Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined


3,393 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

5,981 profile views
  1. Context. They were accusing me of blindly defending the Devs on something that has been my stance on the matter for years. It may be a hill I'm ready to die on, but sure enough it's not a new one, by a long margin. You don't like multiplayer, fine, I'm not going to use that to deduce you must hate the Devs.
  2. Why force yourself to play a game you're not enjoying? Really, the game will either get better or it won't, regardless of how much attention you give to it or to the arguments around it. A watched pot never boils, there's no need to bore yourself to death.
  3. Speaking of rationality, I think this is telling if anyone wants to get an idea of how much effort there is behind your (stil valid) opinion. Unless you invent actual time travel, you either have an asynchronous system with independent time-warp or a synchronous one with everyone at the same level of warp at all times*. The former allows for the latter (you can simply choose to always be in sync), so it's intrinsically a better option. There's no other way. And no, this isn't me defending the Devs, I've been saying this for years now. Why I get the feeling that, if I worded my opinion as "I miss the good old times in which every game had a couch co-op split screen mode, not the online crap we get today" the reply would have been different? Fun thing, this sounds a lot like you agree with me on the state of this forum. *Yes, I know you can make something else be asynchronous, planets, bubbles or whatever, the point is that something has to be out of sync if you want time-warp.
  4. Are you saying you don't want multiplayer? Good for you, I have multiple people ready to pull the trigger as soon as it releases. But for many, many, people multiplayer is kinda important, and saying that is not "defending the project management" but I get why you say so, this kind of black and white BS atmosphere is kinda the reason of my hiatus from the forums, I'll probably be back after the whole place has recovered from this wave of polarization and toxicity, right now this isn't exactly a healthy place to be in. I love messing around with robotics, much less so assembling engines from parts, and I think at least some pre-assembled propelled engines would be welcomed by most.
  5. Occasional 1 mission, 1 flight saves, not much more, the game can't sustain any kind of infrastructure building right now.
  6. "Everything multiplayer sucks, and it's a waste of resources" is the definition of "Single player elitism". You may want to go back to 3 years of multiplayer discussions, nothing new here, I think I've written at least a hundred times that every game is better with co-op. I have a very specific play-style I like for my personal sandbox save (Yep, because I'm still not a fan of EA, I just think KSP2 can replace KSP1 sandbox in a patch or two and that's worth the price for me), and for that I need to be able to recover my kerbals, a bug that apparently is going to be fixed in patch 2. Right now I'm just firing up the game occasionally for a single-mission session, something which is fun but not enough to hook me up to the game. A multiplayer mode right now would definitely make me ignore the bugs to play with friends. In hindsight I think I should have put "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in my signature given that, apparently, I didn't repeat it often enough if that's what you got by my general "let's keep expectation grounded, in both directions" attitude. I spent just as much time shooting down people building unrealistic expectations, but I guess that doesn't matter, right? More or less the thing was to try to keep it grounded, there was a lot of "They haven't shown X so X doesn't exist" and "They haven't shown X so X must be this super-secret AAA level feature that they're keeping as a surprise" going on in the years leading up to launch. Personally, I was definitely expecting the game to be a bit better, but not by much, maybe patch 1 or 2 levels of "a bit better", but I've also learned not to expect anything other than a buggy mess from EA games on D1. The game is still following the script. Back in topic, rotor and propeller engine should absolutely be a pre-assembled engine category and not part of robotics, we don't assemble rocket engines from parts, why should we do that for propellers? This is a rocket game and yet I don't have to choose the right type of pumps for my rocket engine, why should I have to pick the number of blades and their pitch for an helicopter tail rotor? The amount of detail for prop engines in KSP1 doesn't make sense given the context of the game and, IMHO, has kept rotor crafts and propellers more niche that they could be.
  7. Like it or not, but MP is a sought after feature mostly by players. If it wasn't a multiplier for sales they wouldn't get through the hassle of programming it into the game. Right now, bugs and problems considered, is the main reason I'm playing yet another modded Minecraft run and not KSP-2, as I can't play it together with my friends (and most of them aren't probably going to buy the game until after MP is a thing). Single player elitism never ceased to amaze me.
  8. I think this poll lacks a middle way between optimistic and disappointed. KSP in general is my favorite game, but KSP2 is only one of at least a dozen early access games I own on Steam (Steam tells me it's 38 games with that tag, but I don't know how accurate the tag is), some where better and more polished than KSP2 when I first bought them (Dyson Sphere Program and Timberborn are notable examples) some where worse (looking at you Stationeers) some of them evolved in directions I didn't like (Juno/SR2, Simple plane and its paid VR update, or Satisfactory), a few I forgot about (Balsa Model Flight Sim? How is that game going these days?), and a whole lot went on to release as full 1.0 games (Hardspace: Shipbreaker, Minecraft, Factorio, Terraria, VTOL VR...). I'm waiting for an update, when the update drops I'll test it out and see if it's still a game to mess around with for 15 minutes (now that 10 of those minutes aren't taken by the loading screen) or a game to get addicted with and spend hundreds of hours on. KSP2 isn't there yet. I know it's been said over and over around here, but this is Early Access, and for me that means I'm going to wait for an update, test the differences, and see if the game is ready yet for a longer run, rinse and repeat with the next update if it's not. It's an healthier mindset than just waiting for a release date that's months away.
  9. How did your 2 hour testing session that we were taking about go?

