PDCWolf
-
Posts
1,603 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by PDCWolf
-
-
29 minutes ago, kdaviper said:
So are you upset that they listened to the community and changed their mind about implementing a stop-gap?
I'm happy wobble got looked at, let's not confuse that. What I criticize from that move is making us wait so long telling us they were working on a long term solution only to, when the pot boiled, apply a hack they repeatedly told us they were avoiding, in place of a proper solution that we have no outlook on (as in, we don't know when are they implementing that, or if they chucked it to the backburner since the problem is "fixed" now).
-
9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:
Listen, lets pretend for a moment you actually care about KSP being a great game. I want you to think about your strategic approach to making that happen. Whats better: a) concrete, actionable, polite advice on real gameplay changes; or b) repetitious, unsolvable industry process complaints?
This assumes there was never A. We're here because we passed A long ago, we had another round of A before and after FS!, and the only real thing A managed was a bandaid fix on wobble... which also meant they went back on their own statements of not wanting to implement bandaids.
The problem with your argument is that you seem to think B is unjustified, and it's somehow blindsiding you by being a completely unwarranted surprise appearance. In reality B is the obvious consequence of what happened with A, along with many other fiascos along the way both inside this project and others.
Sure, IG can't fix the industry, because no individual studio can, but maybe they can follow better practices instead of the bottom of the barrel that "industry standard" has become.
-
9 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:
It's all a matter of how much time it takes to satisfy the need for the greatest number of people. If you take time to understand the nature of the idea and have the patience to truly solve problems in the right way and make something great most folks will feel like they got what they asked for even if it takes more time than they expected. Other people are fundamentally concerned first and foremost with perpetual dissatisfaction no matter the time or effort invested and making them happy is impossible and invites a kind of diminishing returns death spiral. My business, and most other businesses cut our losses when clients present that behavior.
Well, that's the problem with generalizations. You'd think a business that just failed a sales number by about 4 million would be a bit more interested in making changes, and so far the only structural changes have been sinking a studio and firing Paul Furio... and there seem to be no results unless we keep assuming they've been doing magical invisible work or that they'll just do better if we give them infinite time. I'd say we do better at being realistic, clients expectations just haven't been treated well, not the ones clients built themselves, not the ones the business built for them either.
Further on, this has been a common trend these years, putting the spotlight in just how good that mentality of calling everyone who criticizes a hater (or worse) has been. It's been 10000 jobs lost last year, and already 8000 just from january to today, with studios falling like flies and new, flagship products being absolutely destroyed by early access indies pushing the counterculture to the common zeitgeist and becoming the literal highest selling games in the last 20 years.
Now, I'm definitely not saying business ought to just go out and listen to everyone, just that... the spark of humbleness has been lost, so has passion, and maybe, just maybe, people are angry because there's real stuff to be angry about.
-
8 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:
I mean, we screen pretty hard against misanthropes who are utterly focused on their own personal disastifaction no matter what the reality is so that doesn't happen so much for us. Our clients are generally reasonable people who understand we are in a creative enterprise and the proof is in the pudding even if it takes longer than they initially expected. When folks are unreasonable we're understanding, but we'll probably take our time to make sure the product is really up to snuff. We may shine them on in the process because often they suck up a hugely outsized amount of time compared to folks who are more constructively responsive.
Hmm, and by "screening hard" is how industry people arrive at choosing to never communicate anymore... because clearly everyone else is outside the club, or misanthropes, or haters, or whatever. Right? Everyone else is the problem, not the workers, their team leaders, their managers, the product, nah, it's the narcissist misanthropes that make it all about them and not the fact we're ripping them off and leaving them in the dark after taking the money.
-
44 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:
In large part thats because cars involve the actual health and safety of those who interact with them. Phones are a fundamental necessity of communication and most peoples economic life. Games are a pleasant luxury. If I design a house and it falls down on someone I'll expect to be sued. If I design a sofa and the folks saw and signed the proposal but then a week later just don't like the fabric very much thats on them.
Did you mislead about the state of the sofa for 4 years whilst pushing back the date? Did the sofa break apart as soon as they sat on it? did you tell them how your speed at fixing it and adding the promised features to the sofa was good but it took a year for the first cushion to come in? Did you tell people that the sofa was gonna be more expensive once it was done only to sell the same model cheaper two months later?
That you'd imply that common scummy behaviors on the industry are ok because "it's a luxury product" is probably the lowest this forum has ever reached.
