Do you think they will be a public alpha or beta like ksp 1.

[Hi123]

So I have seen it has been delayed to 2021 ( I understand because of of COiVD 19 and other reasons). But I kind of want to play the games sooner so I want to know if they might be a public beta or alpha I mean I would buy it. Though COiVD 19 might be a issue though related I know this has been asked and asked but I want to know if there are any updates. Just a not for any people who don’t know this but I found a vuirs link to ksp2 (some click bate youtuber) I just want you to know stay safe every one!

<snip>

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Geonovast
Removed embedded video

[SpaceFace545]

yes I think we should get a Beta soon, most people will say we need to let the devs chill and make the game but, they need feedback, like that UI looks horrendous.

[Hi123]

Yes the ui is crappeir than poop slinger game.

 

[Superfluous J]

I do not think so.

At best they'll have one of those fake betas that are actually a free demo weekend on Steam.

[pandaman]

I don't think so, and certainly not 'this' early.  

They appear to have done a lot, but that doesn't mean that it is anything like ready for exposure to the 'public'.  Expectations are high, a premature alpha/beta release that is buggy and lacks 'polish' would get unfairly hammered, and get an undeserved bad reputation that could stick.

[Jacke]

1 hour ago, Superfluous J said:

I do not think so. [about a public alpha or beta]

At best they'll have one of those fake betas that are actually a free demo weekend on Steam.

That would be so sad.

I have friends who along with others were in the SWTOR beta (I only got in just after launch).  They gave a whole lot of feedback on bugs and suggestions.  Which were completely ignored as it was a complete marketing ploy with no true attention being paid to comments.  Doesn't matter now (even though some were never fixed and probably never will be), as there've been at least two dev team swaps since.  But if I talk to them about it and bring it up, they'll still be irritated.

The KSP 2 dev team may have a lot of KSP experience.  But it can only help them if they give us access at a time when things can be changed.  No dev team ever has the time to thoroughly test things out and think of simple ways to improve.  Sure, giving that access has a cost to them.  There's also the benefit in return.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

I genuinely hope not; because it won't be any better after the beta than it would be otherwise.

I'd much rather them actually use the year they've been given to do actual work than wack KSP2 into a barely playable state to satisfy the tiny number of people who want to play it RIGHT NOW!!!

Remember; KSP2 is a thing because KSP had so much cruft from the early days that got baked into it by being retained as dependencies between updates. To the point where there wasn't the option to just go back and redo certain systems or procedures to work better.

If you want a beta, then you're essentially begging for a repeat of this situation. As for bug reports and feedback?

Lets face it people; this isn't 2006 or the 90's where you had a small developer team eagerly listening for feedback. This is a developer beholden to a massive publisher who couldn't give less of a care in the world what they want to do, and only wants them to get a game out for the balance sheets. Any beta/early access would be a glorified cash grab, and wouldn't result in a better game.

It would just mean people like me would wait another 6 months for the actual KSP2 to emerge from the wreckage of the "Beta" after multiple patches, and would also think much less of the developers because they buckled to the pressure and shipped out garbage instead of a game.

[Guest]

Honestly I hope they'll just release it when it's ready, too many things in KSP are developed in that way just not to upset one group or the other on the forums, like having two different progression modes (none of which feels finished) instead of one.

[pandaman]

I'm not convinced how good an idea it would be, but there may be 'space' (pun intended) for a final 'pre release' beta, to get final feedback on UI etc (I imagine tweaks to icon placement and colour schemes etc is a 'relatively' simple process and unlikely to affect the 'inner workings' and cause issues), and 'just maybe' highlight some obscure bugs in time to fix them, but I'm not sure how much real practical value it would have in terms of bug finding and fixing.

Feedback on UI placement etc can be got from screenshots like we have seen already.  Yes it can be difficult to judge effectiveness when not actually using it, but important visual and layout feedback and opinions from genuine potential 'end users' can still be gained.

