Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


384 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • About me
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's why I asked "why". If you lurk/post here on KSP2 hype/feature/marketing threads without really expecting anything, why bother? I understand stoicism, I don't understand willfuly wasting one's time when you aren't taking any part of the information releases as holding any value. Then what is? Saying a feature is coming apparently isn't, showing it isn't either, giving a timeframe for it ("post 1.0 update") isn't either. That's subjective at best, specially since they used MP coming as the biggest sales bait on linked public articles and their social medias. Doesn't detract from the fact that I can still tell people to not trust those promises based on the dev/studio history of not being able to keep them. Even if there's no legal accountability, there's public accountability. As many as they should, specially since it was used as sales bait, this is exactly why 10 years later we've still got people asking for the feature, and why the sequel was announced with a big "MULTIPLAYER AT LAUNCH" attached on social media posts and other publications. My only goal here is telling people to not believe that based on their history of using MP as bait and then silently failing to deliver.
  2. I mean, if we dismiss words like that, why are we even expecting a game? They literally didn't say "we promise to deliver KSP2", which it is said in one of my linked articles for KSP1. They mentioned the word "committed" in "committed to bring Multiplayer as a free post 1.0 update", they answered community members telling them it was coming, planned, and lastly, I challenge you to find any post that says "multiplayer for KSP1 has been cancelled". Found this one to add to the list too: https://www.facebook.com/kerbalspaceprogram/posts/pfbid02XaN4WXrPbKnYAJmMw6Lx3zNDMEAYxwJwu1B8qhB8PNgnYUyjpmek8wWFyLTtqWDwl?comment_id=978554832163741&reply_comment_id=978557518830139&__cft__[0]=AZVwiaMTGEh_cezOVANZ1-TfC7oeTZY4SWP6Rfi_rsdsenCI_J-p8VswhssfvtsvQanhtzno8KiH3YIjerixjBk9xHtnSmKvzfTqOgUvcda1tsXK41oXa25Me8BlS2Z4TmxTmBpiaSe_2Rsl9-LZqPsH&__tn__=R]-R Multiplayer was a last resource promise to give a boost to 1.0 sales. It never arrived, it was never cancelled either, just swept under the rug if anything. Like really, and I'm repeating myself, at that point we really shouldn't be here, or listening to any marketing if nothing they can ever say is ever to be considered as "promised".
  3. "Squad is committed [...]" https://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-committed-to-multiplayer-career-and-sandbox-modes/ "We're working on it[...]" "Free update after 1.0". "Squad has promised other long-requested features, including an official multiplayer mode" https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/kerbal-10-release-women/
  4. I check these forums through RSS and the title really fricking got me. They still owe us updates from multiplayer in KSP1, and you think they're gonna say anything about multiplayer in KSP2? That's probably not coming till like a year after release, if it ever comes, no matter what they've said.
  5. This'd be great, but requires a lot more effort than just a 3d model and its texturing job. Real motors have a lot of components not even close to being simulated in the original game: Inefficiencies from deep throttling, chamber pressure dropoff, myriad of fuel combinations, etc. Add to that the fact that the universe is 10 times smaller, and you get a whole level of inconsistencies that's unreconcilable. This is exactly why Realism Overhaul pretty much requires RSS and breaks everything in the game if you don't get the real solar system size. This means they have to rework the parts for the toy scale, add the missing systems, and then somehow find a way to translate that to a performance level that matches the real world. The level of compromises they'd have to take makes it pretty impossible for it to be anything more than a simple visual representation (which some parts already are). If we leave realism aside (which should be the point of something like this), I think it'd still be cool to see more real-life analogues, even if just visual.
  6. Can we please have some clarification on whether this is captured in editor, in engine or in game?
  7. First off, sorry, I quoted the wrong post, I meant to quote this one: Second off, I do agree with the statement if we're talking about KSP1, but definitely not KSP2, it has to at least live up to its contemporaries, they have one of the biggest publishers in gaming behind them, and a big enough team now as well. Those are my expectations as a customer obviously.
