Mohopeful

[Spicat]

19 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Well, it's like with ships with thousands of parts - you just don't have a powerful enough computer

Where did they promise a ship with thousands of parts?

19 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

The source is lost somewhere on the forum. When was the last time we saw something with the colonies?

I don't know how it's relevant to our conversation if they have showed colonies recently (and to answer your question it was, at most, 7 months ago (in the 6th episode of the feature videos))

The last thing he said about colonies size is this (First AMA):

No mention about the fact that it will be smaller than the trailer, so for now we don't know but I think they want us to build things the same size as what they showed us in trailers, feature videos...

Edited May 23, 2023 by Spicat

[Alexoff]

17 minutes ago, Spicat said:

Where did they promise a ship with thousands of parts?

5:30. But of course no one promised, no one clearly and clearly said - a thousand parts and 60 fps! As I have already written a million times, we need to approve a list of what we were really promised, and what was actually said evasively and what can be done of any low quality.

21 minutes ago, Spicat said:

I don't know how it's relevant to our conversation if they have showed colonies recently (and to answer your question it was, at most, 7 months ago (in the 6th episode of the feature videos))

Are you talking about the same colony that was shown back in 2019?

23 minutes ago, Spicat said:

No mention about the fact that it will be smaller than the trailer, so for now we don't know but I think they want us to build things the same size as what they showed us in trailers, feature videos...

Nobody promised a colony like in the trailer. It's a CGI trailer, don't set unrealistic expectations.

 

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, Alexoff said:

5:30. But of course no one promised, no one clearly and clearly said - a thousand parts and 60 fps! As I have already written a million times, we need to approve a list of what we were really promised, and what was actually said evasively and what can be done of any low quality.

Or just forgive and forget, because these are real people and continuing to badger them won't bring back your money.

[Spicat]

5 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Are you talking about the same colony that was shown back in 2019?

I still don't know how it's relevant, but no, it was not from 2019, we didn't saw much about colonies at the time.

 

9 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Nobody promised a colony like in the trailer. It's a CGI trailer, don't set unrealistic expectations.

I see what are you trying to do but either way... At the timestamp of the video you posted, he said that their ultimate goal is to build things like in the trailer, well it's a goal, so still pending for 1.0.

Also the trailer colonies/space stations seems to be a lot less than 1000 parts (Because those are just big parts)

[Alexoff]

9 minutes ago, Spicat said:

I still don't know how it's relevant, but no, it was not from 2019, we didn't saw much about colonies at the time.

Maybe I lied again, this seems to have been shown in 2020.

I'm too lazy to look for the source, at 1:38 the same colony.

12 minutes ago, Spicat said:

At the timestamp of the video you posted, he said that their ultimate goal is to build things like in the trailer, well it's a goal, so still pending for 1.0.

Yes, and then he says that it will be possible to make ships much larger than ShadowZone is used to making (I don’t know his name, unfortunately) And he immediately said that we are talking about ships with more than a thousand parts.

14 minutes ago, Spicat said:

Also the trailer colonies/space stations seems to be a lot less than 1000 parts (Because those are just big parts)

You have chosen a very cunning strategy. On the one hand, no one has ever made any specific promises, and on the other hand, all promises will be fulfilled. It remains only to understand what promises we are talking about.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

30 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

5:30. But of course no one promised, no one clearly and clearly said - a thousand parts and 60 fps! As I have already written a million times, we need to approve a list of what we were really promised, and what was actually said evasively and what can be done of any low quality.

Are you talking about the same colony that was shown back in 2019?

Nobody promised a colony like in the trailer. It's a CGI trailer, don't set unrealistic expectations.

 

Not sure that I should be asking this, but what exactly do you think “you”, whoever that is, “approving” a list of things you think you were “promised” will accomplish?

[Alexoff]

14 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Not sure that I should be asking this, but what exactly do you think “you”, whoever that is, “approving” a list of things you think you were “promised” will accomplish?

With such a list, you can instantly stop such disputes. But there is a good chance that when compiling such a list, it may turn out that there is nothing to add to it.

[Spicat]

32 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

You have chosen a very cunning strategy. On the one hand, no one has ever made any specific promises, and on the other hand, all promises will be fulfilled. It remains only to understand what promises we are talking about.

