be done
  13. The way I see it, I ask myself this question: if even this first early release of KSP2 lived up to what IG wanted people to expect of it, would these people still be wishing all the negative things they do? And I still find that I think they would. Call it naivety if you will The point that I want to make sure gets across is that any pursuit of the argument of black vs white is going to end badly and non-constructively, so I'd love to see things steered away from indulgence in drama
  14. Just to throw in my perspective, I actually disagree that there even is a significant group of people who've made it their personal agenda to ensure the game fails. I can't think of a single person who wouldn't be happy to see their problems with the game and its development finally addressed and to see the have finally becoming what we've all hoped for. Even the people who've most vehemently criticized things, have never struck me as being of the stance that NOTHING could happen to change their minds. It's just that the things that would need to happen for that are not seeming like they may happen at all.
  15. Yeah, I do agree that that seems to be the way things are. I suppose it's pointless to just lament that I wish things were different, so all I feel that I, at least, can do is to make it as clear as I can what I think would help improve the way things are. I won't always correct, but positive sentiment won't grow from lack of effort
  16. That's honestly the impression I've gotten of the fact that they're extremely vague about science details: it feels to me they're afraid people will be very upset that it will wind up being more similar to KSP1 than people are anticipating. And if that weren't the case, I can't think of many reasons why all the details of at least how it's planned to work aren't being shared. To avoid just dumping on them, I'll say that this feels again to me like another good example of what they could do to actually improve communications: to be honest about what stage of development science is actually in. If it's still in design, don't be afraid to just let us know. We're going to draw that conclusion from evidence anyway, there's no service acting like it's not the case
  17. I have to call a spade a spade on this one and say that it seems to me the reason there's no context behind those images is because they love to rely on speculation to drive hype and therefore interest I think this is bad, because hype build-up is a huge part of what's burned me about KSP2
  18. I ask without being sardonic, but how is it that wanting to know the specifics of the planned mechanics of let's say, feature X, expecting 'sugarcoating'? I don't ask rhetorically, I am interested to hear elaboration The question doesn't have to be answered from a perspective of "how can I phrase this answer to get the person asking hyped". When I, at least, ask for clearer and more truthful communication, this is kind of what I mean. I'd hope the answer would be along the lines of something very simple like 'here's the current plans, X Y and Z. Here's bits we've implemented, and here's how we've prepared to implement the rest of them. This is all work in progress' Writing that out, I can see how their current communication style does tick a lot of those boxes. Communication like that DOES come from them, but it's also mixed in with a lot of communication that is much more evasive, and if I had to pin down what irks me about the present situation I'd say that fact is pretty well up there
  19. Hmm! I like that thought. And maybe science that you gather with your initial runs with the basic tools in each category will be required for further advances in that specific category. IE doing basic ground science can be done with science gained from any category, but to do more advanced ground science you'd need (or at least want for the best efficiency) results from your basic ground science first. So you can choose to specialize down a specific path a bit more, while still having the option to start trying out alternative science styles.
  20. Yeah, I definitely agree with that idea as well! I wish there wasn't such an issue with mitigation of part count though cause if we had to worry about needing a designated part for every function we quickly run into that snag
  21. For me, I've changed the way I've felt about KSP2 just based on comparing results of what we receive against what was hyped up before release. This is very much in line with what you've pointed out, but in my mind I put the question of good or bad faith entirely aside. Going forward, I'm strictly trying to judge what I expect from the development team based SOLELY on what they release, and giving just about zero credence to any claims they make or justifications they pop out. In this way, assumptions of good or bad faith are pretty much irrelevant. Keep it results based! And judging solely from those metrics, things are pretty rough for what you'd expect out of an early access title. As always, I hope things improve but don't expect it, because I've yet to see something like the major improvement I would hope for, in many aspects.
  22. I like it! If LS were to be implemented, I'd hope it'd be something like this system. I can attest that with USI at least trying to figure out ratios of snacks, fertilizer, recyclers etc got to feeling overwhelming pretty quickly, so keeping those systems as simple as possible is a good way to go for the base game in my opinion
  23. Not to keep diving into a topic that is undeniably, off topic, but I don't agree. I mean, we already suspend our disbelief at the fact that kerbals don't eat at all, or freeze in the cold of space. I can say for myself, having played with mods like, for example, USI life support, that it feels like a decent balance to have kerbals just not serve their role as effectively if they're not given LS resources, effectively going "on strike". I don't think a directly analogous system to this is the right approach either, but it touches on the same realm of handling LS in a less binary way.
  24. Yeah, I like the idea of balancing LS around being, not a binary "feed them or they die" kinda mechanic, but that maybe if LS was going to have some implementation, it would be for maximizing the resources you get out of using your kerbals. Better science returns and other bonuses like what you mention, rather than being outright punishing if you don't establish proper supply lines
  25. I've been having completely the same feeling. I'm befuddled enough that this kind of this happens at all, given all the delaying initially done for 'polish', but the fact something so extremely simple to fix hasn't been touched in over six months is even less explicable. Definitely lends to my impression that there's little care given to user experience
  • Create New...