-
23 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:
the current status quo of game criticism is actually unreasonable because
And that's how we get $70+ "AAAA" "games" that are a tencent store with some barebones skinnerbox built around them.
Nobody expects lack of bugs in an EA, but a playable (something KSP2 wasn't on release) product, with timely communication and the capability of the dev team to say X is coming Y day, and then X to come out around Y date. Or for hotfixes that aren't nebulous collections of fixes that include more untested regressions than actual fixes. KSP2 on those fronts is 0/4.
The nature of the biz is as it is because gaming happens to be one of the very few industries where you can get away with releasing a broken product without massive repercussions. You released a broken electronic device, a car, a home appliance? You get a class action lawsuit and forced into recalling, replacing, and paying for shipping. Greedy gaming companies release a minimum viable product that barely works? aww shucks, poor megacorporation, you critics are unfair!
-
37 minutes ago, Dakota said:
3) The moderator(s) did not delete any of my comments in the thread, as some have stated they did.
Fixed my post someplace else on my end too.
12 minutes ago, Dakota said:I know I'm immediately going back on my word here, but hopefully for good reason in y'all's eyes:
Making the decision to take the direct action to roll everything in that thread back, unhiding all of the comments, and locking the post to avoid those discussion points spinning more out of control.
That's a much better end for the thread in my opinion.
-
2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:
I've been where the moderators are right now and I feel for them. I would never moderate any forum after the experience I and my fellow moderators went through. All that vitriol just for doing our (unpaid!) jobs was ridiculous, and frankly I'm surprised ANYONE is willing to go through that.
Were I a moderator here, I'd have quit long ago.
I was the live-chat moderator for the biggest site in south america. Then I became the in-game and forum moderator for the biggest videogame community in south america. After that, I worked for a youtuber's Discord server.
My opinion of moderation can't be shared because it goes against the praise-only rules.
-
It's kinda fair. They wanted discussion, but not that discussion, the same way we wanted communication, but not that communication. I'm not gonna discuss moderator actions because that's obviously outside the rules, so take it to Dakota directly.
Word of advice: don't bother. I've gone up to IG support, not a single person outside the mods here care about the forum, so you can only complain about the mods to the mods themselves... and guess which side they pick.
-
44 minutes ago, Flush Foot said:
Indeed!
Happily we live in the former, not the latter
The original claim, the one we actually have proof from MechBFP, is that they fixed "wobbly rockets", by virtue of showing a like 100 meter tall single tower of tanks. We all agree that such a particular case is fixed. My claim, and that others like cocos echoed, is that such a fix is both a bandaid, and a performance hog, and also fails to account for a lot of cases, so the problem kinda really isn't fixed. Someone else (I think cocos too) claimed that rockets might still disassemble on launch on certain configurations.
Now, if you wanna blame me of something, sure, I'll spell it out for you: you can absolutely blame me for my lack of will to even bother opening KSP2, let alone designing anything in it, going through the trouble of launching, docking, and so on, just to grab a screenshot, or metrics of how performance is affected, and what not. So yeah, my claim, on my behalf, shall remain unproven if what you want is photographic evidence, on account of me having games I actually want to spend my free time with. Sorry I can't help with that.
-
4 hours ago, The Aziz said:
People complained that clouds were crappy. Something that adds nothing to gameplay. But they hired blackrack anyway. And behold, the stream of pictures of craft flying through pretty clouds. Nothing added to gameplay, yet people are happy. Because people like pretty things.
The atmosphere and clouds were unjustifiably bad for a 2023 game. They weren't cartoony, they were bad, buggy, ugly and killed performance. This was compounded by the atmosphere properties and rendering also being more or less the same, and them being unable to fix it for over 8 months. THAT is why they hired blackrack, because they were in over their head over something so basic, to the point it was cheaper and faster to hire an specialist than to teach themselves how to get it working.
Clouds and atmosphere weren't "a pretty thing", they are both the first thing new players see after the horrible UI, and were also making it hard to play the game because the starter planet has both clouds and atmosphere.
1 hour ago, steveman0 said:Maybe you need to clarify what actually isn't fixed about it. My experiences with it are that craft now much more realistically respond with an appropriate magnitude of bending forces to be realistic to materials that would be used in real life rockets.