There is no strategy here, I'm not legally bound to intercept, sad you take this that way.

CGI trailers are not promises. (That's why they wrote a "not actual gameplay")

If they say, "this stuff you see in the trailer (like a part for instance) will be in the game", that's a promise (like they said that everything on the roadmap will be in the game).

If they say that their "ultimate goal" is to have what we have in the trailer, that's not a promise, that's just them telling us that they will aim for this ceiling.

That's PR talk for you, it can be scummy but that's how you don't get disappointed , by searching for actual promises.

 

Either way you said "Nate said that the colonies weren't going to be that big", that's would be a "promise" but you and I can't seems to find it, so for now we can only hope.

So yeah, they WANT us to build those things, it will MAYBE be the case but we cannot be sure.

While what's on the roadmap WILL be in the game (at least if they go that far).

 

And I will also say to everyone, please don't buy things on promises but on what it's currently offering (so never preorder).

Edited May 23, 2023 by Spicat

[asmi]

On 5/22/2023 at 5:16 PM, adsii1970 said:

I wasn't a moderator back in those early days,

Well I was, and I can assure you that many active modders had access to pre-release experimentals precisely for that reason (so that they can fix their mods for upcoming release), and also them being technically competent with KSP internals they could provide more actionable bug reports with technical details, as well as report some bugs which were along a stock-mods boundary (for example, the bug is in the code path which is only invoked by mods despite the actual code being in stock game). The last type of bugs was especially annoying to modders as KSP support would pretty much just ignore bug reports (because they do not occur in stock game!), so the only way to get those fixed was experimentals (and other back channels, which tended to form between active testers and devs/QA folks, again - thanks to experimentals).

That said, I don't understand why this team doesn't want to repeat that successful recipe of doing experimentals a.k.a. "semi-public beta testing" (meaning while the testing itself was closed, the fact that this testing was happening, was announced publicly). I remember there were times when we would get multiple beta builds a day! I'm hopeful they will come to that at some point.

[PDCWolf]

28 minutes ago, Spicat said:

And I will also say to everyone, please don't buy things on promises but on what it's currently offering (so never preorder).

Literally the whole point of EA, including the "pay less now" strategy and all. Not for preorders though, you're completely right there: Never preorder.

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Or just forgive and forget, because these are real people and continuing to badger them won't bring back your money.

Pfft hahahaha. That's just a recipe to get scammed, though considering Planetary Annihilation and Human Resources are what's on Uber/Private Division's belt, the cooking might already be underway.

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

I have already written a million times, we need to approve a list of what we were really promised, and what was actually said evasively and what can be done of any low quality.

Edit: Forum went down as I was typing this. Meant to say: This is something that should be done for every EA. Keeps PR people on their toes and prospective buyers/players awake.

Edited May 23, 2023 by PDCWolf

[Spicat]

17 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Literally the whole point of EA, including the "pay less now" strategy and all. Not for preorders though, you're completely right there: Never preorder.

Well, not really the whole point, as steam second rule about early access says:

Quote

2. Do not make specific promises about future events. For example, there is no way you can know exactly when the game will be finished, that the game will be finished, or that planned future additions will definitely happen. Do not ask your customers to bet on the future of your game. Customers should be buying your game based on its current state, not on promises of a future that may or may not be realized.

To be fair, I find them pretty honest sometimes:

Also I don't think the "pay less now" strategy is really a strategy from Intercept, just from some ksp 2 fans.

This argument is pretty dumb as we have likely two years to wait for 1.0 (total random guess), so people have time to pay the game less when they feel like it.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Spicat

[Meecrob]

9 minutes ago, Spicat said:

snip

You might want to read the whole list of guidelines, not the cherry picked one that supports your point

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

 

Edit:

"Early Access is a place for games that are in a playable alpha or beta state, are worth the current value of the playable build, and that you plan to continue to develop for release."

It is not worth $50USD currently.

 

"Early Access is not a way to crowdfund development of your product.
You should not use Early Access solely to fund development. If you are counting on selling a specific number of units to complete your game, then you need to think carefully about what it would mean for you or your team if you don't sell that many units. Are you willing to continue developing the game without any sales? Are you willing to seek other forms of investment?"