IMO, most players seems to want an alpha/beta release so they can 'play it now', and when they do find bugs the majority will not report them in a particularly helpful way, as much by not knowing how and lack of patience rather than any unwillingness to help.  To be of much use a bug report needs comprehensive documentation, and steps to repeat etc etc. this takes time, and most of the 'fun' away from playing, and I suspect that most 'ordinary' players just don't have the right mindset and/or skillset, as it then becomes 'work' not play.

[Bej Kerman]

On 5/29/2020 at 10:22 PM, SpaceFace545 said:

yes I think we should get a Beta soon, most people will say we need to let the devs chill and make the game but, they need feedback, like that UI looks horrendous.

The new UI looks brilliant.

[SpaceFace545]

13 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

The new UI looks brilliant.

No

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

19 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

The new UI looks brilliant.

No

Ok, can you tell me why?

[MechBFP]

On 5/29/2020 at 3:22 PM, SpaceFace545 said:

yes I think we should get a Beta soon, most people will say we need to let the devs chill and make the game but, they need feedback, like that UI looks horrendous.

And here we have a fine example of why we don't want the dev's to take some of the community feedback too seriously.

[Bej Kerman]

24 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

On 5/29/2020 at 10:22 PM, SpaceFace545 said:

yes I think we should get a Beta soon, most people will say we need to let the devs chill and make the game but, they need feedback, like that UI looks horrendous.

And here we have a fine example of why we don't want the dev's to take some of the community feedback too seriously.

Yeah. They compact the UI and make it a lot less eye straining to focus on all the instruments, but it's apparently mysteriously "horrendous" for reasons unknown.

[Jacke]

3 hours ago, MechBFP said:

And here we have a fine example of why we don't want the dev's to take some of the community feedback too seriously.

 

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Yeah. They compact the UI and make it a lot less eye straining to focus on all the instruments, but it's apparently mysteriously "horrendous" for reasons unknown.

 

I would hope that devs are aware of the critical factor of almost all feedback: it's not a representative (ie. random as well as large enough) sample of the player population, so that feedback can differ greatly from the whole player base in many ways (overly positive, overly negative, overly divisive, too quiet, too much interest divergence, etc.).

But if there's no effective feedback, ie. giving us a real alpha/beta release with enough time and resources to listen to any feedback and take measures considering it, it's all on them.  The game may have a unified creative vision, which is vital, but the developer team is effectively just another non-representative sample from the player base.  What they think of KSP 2 can be too far from what the players will think of the game.

The way around this conundrum is to honestly and critically examine all feedback, from both the developers themselves and the player base who respond--like we are now--to KSP 2 information as well as from playing with alpha/beta releases.

As for player feedback, we've not been able to *use* the current UI, versus seeing one still photo of it.  The proof of the pudding is in the making--and the eating.  To be sure we have to play with KSP 2.

But if we're not given a real alpha/beta, we won't be able to play with it until it's released.  At which point so many features will be fixed and virtually unchangeable.

So if we don't get that alpha/beta access, all we can do is the best we can with the information that's there.  And in this case, a lot of us still have concerns, both from what's been released and what hasn't been released.  That can only be solved with more information on KSP 2.  And hopefully, a real external alpha/beta feedback series.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

The ONLY form of "Beta" i would support would be a rough, dirty super-alpha preview given to people like LinuxGuruGamer and other prolific modders under NDA, so they could have a head-start on adapting or learning KSP2's modding systems. And then Review copies for the press and reviewers a week or two out.

No AAA Access, No "Beta" a few weeks from launch, no BS. Do it right or not at all.

[shdwlrd]

The only beta I can see is an limited demo. No future stuff, no interstellar. Colonies and orbital stations would be ok. Basically to see if it will run ok on your system.

[mcwaffles2003]

10 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

The only beta I can see is an limited demo. No future stuff, no interstellar. Colonies and orbital stations would be ok. Basically to see if it will run ok on your system.

And honestly, that's all we would need to find most of the mechanical glitches in the game. Not to mention if it performed even just fairly it would be great PR and a way to really ramp up the hype a few months before launch. Give the world a tiny appetizer to make them starving for dinner.

12 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

The ONLY form of "Beta" i would support would be a rough, dirty super-alpha preview given to people like LinuxGuruGamer and other prolific modders under NDA, so they could have a head-start on adapting or learning KSP2's modding systems. And then Review copies for the press and reviewers a week or two out.