And you made the same mistake. The game is mainly about rockets, sure, but it's far from the only thing that the game needs to portray. You don't see the ISS needing to strut the panels to the main hab for it to not spaghetti unto itself. You don't see the curiosity rover needing to strut the camera mast to the body because it's a surface attachment. Rockets work if you don't try anything too wild, anything outside rockets that happens to be big is still pretty much unaffected by the fix and grinds the game to a halt with auto struts.
"Realistically" is clearly a word you use without knowing what it means, unless we both get down into aerodynamic calculations to test bending forces of whatever material KSP is supposed to make its stuff of, and the configuration of attachment points (why are radial decouplers made of wet spaghetti?). The word you want is "intuitively", because it works to the idea you think you have about how a real rocket experiences forces and bending.
There's a whole discussion on wobble already so I don't feel like reviving the issue. What we have now is a bandaid for the most experienced (but just one), use case: single stack rocket with, at most, smallish radially attached boosters. Anything you build outside of that still flexes some, even the stuff that shouldn't.
-
5 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:
When I have a single stack, I don't see wobble.
2 hours ago, Icegrx said:It’s fixed. The mechanic works extremely well in the context of the issue.
Big problem with those statements.
It is not fixed, in the sense that the "fix" only accounts for a single configuration. In a game where you build land vehicles, aircraft, spacecraft, space stations, land bases, interstellar ships, and so much more, a solution that only ever works for vertically stacked tanks on the same central axis of the root part is useless. That's not even going into the performance tradeoff (huge) when you build big stuff with autostruts on.
There's such a huge amount of possible cases that only fixing one is probably a single digit percent of the total use cases. It's not fixed, it's a lame bandaid that they themselves said were not going to apply, to hold back a glorified bug that they themselves can't be bothered to patch out; and the community sucked up to said bug to the point of adoring it, and ruining not one but two games for.
-
48 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:
Even as big of a detractor from KSP2 as I am, I cannot just let you spit this out without retorting. They fixed this. Several patches ago.
It's also important to say that they fixed it with duct tape, after saying they'd not be using duct tape, after saying *this glorified bug* was part of what made the game so Kerbal. Also, after months of it being the top voted issue and multiple youtubers saying it was making the game unplayable.
Credit where it is due, but just like the bugtracker, we had to make not just an excellent case, but also put them on blast.
-
46 minutes ago, The Aziz said:
I remembered why I engage in discussions much less these days. Taking words out of context and responses having nothing to do with the original post...
Taking your comments out of context is just a thing that didn't happen. You wanted to compare the low cadence of information with how SCS does things. My 2 cents on that comparison is that people let SCS do that because they actually have a trustable track record build upon like a decade (I think it's more, can't remember) of delivering actual results.
Meanwhile IG has 4 years of pushing back a release date, not delivering a full product, the launch being what it was, and this last year... what it has been as well. They're not Hello Games, they won't be Hello Games. They're not SCS, they will not be SCS.
-
Just now, The Aziz said:
Reveals tend to ramp up in frequency the closer something is to release.
Take a look at SCS Software. They post a reveal, then three months or so of silence, then a post once a month. As the thing gets closer, the frequency turn to a post per two weeks, then one per week, and at that point you know it's close to release. It's a normal thing in development.
We're still at the very least 2-3 months away if not more (0.2.2 when?). If anything, they've learned to not overhype the community. You'll see more with time.
Owning both ATS and ETS2. I trust their long standing track record of hammering bugs, keeping the engine up to date, their constant reaching out to truck manufactures, their community engagement, and overall their entire process to know that I just have to leave them alone.
IG has nothing of that.
-
6 hours ago, Meecrob said:
@Dakota I told you this would be the reaction.
Whilst Dakota surely knows, let's add some context from other places as well.
Here's an IMGUR album with the very first posts you see on Reddit and Steam.
On X there's barely 5 replies, one is neutral, the rest are pointing to the obvious.
This is by far, from what I can see, the most negatively received devblog, with very little useful discussion in the comments and more trending towards straight up rejection. It is also their least replied to devblog anywhere, emboldening the % of negativity perceived in the replies. People are just not there anymore, and most of the "happy" ones have just gone seclude themselves on the discord or here and refuse to look out and see reality, and the non happy-few are really getting tired of this.
I just hope this drills home the point that we want to know about the progress and future of the game, anything else is literally irrelevant for everyone whose got their head out of the sand.
-
Props to writing the devblog and the work put in. Objectively by itself, it's a really good devblog and a lot of the stuff in it I genuinely didn't know and appreciate.