Many feel the game was released in this state to continue funding for development.

 

"Make sure you set expectations properly everywhere you talk about your game. Be transparent with your community. For example, if you know your updates during Early Access will break save files, make sure you tell players up front. And say this everywhere you sell your Steam keys."

Expectations were wildly overhyped.

 

"Don't launch in Early Access without a playable game. If you have a tech demo, but not much gameplay yet, then it’s probably too early to launch in Early Access."

Not much gameplay to be had here.

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by Meecrob

[PDCWolf]

3 minutes ago, Spicat said:

Well, not really the whole point, as steam second rule about early access says:

To be fair, I find them pretty honest sometimes:

Also I don't think the "pay less now" strategy is really a strategy from Intercept, just from some ksp 2 fans.

This argument is pretty dumb as we have likely two years to wait for 1.0 (total random guess), so people have time to pay the game less when they feel like it.

"Pay less now" is a staple of the "investment" that Early Access embodies. Almost every EA title engages in gradual or release price increases, it's part of the incentive to get in early.

Regarding the "rules" of EA, we could also say they've already failed that, as roadmaps clearly violate, if not the literal text, the spirit of the rule. However we both here are human and understand that Steam is not gonna come chasing devs/publishers for violating a "rule" of EA, and we know this is both a daily occurence, and how EA games are sold.

It's easy to be honest with somebody else's money. Yeah, sure, go get a refund, not like you can test much of KSP2 in 2 hours when that's less that what it took back on release to battle with bugs and execute a Mun mission, so good luck with that refund! It's exactly why I had to go seek out support to get my refund at almost 6 hours played, 30 days after purchase, and boy was that an odyssey and a lot of people don't have the time or willpower to go through that.

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

5:30. But of course no one promised, no one clearly and clearly said - a thousand parts and 60 fps! As I have already written a million times, we need to approve a list of what we were really promised, and what was actually said evasively and what can be done of any low quality.

Here is a list of what was promised:

And here is a list of all the smarmy evasive slimeball stuff they lied to us about:

[Spicat]

8 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Regarding the "rules" of EA, we could also say they've already failed that, as roadmaps clearly violate, if not the literal text, the spirit of the rule. However we both here are human and understand that Steam is not gonna come chasing devs/publishers for violating a "rule" of EA, and we know this is both a daily occurence, and how EA games are sold.

I was not really refering to the Interecept side of thing (a company is always a bit scummy) but just that people really need to not trust everything they see and make unrealistic expectations. Take everything with a grain of salt.

I bought the game because I knew what I stepped into and that's I bought this thing for what it offers (even if I would like all the things they also promised and would be a bit disappointed otherwise) but I will not recommend this game yet.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Spicat

[Meecrob]

6 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

Here is a list of what was promised:

And here is a list of all the smarmy evasive slimeball stuff they lied to us about:

I think they are trying to get at the fact that its exceedingly easy not fail at something when you don't tell anyone what your goals are. Yes, we have the roadmap...but we aren't even out of the driveway yet though. There are multiple debates over whether they should fix bugs first or add features first, for example. They said vaguely they are doing both...so therefore they cannot fail. And this is precisely why people are asking for info. I would rather they focus on something, tell us what their goal is, try, and fail, than have some namby-pamby "we are working hard and everything looks good" type of answer.

I don't understand why it is so difficult to admit things did not work out as planned. I mean, everyone fails...the successful people fail and learn from it, the unsuccessful people fail and try to make excuses or try to go on thinking everything is okay.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Meecrob

[PDCWolf]

Just now, Spicat said:

I was not really refering to the Interecept side of thing (a company is always a bit scummy) but just that people really need to not trust everything they see and make unrealistic expectations. Take everything with a grain of salt.

I bought the game because I knew what I stepped into and that's I bought this thing for what it offers (even if I would like all the things they also promised and would be a bit disappointed otherwise) but I will not recommend this game yet.

Just like with another poster on a previous thread, it gets hard to keep track of what should be passed through the PR filter, what's them being poor little humans that can fail at things, what's business speak, and also that apparently nothing is true. What I'm trying to say is: I have to take their words that they're working incessantly, competently and excruciatingly to make the best game ever to heart. However, when they talk about what the game will have, it's all business speak that I should ignore.