    1. Master39


      On one hand it wasn't needed, the Devs were surprisingly open and I already knew it wouldn't be up to what I wanted, I expected a lot worse from the communication department and youtubers (people like to make parallels with Cyberpunk and NMS but forgets about the complete smokescreen of a marketing campaign those two games had).

      On the other the game was gifted to me by a friend of mine (2020 birthday present, he said), and I can't exactly refund it, I've spent the first few hours messing around with wings and land speed record cars (love the new runways).

      The only mission I did to another celestial body is trying to land on the Sun with fuel cheats.

      I haven't even tried a randezvous and docking yet, knowing that there's some exploding docking ports bug.

      Frankly of the 8 hours I spent on the game more than half where playing around in the VAB. My first item on my wishlist right now is a way to save colors in a personal palette.


      TLDR: The game isn't there yet, but I didn't refund, I'm waiting for the first update to drop and see.

  10. Steam (and Epic too, I think) leave the DRM choice to the dev. Whether you buy it on Epic, Steam, or the website the license agreement is going to be the same, as the DRM if they choose to include one.
  11. I vote for garlic too, now it's a known fact in the community and you are not listening to our feedback about it.
  12. First, I'm talking uniquely about KSP2 here, KSP1 was mostly a accident for how everything works. They could have gone with an entirely rigid model, or implement the KJR workaround as the default, instead they went for flexible joints and made a video specifically showcasing them, pointing it out in early interviews. Like it or not but the presence of flexible joints in KSP2 is a choice.
  13. Oh, yeah, I was just using yours as an example, and a great one at that. Honestly I didn't go as far as thinking about the wobbling of boosters messing with the direction of thrust before reading your comment.
  14. 3:57 Nate Sympson: There is this sort of... ehm... Asynchronous play we expect a lot of people to do. And then proceeds to make an example as how he could export He3 from his colony to Chris's (Nertea) while he's asleep. 4:37 Nate Simpson: "For the timewarp thing we have a good solution" If that isn't confirmation that they solved the timewarp problem with some sort of asynchronous system I don't know what it is.
  15. A small, but important premise: I'm a serial abuser of struts and autostruts. In KSP1 i always made my rockets as rigid as possible, hunting down any noodling and flex and fixing it. That said. You're right in one thing here, we're talking about an intentional design choice, not a bug, nor a fail in optimizing. When they showed, at the very beginning, the first shot of a rocket noodling around (in a comical, exaggerated way) it was to showcase that the flex between joints was still there in the new code. Keyword here being 'showcase' as in "look here! See the flex, this is still KSP!" and not as a bug to be fixed. Another small, but nonetheless important, premise: I'll be happy if they scrap the flex and go with a complete rigid system, or re-implement the same band-aid solution they did in KSP1, autostruts. But. I think there is gameplay to be had in the flex of parts, even when it make your rockets blow up. Like this: This is gameplay, not a bug. If you have a 20m high booster, and you have the decoupler all the way up near the nosecone, the booster should be flexing enough to mess around with the gimbaling of the engine, and either struts or a better placed decoupler is the gameplay answer to that. Same thing when you use the smallest possible decoupler on the biggest rockets, it should flex like a ball joint, otherwise it would make no sense to use the appropriately sized decouplers. Now onto something I'm sure will be a little bit more controversial, this: From Matt Lowne last gameplay video, is not a bug either, but gameplay too. Why? Because of this connection: A 3.75m fairing, connected to a 1.25m lander, connected to a 2.5m service module, and not just that but a payload that's half the height of the rocket. (I'm not accusing Matt Lowne of not being able to build a rocket, he built a full Duna mission in 20 minutes, so let's give him some slack) The game has plenty of options (thanks @Space Scumbag for the video) to allow you to stack smaller diameter stuff neatly into fairings: What I'd love to see on top of that is a ring fairing base instead of a full one to allow you to combine fairing with structural tubes and pack landers in tubes like the Apollo missions, and to solve the "fairing too high" problem Matt had in the video. Tank-tank connections could be a little more rigid, and maybe parts should break apart when they flex after a certain amount, and the system does need some overall balancing, but flexing has the potential to be a meaningful and interesting design gameplay loop.
  • Create New...