Now, we have to be realistic: this devblog sadly doesn't exist in the best of circumstances. It's unexpected yes, but the bad kind of unexpected, it's also not what anyone wanted to know about right now. It is also... insufficient. It takes a single mod for KSP1 to reach the level of atmosphere graphics KSP2 has and surpass it:
Spoiler
And even if we were to ignore that, the devblog is about one of the most broken non-gameplay systems (or related to some of the most broken systems) as The Aziz showed.
QuoteIt won’t help if we attack all of their attempts at increased communications.
They know what we want. They know what is needed. This is filler at best, deflection at worst.
-
4 hours ago, Superfluous J said:
Because if they're not met everybody will cry that they were lied to.
And that's bad? Not giving dates or making any promise on the future of the game has clearly done so much good for this forum, general faith in the project, and prospective sales...
Right up there in the selling strats alongside not responding to feedback, or ignoring basic accessibility issues because replacing a font is too hard.
But hey, anyone who disagrees can just be put on the ignore list.
-
Just now, steveman0 said:
At a minimum, studios changed by my understanding. Even with the same staff, we can't know what legal copyright/licensing grounds required them to rewrite substantial pieces of the codebase. Even if "work continued", there was likely significant, costly disruption and we won't know until KSP 2 goes on to be a huge success and we get a documentary on the early chaos
The disruption was shown in the way of the first delay. I'm not denying that maybe something big happened, it's them that contradict that.
-
19 hours ago, steveman0 said:
it isn't safe to assume they do have 6 years worth of usable development work.
They've actively, literally, contradicted this by saying work was continued between the restructuring. Plus it's literally the same upper management minus Paul Furio who got fired early on, so it's either them practicing corporate diplomacy (with themselves?) or development really wasn't interrupted. Hope one day we get a proper post mortem and a case for devs and publishers to look at and learn from.
19 hours ago, steveman0 said:Is it really that useful to make a post that is just "no significant news this week"?
It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. They work super slowly > they can't show progress because there's none > there's nothing solid to talk about (and they don't want to talk about plans either because they know they'll be held up to their words, the horror). > they need to space posts more > those posts are still empty because (start cycle again here).
21 hours ago, Spicat said:impossible for bug reports that don't have enough information or that we just can't reproduce (like dependant on specs for instance).
Basic bug-reporting feedback right there that you should be telling the authors of reports. In github you get your issues properly tagged if they can't be reproduced, or are believed to be hardware related, or whatever. Reports being archived without saying a single word is a big no no, no matter what single excuse you could write for doing it. Even a "not important" provides at least some closure and safety that the thing was at least read.
Not only is the faith in QA testing for this project under the ground, but the bug tracker that had to be fought for "happens" to be ignored and users are made to wait ~1 month to see if top voted issues are even being looked at. Because even those barely have developer interaction, only to be met with "can't reproduce lol". The whole bug reporting-to-feedback process (let alone a "hot" fix that's cold by 2 months at the minimum) is laughably bad and should be set as an example to every dev running a bug tracker on how exactly to not do things.
18 hours ago, mc04 said:as for ongoing work, discussions of that always seem to center around fixing bugs/adding features/"optimization" and little to nothing about what they might do to mitigate the consequences of the choice to replicate ksp1's physics system and the limitations it imposes. given the response to the flaccid noodle rockets and the general trend of simplifying/cutting anything viewed as complex or problematic, idk if they even plan to do anything about it. especially since real fixes would likely mean rebuilding large parts of the simulation.
Great way of putting it into words. We're 1+ years into the project and these very basic doubts still linger. Even if they work at the pace of a DMV, they should have a vision they want to pursue and a reason for wanting to repeat all the same mistakes KSP1 made. For all the hate KSP1 received in these forums once 2 dropped, from some people, they're really doing a very basic rerun with a fresh coat of paint and a bigger price tag.
18 hours ago, The Aziz said:Looks like all of this is true. Dakota says he reads our feedback,
Doesn't matter, there's still a missing part to close the loop. It's the same issue the old "mail us the bug" reporting system had. You have no idea what they're doing, if they're doing anything at all, with your report.
18 hours ago, The Aziz said:posted few megathreads on things like tutorials, interface, missions etc.
On which everybody complained about readability and what we got in return was "replace font 2 hard" and some color changes on the navball which is still a mess. Great feedback loop, at least that issue had some closure and we know we need mods to fix that.
18 hours ago, The Aziz said:And the feedback page is indeed present in the launcher
So you get another black hole place where you don't even know where your feedback goes.
