Jump to content

Master39

Members
  • Posts

    1,478
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Master39

  1. I spend as much time tempering expectations of people expecting an MMO that unites FS2020, Sea of Thieves and Starfield as I spent arguing with the "everything always sucks" crowd. No info means no info. It doesn't mean everything is a disaster as it doesn't mean that this game is going to be the 2023 GOTY. I'm strongly in the "We should stop filling the blanks with our imagination and then pretending it's real" side of things. Saying that probably the car mechanic fixing my car now is going to do a better job than the baker hobbyist that messed it up in the fist place is not an unreasonable expectation. KSP2 has a composer where KSP1 had royalty free music, it has a dedicated 2D animator implementing Kurzgesagt-like tutorials where KSP1 had YouTubers, and that pattern can be continued for every single position in the studio. That the engine and the single threaded physics are not the big deal you make them out to be. I don't know how bugged or not the game is going to be, or how efficient the code they write will be, but that for sure is going to be a way more relevant matter for the performance of the final game than a couple of old buzzwords people like to throw around when they don't know what to complain about. A small side note on this one, I'd say that the publisher acknowledging that the decade old code base is beyond fixable and started working on a sequel ASAP. It's worth noting that said publisher was only involved in the whole project after KSP had what can be considered a very long life for a single player game. Oh yes, the thread in which people were comparing on foot gameplay in KSP to Bethesda games. It's even more of an unreasonable expectation than FS2020 weather simulation. I've seen the VAB interface for KSP2 multiple times, in pics, clips and quite a few explanations of the new features its going to have, of all things that they didn't show you had to choose the only one we know almost everything about. Unless you're trying to nitpick and say that technically the VAB isn't the hangar. But I'd say that the bit on the procedural wings is either the hangar or a hint to his absence which wouldn't surprise me, there's no reason to have 2 buildings that do the exact same thing. I totally expect other delays, I totally expect bugs, I don't believe we're going to get FS meets SOT and space Skyrim but I'm not convinced we're going to get anything close to the mess KSP1 is. I'm just tired of the angry mentality forcing a negative view on every possible thing without even putting the effort to make an argument worth reading. If you want a better argument I can lend you one of my worries, I'm not at all convinced it's a good idea going again for wobbly joints between parts. I get that they're iconic in KSP1 and that they are working on ways to make the whole thing more efficient and less heavy on the performance but I wish they discarded it and went for a completely different damage/stress model. It's not exactly in-topic with the thread but it's not like it was a concern to begin with, right? "Unity sucks" doesn't sound that much in-topic either.
  2. It's not "Seeing something bad" it's always the 2 or 3 people playing the usual character that everything always sucks and crapping all over the place. With the same 2 or 3 flawed argument over and over again, like a broken disk. Nope, you're filling blanks with the possible worst thing you can come up with, "They didn't show X so it's undeniable that X will suck, there's no other possible explanation" I'm not. KSP2 has a dedicated composer and a team of artists where KSP1 has royalty free music and an art style that makes the part roster look like they stole the assets from 2 dozen different games. KSP2 has an experienced dev team where KSP1 foundations were made by amateurs at their first game. KSP1 has a ton of well documented and known bugs and inefficiencies that have nothing to do with the engine or the single threaded physics, and people with way more expertise than me tried to explain this over and over again in the past three years, only to be ignored. I've talked about comparisons with other games multiple times, please point out which one exactly so we can have a laugh about how hard you're (absolutely not on purpose) misinterpreting what I wrote. Please tell me it's not the one in which I said that the game is not going to suck if it doesn't have FS 2020 weather and Sea Of Thieves water.
  3. And yet the terrain below it is the same flat and smooth terrain of KSP (obviously being it just a mod). KSP2 terrain is on another level altogether, on a geological scale. Cliffs, canyons, peaks, rugged terrain. A bigger variability in the terrain types you can find on a single celestial body. You can add all the scattered object you want to KSP1, but at the end of the day you still are left with the same flat and smooth planets below them. Just like when you add a high resolution texture pack to Minecraft, the effect is the same. You can arbitrary decide to disregard when they show assets in the assets editor all you want because "they're not actual gameplay footage" but you have to understand that your arbitrary decision doesn't automagically nullifies the fact that we were shown those assets and the tech behind the planets is on another level compared to KSP1. I read the discussion and all I see it's you using, again,old flawed arguments to keep up the "controversial at all cost" character you're playing. If you can't understand the difference between the people working on this game and the people that wrote the first updates of KSP1 you shouldn't talk about the technical part of the game at all. Even just on a mere "let's see what previous experience this devs have."