  8. KSP is no longer an indie developed by an independent small studio. We need to do away with the lowballing.
  9. If 2 really is done, then 1 is mostly done as well, they're pretty tight with each other. 3 requires that legs and SAS stop being magically strong, once that is done, hills and such will become pretty hard to land on. Further on, proper aerodynamics (with consequences) will make packing legs a challenge, so you can't just add legs to anything and use those + magic SAS to plonk a vessel down anywhere. Those barriers would not be arbitrary, they'd be as realistic as they get. Real life rockets don't take off with unprepared un-aerodynamic parts hanging off the side. 4 has been done by mods, don't really need to explain, just make the magic tracking station map not magic by blurring it or just showing a 2d image or something, until you send a mapping probe. 6 has progress from breaking ground, they just need to iterate a couple times more on it to get a proper and engaging sample return experience. 7 is again literally made by mods, requiring life support limits your choices in a meaningful way, as crew can't just land anywhere and spend any amount of time hanging out, missions suddenly require planning AND execution. Add to that a layer of wind/clouds/weather and you can't just land or takeoff whenever you want anymore, there are weather mods already for KSP1. It seems the issue is you grossly overestimating everything suggested as an atom level simulation, when it really doesn't need to be that.
  10. That's a wide berth you have to take to go from "planets are uninteresting" to "the only way to fix that is simulated geology and meaningful voxel terrain". On top of that, the challenge you mention applies once per body, thus again back to my argument: You have no reason to visit more than once. What I'd suggest is they look at planets from a level design perspective and not just a collection of PQS parameters to form a homogenously boring collection of hills and craters. Moho has the mohole, and other than that is just a brown Mun; Eve is probably the only one you visit more than once trying a return mission but outside the difficulty of returning, again, a purple Mun with metal oceans Minmus lets you play with marginal gravity, but it is such an easy body to do whatever you want in that its huge contrasts of flatness and mountains matters zero; Duna is everybody's first target, but it is no more than an orange Mun with its poles being interesting, yet they offer no difference in gameplay; Dres has an amazing canyon, which you'll land in or around once and then never visit again, if anybody ever visits in the first place; Joolian moons offer an oversized Mun, an ice Mun, a smaller and geology-lacking Kerbin, and 2 asteroids which offer no difference between each other (or with the other asteroid, Gilly); Lastly Eeloo offers a challenge in solar panels being mostly useless, but its geology is again really uninteresting. If you really want a collection of suggestions, here: Make the biome system meaningful: More biomes, and actually visually different from one another, instead of random, arbitrary boundaries. The most visually varied biome collection, where you can actually discern you're in a different biome, is the KSC right now. Manually design planets with its geology in mind, PQS and other procedural systems are great to spam, but they've got a very limited number of planets, with even some gas giant wildcars they don't even have to model. Make landing challenging: If I can literally land anywhere with enough legs/SAS, then examining the geology of a landing site becomes meaningless. I'd prefer planets with obvious landing targets and accesible science on those than just rocket hopping, which again is only a choice because landing is no challenge. Planets shouldn't be completely identifiable at first glance. This has been "fixed" by many mods, you shouldn't be able to just look at a planet and chose a landing site with magic tracking center map data, you should need to at least send a mapping probe first. Meaningful atmospheres. Atmosphere density was barely played with in KSP, and there was no wind either, let alone clouds or weather. Those make landings and launches hard, as you can't just land or launch anywhere and anytime. Sample returns should be meaningful, and so should be probe science. Breaking Ground added some good changes to that system, the trend should continue. Life support. Not all planets are supposed to support life, most don't even give a place for grass to grow, sustaining anything from landed vessels to colonies should be a challenge, and this would greatly tie in with all the previous points.
  11. Alright, let me put it like this: KSP1/2 planets (for KSP2 seemingly) have no organic reason for me to come back, and that's organic as opposed to forced. "We made biomes so you can farm more science although the planet still looks exactly the same anywhere" is forcing me to come back, because even if the text from the experiments is different, the rest looks exactly the same. This is the opposite to the absolute myriad of missions we've sent to the Moon, Mars, and all those we've designed for other bodies, where each of them has a different profile, goals, and study subject.
  12. Note that with "Barren" I don't mean "lacking life/civilization/aliens", but rather "lacking anything interesting other than random scattered models you'll look at once and never have any reason to go back to said world". When your worlds are procedural, with the same recolored texture over them, there's literally no reason to revisit, this is why career forcefully coerces you to do the same thing over and over in different "biomes", which again are no different from one another. In SpaceEngine for example you get interesting constructs, hints of activity (even if geological), and can look at many different geographical formations, along with a full suite of astrophysical data. In No Man's Sky every planet might be a single biome, but at least has its own flavor of generated native constructs to have anything different from other similar bodies, plus a whole system of derelicts from other spacefaring individuals/races, and then the two tech tree unlocking facilities, plus some specific planets set aside to be entirely different from the rest tying into the sentinel narrative. KSP1 (and seemingly KSP2) do none of that.