No AAA Access, No "Beta" a few weeks from launch, no BS. Do it right or not at all.

But wouldn't having a large community help find bugs to make sure we don't have a fallout 76 launch? Even if it's a closed beta with 3,000 play testers with a DRM included to make sure it isn't distributed by testers...

I agree with giving well acclaimed modders getting the earliest copy so the game can hit the ground sprinting with day 1 mods but some last few months limited access could really help the game upon launch. Then you could keep an updated vers. of the beta without DRM but more limited (parts wise) as a demo for people thinking about giving the game a chance to get more people to try then buy.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

19 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

And honestly, that's all we would need to find most of the mechanical glitches in the game. Not to mention if it performed even just fairly it would be great PR and a way to really ramp up the hype a few months before launch. Give the world a tiny appetizer to make them starving for dinner.

But wouldn't having a large community help find bugs to make sure we don't have a fallout 76 launch? Even if it's a closed beta with 3,000 play testers with a DRM included to make sure it isn't distributed by testers...

I agree with giving well acclaimed modders getting the earliest copy so the game can hit the ground sprinting with day 1 mods but some last few months limited access could really help the game upon launch. Then you could keep an updated vers. of the beta without DRM but more limited (parts wise) as a demo for people thinking about giving the game a chance to get more people to try then buy.

That's putting the cart before the horse I'm afraid; FO76 actually had a "Beta" about a few weeks before the release. It didn't help it; why?

Aside from the fact it was motivated by greed; it didn't help because the bugs were fundamental issues that had been around since morrowind that no amount of beta testing or reports would fix.

The moment you decide to ship a game; you automatically also make a decision to release a final version in some form or fashion. And you also decide to shorten your timeline.

Let's say they decide to have a beta 3 months before the release, KSP2 now has to have a final working build before then. And that also means that instead of working on the game we want; they're desperately attempting to wack it into a functional state. Then they're gathering reports, filing them, and once the beta is pulled down only then can they actually start again.

There's plenty of mechanisms to reduce this, such as having two repositories for the source code that can be updated independently without one affecting the other. But the bottom line is that releasing a beta will create more work for the developers, increase the chances of more bugs, and all for what? So a couple people can get frustrated playing KSP2 before throwing in the towel due to the bugs? So they can get buried in reports and have to spend valuable time sorting thru them and attempting to replicate them instead of actually working on the game?

It's not impossible to transform a game from basically broken to amazing these days, and i get that. But that should be the LAST RESORT, not the expectation!

And I'm not convinced a beta would actually help KSP2 in any form or fashion, and it's mostly because there's so much foundational work that they have to get right that likely will get skipped or sloppily approximated if they do make a beta that the end result may very well be a worse game.

[mcwaffles2003]

21 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

That's putting the cart before the horse I'm afraid; FO76 actually had a "Beta" about a few weeks before the release. It didn't help it; why?

Aside from the fact it was motivated by greed; it didn't help because the bugs were fundamental issues that had been around since morrowind that no amount of beta testing or reports would fix.

Fair point, though it was more of an example than saying fallout series = kerbal. Also I really wish Bethesda would finally make a new engine again.. especially since it still feels like your running over flat glass tiling 5 inches above the actual ground.

21 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

The moment you decide to ship a game; you automatically also make a decision to release a final version in some form or fashion. And you also decide to shorten your timeline.

Let's say they decide to have a beta 3 months before the release, KSP2 now has to have a final working build before then. And that also means that instead of working on the game we want; they're desperately attempting to wack it into a functional state. Then they're gathering reports, filing them, and once the beta is pulled down only then can they actually start again.

There's also a point where the devs will have to beta test themselves, and by then they've already made that decision as well where they will still be "desperately attempting to wack it into a functional state". If their choice through their own test says they need to go back to the drawing board for some things that's no different than if the reports from the community give them the same conclusion. But in the case where the mass of the community does the testing, these errors will be found much quicker than if a small studio of <100 people do the testing. I also don't see how this would "shorten" the timeline and you speak as if making "a decision to release a final version in some form or fashion" is a bad thing though no matter what that will be the case before release..