  4. Unity, single core and part count. As if that's all that there is determining performance. As if people way more competent than me didn't spend hundred of words and pages of this forum trying to explain that no, things are not that simple. But apparently for the sake of polarization and being controversial at all costs we all collectively have to pretend we don't have a memory. 3 Years from the announcements and here we are, with the same flawed arguments we had on the day the trailer launched. Unpopular opinion: Parallax just looks like Minecraft with a 4k texture pack slapped to it. The only things that does to me is highlighting the limits of KSP.
  5. Luckily for us the game is developed by an actual studio and not us. They won't be discussing this on paper for literally years like we're doing, a meeting or two to brainstorm a bunch of ideas, a week to implement them into rough prototypes and then refining things out with actual working prototypes on their hands instead of just talking the same theory points over and over again. Technically speaking there's nothing magic or difficult going on. That's for sure, but mostly because we start with half of the community thinking that anything multiplayer is a stain that corrupts the purity of the "serious" single player games. Given that even the most basic assets making makes the game seems like they picked up different assets and art styles from at least two dozen different games I would suggest considering the idea that probably Squad never was this technically talented studio. Before starting to think that there's something impossibility difficult in implementing multiplayer.
  6. Just from the first point it stands out, as usual, that the most vocal people against Unity are players that know nothing about games development. Nothing new here, not even 20 lines in and he's already blaming Unity for KSP1 not scaling well with performance instead of the fact that it wasn't developed by professional game developers in the first place.
  7. Nope, not going to jump back into this. The fact that probably more than fifty people came up with their own completely different solution to the same problem in the past 50 pages of this thread is proof enought that there's no "time warp problem" at all. I don't know how many professional game designer we have around here but I don't see how we can consider something a problem if everyone involved in the discussion has come up with several solutions.
  8. Apollo-Soyouz, the shuttle on the MIR, the ISS, ASI LiciaCube on NASA DART, the Lunar gateway, the NASA-ESA mars sample return plans. All missions that, to be played multiplayer without asynchronous time warp would require a single playing player and the rest waiting for their turn.
  9. It's not game design, not yet, not by far. It's an idea of an idea that could be used to design several different gameplay loops or just explained away in a corner of the in-game wiki. Saying "the game should have wings" is not gameplay design just in the same way you can't call a pile of rocks that happen to have the right elements in them "a car". We start talking about actual gameplay design when discussing procedural Vs Lego wings, but even then it's still not much without the full context and balance. Thinking like that limits your vision, it's easy to see what this way of thinking has done to every life support discussion on this whole forum, we're all deeply convinced that the only possible gameplay loop representing life support is "kerbal fuel" and its production and recycling, completely ignoring or disregarding every possible direction it could take as a mere addition to the Minecraft-esque idea of just having a hunger bar and a chest of snacks. (Random idea of a LS that isn't kerbal fuel? Every bit of LS equipment is a EVA replaceable part, rated to last X time. Let's take an atmospheric scrubber as an example, an early game one is rated for 2 week of use can keep alive 3 kerbals for that time, it can be replaced during an EVA by an engineer and kept in storage for 2 years. No fuel, no spreadsheets, no resources to manage, no random failure, a system that integrates with EVA activities making them useful and ship design.*) Managing time related gameplay in a game with time warp is nothing new, Transporter Tycoon had that kind of gameplay in '94. Having delays, waits or time constraints doesn't automatically become null when you can accelerate time, otherwise every city builder, 4X, factory sim and tycoon / management game would be completely devoid of any kind of gameplay. *: That's not a proposal, just an idea of an alternative way to implement the same "thing" but not in the most obvious gameplay loop everyone is fixated with.