18 hours ago, Dakota said:I've admitted before that the K.E.R.B. is not a perfect system. Upon launch last year, there were like 5 avenues for bug reports and no workflow for actually processing them for internal use.
The system we have today was built as a stopgap between then and some point in the future when we can either do K.E.R.B 2.0 or some other new system.
It has its problems, but the high quality bug reports submitted have helped production a TON during the bug fixing process. I hear your concerns and am working on it!
also yes the search sucks, can't do much about that...
The K.E.R.B. is so vital and wanted because it's what's missing to close the loop: feedback on feedback. It's the only time we get to hear about what devs are actually working on, without marketeer language, without hypebeasting, and so on.
-
On 4/2/2024 at 2:33 AM, Superfluous J said:
I'm stating facts.
On 4/2/2024 at 2:33 AM, Superfluous J said:To also be clear: Of course I want a perfect game delivered 12 months ago with no bugs and a $10 price tag. However I live in the real world and understand that in the vast majority of cases I will never ever get what I want. So, I determine if what is offered is worth what I'm willing to pay and if it is, great. If not, oh well maybe I'll leave a bad review and then I'll move on.
Ah yes, love the hyperbole. Also, you can clearly check that I'm a man of my word: i said that if FS! failed to deliver, I'd no longer have any hope or playtime for this game, and that's exactly what happened. I booted FS! a couple times to see what it was about, the game is still bad, and broken, science is a bad streamlined copy of KSP1 and now I post here with weeks or months inbetween right as I said I would. That you still have to strawman my posts as some sort of angry, rabid hater wanting change is funny, specially when I didn't ask for anything to change since before For Science! because that update showed me this project is hopeless.
On 4/2/2024 at 2:33 AM, Superfluous J said:Complaining about obvious things over and over is such a useless exercise it frustrates me that so many enjoy it. Talk about twisting your brain into a torus, that's the idea that after the first 300 times, the 301st complaint will make some sort of difference.
They're clearly not obvious for the devs, given how many remain unaddressed (can't address anything if you don't communicate), that's exactly why the community feels unheard. Very little people posts here anymore thinking the devs are gonna read their feedback unless it's a bug. That's as evident as checking the suggestions subforum and seeing the only people suggesting stuff is new users.
Expectations remain unaddressed and unmanaged past the roadmap and some handwavy answers at the AMAs and will remain so until the devs decide to man up and come out with serious talk about the final shape of KSP2, so the people wanting something different can move on if they haven't yet.
-
3 hours ago, KincaidFrankMF said:
Honestly don't know if it's possible to gamify a more realistic approach.
It's that balance between sim & game, hard to get right at the best of times and impossible for everyone at the same time.
I'm definitely not saying any of this is easy to do or get right. At all. Just wanted to clear that up.
2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:You are talking in the past tense as if KSP2 is complete.
How exactly do you want the physics to be more encompassed and deeper? Do you want n-body simulations or relativity taken into account or do we need to mix our own fuels or what?
KSP2 is out. The first mainline feature is out after a painful year. That it's an Early Access gives it a couple more shots at getting publicity but most of the people that could possibly ever be interested... probably already checked it out by now. The cat is out of the bag and the credibility of time-traveling positivity marketeers talking about an amazing 1.0 is at its lowest.
As for the rest, KSP2 is still using all the same tricks KSP1 was. The visible scene is still 2.5km max, physics is even less than that, it's still tree-based so you have the exact same limitations with building, the very obvious step-up that procedural fuel tanks would've been was skipped, rockets would've behaved like wet noodles but we gladly talked them out of that. Yes, we could've had n-body too, or at least asteroids with their own gravity, or proper Lagrange points, and we still have to see what they come up with for the binary system (even though we can all imagine it's gonna be a magic mess of SOI interactions) since the obvious solution was chucked out the window. Even something basic like ring collisions has been pushed to the backburner whilst they figure out how to deliver on a basic promise.
2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:I didn't ask for KSP2 to be anything. In fact I was shocked that it got a sequel at all.
However, I'll happily raise my hand as someone who thinks pretty much every change they've made or are planning are positive ones, when the whole is taken into account. And KSP2 1.0 as currently described sounds perfect to me. It's basically KSP1 with some unneeded stuff gone and a whole bunch of stuff that wasn't in KSP1.
That's you. The community always dreamed with a proper sequel, and that's where commonly heard phrases like "reworked codebase", "better physics" and so came from, and that's part of the expectations the launch failed to meet.