  13. I think the last trailer was a negative for anyone who's played the previous Bethesda (not necessarily fallout) games. The group I was watching SGS with instantly recognized the classic "beth rpg" gameplay and engine mechanics. This adds up on top of negative articles coming out. Now, for your apples to apples: Starfield's ship building looked like a direct repurposing of FO4/76's base building, with building (ship in this case) blocks interconnecting to provide bonuses/maluses. Shape really didn't seem much relevant in what they showed, because neither were physics relevant in what they showed. Base building: Again, they literally have no reason to do anything different from what they did in 4/76, those systems were liked, even when limited and buggy, and it seems they've really gone and done nothing but new assets. IVA in Starfield is probably limited to walkable "interiors" and first person flying. With this I mean that you'll be able to move inside your ship only when your ship isn't being flown (so, only after you land, or if they maybe have some "in flight" phase). KSP2 seems to have nothing different from KSP1 in regards to IVA. Planets in KSP1 were absolutely barren and KSP2's are looking no different, other than maybe some heavily planned and worked geographical accident I don't really expect anything but random scatter. Beth probably will do the same, with either small explorable zones as "maps", or ME's Barren giant maps with some scattered POIs. As for environments, they've gone for the magic space clouds and stars with 0 realism, and magic space particles to visualize movement in controllable flight. Combat really looks no different than NMS in that it is the most simplistic "dogfighting" you could come up with without having people learn how stuff actually would work in space. Outside of that, Starfield will literally be FO4/76 with fake air combat. Bethesda clearly has no intention of stepping up their elementary school writing, or give up bad systems like "infinite quest generation" composed of "grab X from Y after killing Z". Another show of wasted potential until modders decide to switch to it and maybe make something out of the game.
  14. There's a bit more nuance to the topic, and the presence of a human face is not needed. See for example the demos shown at places like E3 where you have a human holding a controller, performing motions that have nothing to do with the running demo on screen, that's non verifiable, even with a human right there, specially since those demos tend to have a lot of movement and camera smoothing, and sometimes they've been found out to be completely scripted. This ties into scripting having the possibility to show stuff in a way you won't experience, If you show me a hudless static building with a camera turning around it you could definitely write a whole article around the colony building system, but really the only thing we can all unequivocally agree has been actually shown working is the models of buildings. Heck in that specific shot even the terrain is up to question. That's why the concept of verifiable gameplay exists, because companies have, for decades, really tried to play around every angle and setting to pass their bullshots for actual products. That's why the requirement is simple: human input (which can easily be shown under a scripted camera) or human perspective (as opposed to a scripted camera), or a mix of both (best possible case), otherwise it gets the label of "not real gameplay".
  15. No recent gameplay footage of any conditions has been shown, other than non verifiable bits of ships using their engines. Hey, "nobody likes it" includes me as well, I hate them with a passion, but so far a lot of verifiable gameplay shown outside the vab includes wobbly rockets. Check the following sources: 0:34 7:53 and 12:40 though it is the same rocket 1:15 Since this follows more or less the same line as the other posts: Verifiable gameplay shows human input, or a human perspective, or a mix of both. If you can attribute scripted qualities to a footage (hud-less scripted camera movement being the most used by KSP2 media shown to date) then you can't really, scientifically, can't verify that a human was actually playing a videogame. This is why "in-engine" cutscenes/footage don't qualify as gameplay. This is exactly why they had changed their approach from labeling footage "pre-alpha gameplay" to "not real gameplay". Starfield, even with the delay, has more than 3 times the following of KSP2, yet they do engage in those marketing avenues you mentioned and public/gaming media are still pretty much interested enough in what the game is actually about to produce both articles about it and traffic to them. KSP2 enjoys none of that, along with a much smaller following that's also been allowed to peter out for almost 3 years. It's really not as similar as you might want to put it. There would be no reason to focus the attention of the public, but I believe there pretty much is once you consider the running numbers.
  • Create New...