That's just a hard no from me. Either their words mean something, and thus we can hold them to the promises they've made, or their words don't mean anything and all the praise and cheerleading is disingenuous and meaningless because nobody believes them.

[Strawberry]

On 5/22/2023 at 11:59 AM, Nate Simpson said:

That's actually a really apt question, as we had a major breakthrough on wandering apoapses last week (and it probably deserves its own post in the future).

Please do a dev diary with a producer that just focuses on breaking down the steps of deciphering a particularly nasty bug and how it goes from QA to engineers, would be a great read.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Strawberry

[Reusables]

It seems like hundreds or so of KSP2 players are all posting here. Otherwise I cannot comprehend this much traffic.

[Strawberry]

The 50 dollar thing seems like a take two decision mostly honestly (personal take on the matter is its not a good one but it is what it is). The vibe I got from the cms on discord pre release when people were talking about wanting to preorder it was that the lack of a preorder was an intercept games decision (as its an EA game, it shouldn't have preorder). Intercept has definitely done things that aren't immediately in their financial interest. Ignoring take two's greed (which is definitely relevant), this is their first EA release , and a company as big as them is going to have a lot of inertia when it comes to these things. They're not going to do what's practically a major release discount because that's not how it's done.

[PDCWolf]

Just now, Strawberry said:

The 50 dollar thing seems like a take two decision mostly honestly (personal take on the matter is its not a good one but it is what it is). The vibe I got from the cms on discord pre release when people were talking about wanting to preorder it was that the lack of a preorder was an intercept games decision (as its an EA game, it shouldn't have preorder). Intercept has definitely done things that aren't immediately in their financial interest. Ignoring take two's greed (which is definitely relevant), this is their first EA release , and a company as big as them is going to have a lot of inertia when it comes to these things. They're not going to do what's practically a major release discount because that's not how it's done.

Don't know about Intercept, but Private Division, who they work for, are a rebrand of Uber games, who are responsible for Planetary Annihilation, P.A. Titans and Human resources. They "know" about EA and they know how to milk kickstarters and run.  Have fun.

[Alexoff]

28 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

And here is a list of all the smarmy evasive slimeball stuff they lied to us about:

Indeed, after all, no one promised us to release the full game, it is difficult to find something about early access before the fall of 2022.

1 hour ago, Spicat said:

CGI trailers are not promises. (That's why they wrote a "not actual gameplay")

Really - is it possible to consider a collision with a stone in the rings of Dres as a promise of game mechanics? Well, it’s clear that the graphics in the trailer are more beautiful, hardly anyone expected that kerbals would cling to the flying rover with their hands, but are there any rules of decency? Or in such trailers you can show anything, attributing at the bottom in small print that nothing can be trusted? Just some kind of agreement with the devil, where he only want to catch you on inattention

[Superfluous J]

14 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

is it possible to consider a collision with a stone in the rings of Dres as a promise of game mechanics?

Is it possible? Obviously.

Should you do it? Absolutely not.

N O T H I N G is a promise when it relates to someone you don't know trying to sell you something. This doesn't matter if it's a beloved franchise or a can of soda. Unless they can be sued for saying it, ("I, Nate Simpson, Hereby vow in front of Congress that Jeb and Val will knuck-bump in the game when things go well") assume it's - at the absolute best - a wish they have for the future.

[adsii1970]

5 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

Should you do it? Absolutely not.

Should you what? Consider a collision with a stone in the rings of Dres? Collision? As a planned collision with something that 'splodes in KSP2? We know the answer to that...

 

[Superfluous J]

49 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

I have to take their words that they're working incessantly, competently and excruciatingly to make the best game ever to heart. However, when they talk about what the game will have, it's all business speak that I should ignore.

I don't understand why that's so hard to do, as a fan of the franchise.

To me it's obvious that they want all the things we want (within reason of course) and it's also obvious to me that they are trying to do it.

It's even more obvious to me that marketers gonna market.

2 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Should you what? Consider a collision with a stone in the rings of Dres? Collision? As a planned collision with something that 'splodes in KSP2? We know the answer to that...

[snip animated GIF of Jack Nicholson grinning and smiling]

Oh no by all means consider that. Just don't consider the existence of it in a video as a promise that it'll happen in the game.