KSP2 1.0 doesn't exist, won't exist for a loooooooong while, so using it as an argument is kinda meh, specially after months of telling people that they shouldn't buy the EA because of what devs promise... which isn't actually a thing because another argument is that the devs never really promised anything... which contradicts your future perfect game argument. But hey, people twisting their brain into a torus to defend this project ever made much sense anyways. If you like it you like it, welcome to the minority.
-
2 hours ago, KincaidFrankMF said:
Huh, feel like we played entirely different games there. Funny how different impressions can be. I agree the presentation of science reports is flat out 1/10 awful, but the meat & bones of it is a big step up for me. Most of the nonsense is gone (the hilarity of thermometers & goo wore a tad thin for me as the thousands of hours of gameplay went by...), replaced by mostly serious science that actually tells a story in places - like the little mystery over why Dres has an equatorial ridge, for example. I loved that stuff, it kept me wanting to explore further. And they've sprinkled in just the odd goo reference here & there for nostalgia's sake - perfect.
I'm not seeing much from KSP1 that's been flat-out excluded at a foundational level? Other than currency? Building up the KSC, I guess, but that gets replaced by building new bases offworld. What are you thinking of? The engine certainly needs work, eep.
Maybe it depends what you're looking for, like Mito said. For me, building offworld colonies into the core game would add hugely to the depth. In KSP1 I never bother with that stuff - space stations, bases, it all feels pointless. I'm trying some mods now that might change my mind, but what I need is for them to have an in-game purpose beyond just looking nice. If I can make a base that eventually has its own VAB & launchpad, and if I can use that as a springboard to other solar systems... that sounds epic!
Definitely more SF though. I can see it being a step back if you're looking for more of a Realism Overhaul feel to things?
I'd much rather have the granularity of designing my own payload with the experiments I want, because that's how it works in real life. You don't get a bulbous 7 meter long "science thing" that you have to take to space, but rather payloads are designed with mission and more importantly launcher constraints in mind and that's why we don't have two probes of the same shape unless they were purposefully twins. That's failure zero of KSP1 and 2 when they wanted to become tycoon games, a basic misunderstanding of how spaceflight works in any aspect outside astrodynamics: launchers are hard to design, they take time, you can't just make a new launcher to hurl rover-2 to Mars, you make rover-2 as close as rover-1 because rover-1 almost worked and the rocket it'll ride there is still the same. At the same time, rover-1 was already designed to be as efficient as possible in its mission.
I couldn't care less about experiment text in 1, had the same problem in 2. It's inconsequential for absolutely everything game-side just like pressing a button whilst orbiting Dres has nothing to do with making a better engine back home.
When talking foundations, I mean the core concepts of how physics are built and simulated, how well the game was coded, how scalable the save system is... Again, as much as they can optimize, your KSP2 save is more or less doomed to be much smaller than a KSP1 equivalent given how they decided to "simulate" things. It's also why the heating system has been oversimplified, and why logistics for base building are magic numbers that replay proof-of-concept missions and not actual ships moving about.
I was looking for a better space sim game, I'll seemingly get someone's KSP fanfic but tied to a barebones base-building mod... in a building and save system that still has all the limitations KSP1 had plus new ones on top.
-
On 3/31/2024 at 12:24 PM, steveman0 said:
because the game isn't done yet.
2 hours ago, KincaidFrankMF said:It's hard to judge the final game based on a work in progress
We all know the game isn't done yet, but we have plenty of evidence to their timing, and the depth they're willing to go for (or rather, not go for since science was streamlined into a skinnerbox blue button and the rest is copied from KSP1 with minor changes) from what's there and the AMAs. Moreso, the foundations are set in stone. They're not gonna swap engines, they're not making the simulation deeper/better, they're not altering any lower level of the design document at this point. The project, it's market cap, the attention it garnered and most of its public image are set in stone.
Right up there in the selling strats alongside not responding to feedback, or ignoring basic accessibility issues because replacing a font is too hard.
The Comprehensive Colony Communications Archive
in KSP2 Discussion
Posted
Great job putting this together, lots of effort and it shows.
So far, this does not change my opinion that Colonies looks mechanically very shallow. It does however make me realize that they haven't talked at all about part variety relating to a certain role, other than the parts in the heating system. And the fact that colonies are implied to have physics is heavily worrying once you remember how the save system is really bad at scaling to big part numbers versus loading time and general game performance.