  10. Just because KSP1 management gameplay loops were badly designed and ended up being mindless grind it doesn't mean that that's the only way to implement gameplay of that kind. The fact that there's a whole industry dedicated to management and strategy games should give you the hint that, probably there's a way to make that kind of mechanics fun and not just an obstacle in the way of the player. I don't specifically want communication delay (Not for control), life support, habitats requirements or anything specific. But if in KSP2 is still possible (outside of sandbox) to have 60 external seats strapped on a fuel tank and call that a interplanetary-capable colonization ship it would be disappointing. Even more if that's the same for interstellar travel. The game needs something to make the player understand and play with the enormity of the endeavor that interstellar travel is, having the player strapping a 2 seat capsule on a chemical rocket and timewarp for 200 years to reach another star system it wouldn't make the game feel much more different than games with hyperspace jumping.
  11. I know there are plenty of exceptions and it's not always true, but a good rule of thumb is that the artistic value of a game's graphic department and it's photorealism and technical level are inversely proportional. Not for some technical reason, just because it's usually the small studios that can't afford the tech that focus on the art and the big studios focusing on photorealism which is more "neutral" than an inspired, maybe even cartoonish or caricatured, art style. Since KSP1 lacked in both departments (not much in art style but I'm its consistency) I hope they focus more on the art. For an example of an AAA game which is not photorealistic but has a great graphic department and it's wholly focused on the art style look at Sea Of Thieves.
  12. They could also have the tech tree being independed from the crafting capacity for parts in colonies. One thing is having the blueprint to build a nuclear reactor a different one is being able to build it. @Bej Kerman KSP is a game that happens to feature orbital mechanics. That happens to be educational, absolutely, but it doesn't come with any implicit "responsibility". Gameplay should be king. It's a game, not a teaching tool, not a realistic simulation. Otherwise they should just put a big fat "NOPE" instead of any colonization or interstellar travel system.
  13. I think that, opposed to input delay which would just force people towards autopilots and remove quite a lot of realistic mission profiles, transmission delay for information could play well into the colony management loop. You can build some significant gameplay around that, give the players strategic an interesting choices around when to branch out, how much of an advanced colony you want to build in a new solar system. Do you really want to wait for all the tech and science to transfer or you're just going to build a bigger colony on the other side with top tier lab facilities? That alone would act as a multiplier for an otherwise simpler science system. A simple system for casual players that automatically becomes more complex as you go interstellar. What if we have tiers of science points? You "buy" tech from the tech tree with the highest tier of "refined" science points, but there's 2 or 3 steps to convert the raw science you get from experiments every steps reduces the amount of data to send by an order of magnitude or more, that plays into communication facilities, the amount of "refinement" or study you want to do on your raw science in situ, maybe even upgrades to experiment parts to get better raw science and, with communication delay, it adds a whole lot more importance to your choices when you're deciding if it's better to send some small probes, a small low-tier autonomous colony, or a fully equipped space city. Caps on data transfers could play well into this too, what will I do, build another 3 or 4 antennas that use those resources I already have and engineers that I have plenty enough or I should start mining that other resource on this planet's moon that would allow me to build a new and improved lab and, by training a couple more scientists to the right tier, allow me to refine science to a point in which I will only be sending 1/10 of the data I'm sending now? I don't want the game trying to be a Factorio like game, keep the crafting easy, but a place where KSP could use some of that complexity is the science system, few raw resources being converted and condensed through multiple steps to multiple end products used in the tech tree. That alone could enable the usefulness of a ton of things going from Kerbal Scientist to the data limits of the Commnet, to otherwise cosmetic bases and stations. An having a geologist in your Apollo-style mission is going to improve quite a bit the quality of the science he brings back, give him a fully equipped lab-habitat on the Mun and he's going to bring back MB of research and a few grams of samples instead of hundreds of Kg of randomly selected rocks. I don't see any problem with hand waving it away, but sure enough it could play well to deepen a bit the whole strategy/management side of the game. But only if approached as a "we can use this to add a fun gameplay loop" and not "it must be there because it wouldn't be realistic otherwise".