21 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

it's mostly because there's so much foundational work that they have to get right that likely will get skipped or sloppily approximated if they do make a beta that the end result may very well be a worse game.

I don't get this. Then make the open/closed beta after you've figured that out?

If anything, making a beta will reduce the amount of time the devs will need to spend play testing themselves and instead increase the amount of time they're working on coding/bug fixing.

You could also release the beta without giving a release date and change the game between beta release and launch if need be...

All in all, this game has an unusually code savvy community in general (hell, there's a mod that adds coding into the game with over 100k downloads) and to not utilize that resource would be a waste.

Edited June 3, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[mattinoz]

28 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I don't get this. Then make the open/closed beta after you've figured that out?

If anything, making a beta will reduce the amount of time the devs will need to spend play testing themselves and instead increase the amount of time they're working on coding/bug fixing.

You could also release the beta without giving a release date and change the game between beta release and launch if need be...

All in all, this game has an unusually code savvy community in general (hell, there's a mod that adds coding into the game with over 100k downloads) and to not utilize that resource would be a waste.

I'm sure the Dev's know a 12 or so people who can come in to a closed beta, break the game along with the teams sprite far faster and with significantly better feedback than an open beta.

Give them a play date on site 6 month out for play test interface feedback, then homework for bug finding. Small group will write better bug reports as they know it'll be read and hopefully acted on.

All open betas ever do produce is a mountain of whine that hides fixable issues. .

[mcwaffles2003]

3 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

I'm sure the Dev's know a 12 or so people who can come in to a closed beta, break the game along with the teams sprite far faster and with significantly better feedback than an open beta.

Give them a play date on site 6 month out for play test interface feedback, then homework for bug finding. Small group will write better bug reports as they know it'll be read and hopefully acted on.

All open betas ever do produce is a mountain of whine that hides fixable issues. .

I agree, thats why I originally proposed it be a closed beta.

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Even if it's a closed beta with 3,000 play testers with a DRM included to make sure it isn't distributed by testers...

3000 may be a bit high but something like 250 wouldn't be unreasonable, would it?

[Incarnation of Chaos]

18 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Fair point, though it was more of an example than saying fallout series = kerbal. Also I really wish Bethesda would finally make a new engine again.. especially since it still feels like your running over flat glass tiling 5 inches above the actual ground.

There's also a point where the devs will have to beta test themselves, and by then they've already made that decision as well where they will still be "desperately attempting to wack it into a functional state". If their choice through their own test says they need to go back to the drawing board for some things that's no different than if the reports from the community give them the same conclusion. But in the case where the mass of the community does the testing, these errors will be found much quicker than if a small studio of <100 people do the testing. I also don't see how this would "shorten" the timeline and you speak as if making "a decision to release a final version in some form or fashion" is a bad thing though no matter what that will be the case before release..

I don't get this. Then make the open/closed beta after you've figured that out?

If anything, making a beta will reduce the amount of time the devs will need to spend play testing themselves and instead increase the amount of time they're working on coding/bug fixing.

You could also release the beta without giving a release date and change the game between beta release and launch if need be...

All in all, this game has an unusually code savvy community in general (hell, there's a mod that adds coding into the game with over 100k downloads) and to not utilize that resource would be a waste.

Spoiler

I wish they'd just license IDtech5

No there's not; most games only come together as a finished product in the last few weeks or month. By releasing a beta you're just increasing the size of the cutting room floor.

Those errors will be found much quicker by having more development time and never introducing them in the first place.

If those foundational systems are ready, then KSP2 isn't too far off release.

It won't

We already have a release date though, so they can't

The people who make principia, FAR or other code-heavy mods likely will be working on them, other projects or their actual jobs; i think you're really overestimating how many of them would play or contribute to a theoretical beta.

[ThanNinja24]

I personally think that it'd be a good thing near the latest stages of development, and limited in some way

[Geonovast]

Overlapping threads have been merged.

Also, some content has been removed for linking to unsafe content.  Please make sure any outside content you link to also follows our forum rules.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Geonovast