Theory: Robotic Parts WILL be part of the game - because Rovers are too big for space.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

MP is a business boondoggle 

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.

[Periple]

I really enjoyed robotics but most of all I enjoyed making propeller- and rotor-driven aircraft. I’d be 75% happy if we just got that, and if they added servos I’d be 95% happy. Everything else would be icing on the cake!

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

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.

"Elitism" is not the definition of "Boondoggle." 

We've hashed over the potential issues of MP too many times - and I know you were there for it.  Perhaps review?

[RocketRockington]

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

"Elitism" is not the definition of "Boondoggle." 

We've hashed over the potential issues of MP too many times - and I know you were there for it.  Perhaps review?

It is a bit hilarious that the guy who pounced on every single nay sayer pre-launch with long winded rebuttals about how everything was going smoothly and the game would be brilliant also isn't playing it, isnt it?  But I guess they found a new hill to die on.  

[Guest]

14 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

"Elitism" is not the definition of "Boondoggle." 

"Everything multiplayer sucks, and it's a waste of resources" is the definition of "Single player elitism".

12 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

But I guess they found a new hill to die on.  

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.

 

12 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

It is a bit hilarious that the guy who pounced on every single nay sayer pre-launch [...] also isn't playing it, isnt it?

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.

 

12 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

with long winded rebuttals about how everything was going smoothly and the game would be brilliant

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.

 

16 hours ago, Periple said:

I really enjoyed robotics but most of all I enjoyed making propeller- and rotor-driven aircraft. I’d be 75% happy if we just got that, and if they added servos I’d be 95% happy. Everything else would be icing on the cake!

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.

[RocketRockington]

33 minutes ago, Master39 said:

The game is still following the script.

Citing a prognostication you made 6 days before launch - after reactions about the ESA event.  Truly you are a master of foresight.  Anyway, I've strayed off topic enough, I was just surprised to see you come back from your month long hiatus to start defending the project management decisions again.

Anyway, I liked tuning propellers in KSP1, so to each their own.  I found it a fun use of KAL, and if it had just been stock-propeller engines, like some mods, there would have been little gameplay to them.  The more realistic physics it added - in particular, allowing differential torque for yaw control on quad rotors - fantastic.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

I was just surprised to see you come back from your month long hiatus to start defending the project management decisions again.

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.

 

14 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

Anyway, I liked tuning propellers in KSP1, so to each their own.  I found it a fun use of KAL, and if it had just been stock-propeller engines, like some mods, there would have been little gameplay to them.  The more realistic physics it added - in particular, allowing differential torque for yaw control on quad rotors - fantastic.

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.

[RocketRockington]

35 minutes ago, Master39 said:

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.

I think multiplayer is a poor choice for KSP2, particularly since it sounds like they didn't come up with a better solution than the mods did, which is extremely cumbersome.  It's expensive to implement and given KSPs nature, a smaller fraction will enjoy it vs most games.   Your personal anecdotal is an outlier, to me, but of course that's just an opinion...then again, the dev team themselves did put it last on the roadmap.

I don't think someone who thinks every game ever should have coop though is thinking rationally in the slightest though, so I won't argue with you further, especially since you sound like you're back to a hiatus. 

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

particularly since it sounds like they didn't come up with a better solution than the mods did, which is extremely cumbersome.

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.

54 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

I don't think someone who thinks every game ever should have coop though is thinking rationally in the slightest though,

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?

 

57 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

especially since you sound like you're back to a hiatus. 

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.

[Scarecrow71]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

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.

This opinion is not the opinion of every player.  You believing that every game is better with multi-player does not mean that everybody shares this thought.

Myself....I despise MP.  I do not believe that the game will be better for it, and it is a feature that I won't use.  But that doesn't mean I am diminishing your excitement over it.  You do you, and I'll do me.  Just make sure you are clear in your opinions.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

This opinion is not the opinion of every player.  You believing that every game is better with multi-player does not mean that everybody shares this thought.

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.

[Scarecrow71]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

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.

Right on.  Context.  Which there was little of in your post (unless I wanted to read a bunch of history, which I really don't this morning).

[pandaman]

6 hours ago, Master39 said:

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.

This sums up my thoughts on this too.

The robotics parts (hinges, pistons and servos etc.)  added a lot of useful options (just a shame they were so darned glitchy at times).  But, whilst I acknowledge that many really enjoyed using them, the detail and fiddliness of the propellers was just out of scope IMO.

[Periple]

8 hours ago, Master39 said:

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.

I agree, and I also think propellers ought to have auto-pitch so you can control your speed with throttle, after all real-life propellers do. That way you'd just have to deal with torque somehow, either by designing it to balance out or by flight controls – but they'd have to be good enough that you could do that reasonably easily. 

Propellers and rotors also ought to be parametric – just pick the blade type, number of blades, and direction of rotation. Having to stick them onto the attach points, rotate them to make sure they're correctly aligned, then hook up controls for pitch is also just unnecessary busywork.

[Scarecrow71]

3 hours ago, Periple said:

Propellers and rotors also ought to be parametric

Or procedural.  Stick the base part on the engine and then pick the number of blades it should have.

[Lyneira]

I'd agree propeller engines shouldn't need robotics to be in the game and I hope that puts them within scope for the road to 1.0. We're going to have various planets with (largely) non-breathable atmospheres that we'll want to fly around in.

Another thing I see being in demand that overlaps somewhat with this, is VTOL engines that can change between forward thrust and vertical thrust. B9 aerospace parts in KSP1 had some nice VTOL engines (iirc before Infernal Robotics even existed), but it was really just one or two parts that had that capability and that limited your options. It would be much more useful if we could simply have an engine mount that can rotate and be controlled with action groups and/or a custom control axis, without necessarily including all the baggage that a full implementation of robotics brings. That would allow us to use any engine (including the above-discussed propeller engines) we want as a VTOL engine.

[RocketRockington]

I think any features outside of the lane of needs bringing the project toward 1.0 are very unlikely to happen.  It's much more likely artists would work on more future tech parts, and engineers will work to finish the roadmap, with possibly some additional QOL aims directly at the needs of that roadmap.  The team clearly can't work fast enough to hit even the barebones deadlines management wanted to hit (for which I blame management, not the team, btw), expecting extras is silly.