  14. If anything that's a good thing. Unless it's a story driven or GDR game there's no reason to release a ton of sequels using the same tech instead of working on updates and expansion. We're having a sequel after 10 years, right, but it's a meaningful upgrade in tech and a rewrite of the code. Not "waiting 10 years" would have meant something like KSP finishing with 1.0 in 2015 and 1.7.3 releasing as "KSP2" a year or two earlier (2017 or 2018 instead of 2019). People hate the Paradox model, but the alternative is not having the DLC content for free, the alternative is all the updates and DLCs of a given year being packed into a "new game" like it happens with sport titles. In my view long term support and the monetization necessary to support that model are more than welcome.
  15. I should start a new topic like this to discus this very realistic theory:
  16. I think the real culprit behind all these delays is the lack of really good soup options in the studio cafeteria. I'm not saying that's the case, just that I'm 99.999999% sure it's a fact and that you have no proof I'm wrong.
  17. Also including the people who got a chance to visit Star theory back then. We ignored it because we desperately wanted the game to be released early but the biggest thing they cautioned against whas the fact that they didn't see a complete game ready to release in just a few months. They all said that the Devs should take their times.\ <snip>
  18. Bling bling bling! We have a new conspiracy theory on the forum guys, let's all politely and respectfully try to explain in 10 or 15 pages why this is all a load of crap!
  19. <snip> I think there's a rule against conspiracy theories. Not only there's no proof of what you claim, but it's actively disproven by the fact that the console port release is going to arrive later than the PC one.
  20. I'm not talking about a veteran speedrunning through a "land on every body" challenge. I'm talking about a new-ish player exploring the game for their first few saves. Learning how to do things, playing with the progression. A "normal" playthrough. The future economical success of the game being based on selling additional star systems requires the jumping between star system to be as trivial as landing on Mun is for most veteran KSP players.
  21. This. It takes months if not years to finish the exploration value of the Kerbolar system alone, and that's considering the boring and flat terrain of KSP1 not the improvements of KSP2 terrain system. If they want to have a gameplay system that values huge amounts of solar system they would have to railroad new players away from chemical rockets and directly to the end game stuff, and even then exploration wouldn't be fast enough to make new solar system a viable product as DLCs. Before asking to have as many solar system as games like NMS, Elite or the incoming Starfield remember that implicit in that request there is the requirement of making the flight model and jumping between planets and systems as simple, fast and dumbed down as those games. I hope that there aren't more than 5 or 6 additional solar systems, because a number that high would mean that they designed the game around an easy progression. You can certainly help a lot of the players that never reached the Mun with tutorials and a bit of hand-holding, but to justify tons of star systems you would have to have most of those players travel to several of them in the time it usually takes a KSP1 player to figure out rendezvous and docking, and that is quite difficult to accomplish on tutorials and QOL improvements alone.
  22. How many times a new thread will be opened with this question?
  23. It's not hating on consoles, it's a matter of fact that consoles are less capable, and I'm not talking about performance, but input methods and control over your game. I don't want the developing target being the less capable machine. To make an easy example, I want mods, even if they don't work on consoles, and I'm not ok with giving up more complex mods to allow for console-friendly modding (which usually means only assets and no scripts or code). A lot of people make a big deal out of DRM, to me that isn't even relevant in front of the same thing happening to hardware, to me consoles are like the worst and most invasive of DRMs. Having 2 consoles and a PC at home means having 3 PCs, only because some publishers only want to publish their games on their specific flavor of locked-down PC. Is like having to own a different TV for Disney content because Disney onlly release their things on their branded TVs. I get that they're easier to use, really, bigger audience, and everything, really, but I just don't want my game to be designed to be worse to accommodate for consoles. Let them make the game fully working for PC and then have the publisher giving the code to some third party to cut out the things that Sony and Microsoft don't want on their machines.
  24. And that's what I was saying. It was a niche problem not worth of fixing for Valve right up until the SteamDeck launched. If they're ever going to fix it chances are is going to be among the Steamdeck's offline mode improvements.
  25. With Minecraft you choose what version to download and launch, what I was hinting at is even simpler, just a way to tell Steam "I don't care about the updates, just let me play my outdated version"
×
×
  • Create New...