Meecrob

You seem to enjoy taking what I say and turning it around, regardless of whether there is merit to what I say or not, so I'm gonna stop replying. My opinion on the topic is if there is going to be an "auto-fairing" feature, make it optional...people like doing cool stuff with fairings that aren't always intuitive, and that makes the game richer.

I wish I could say your situation was unique, and maybe your computer needed video drivers updated, but no, this is all of our experience...put it down...

Agreed, its seems that honesty is a luxury that 50 USD cannot afford. And lets all remember this is supposed to be a niche game made by people who are into that niche...its not COD or Overwatch or something. Like just watch some youtube videos from Coffee Stain Studios on how development of Satisfactory is going. They make a point of saying "okay, okay...we kinda thought this was gonna go this way, but it didn't, so here is our mea culpa" and nobody gets upset at them...I mean aside from like 2 neckbeards (I'm joking, I'm joking), but they prove you can say negative things and turn it into a positive by showing the community you are emphasizing fixing certain things. Look I get the argument of "don't promise something you cannot deliver on time, cuz players will be upset" but we have been given almost nothing. Players are going to be upset, and transparency is the way to re-gain trust. It seems nobody on the KSP2 team is willing to say "yeah, we mad a mistake" Which to me translates to "these people don't care about my experience as a player." This is the crux of the problem, that has thusfar, been ignored...like its expected a game is not actually a game and screw you if you complain. As a customer, I have little regard for the people who made the defective game(to be clear, obviously NOT just the devs...just to nip some snarky comments in the bud)...same way when you buy a car or a house or a fridge or anything, you don't sit there with a defective product going "well, its going to get better in the future, I totally won't complain my fridge is room temperature, my house has no roof and my car was delivered on a skid with no suspension components, surely they will be added in a future update which is only...oh...that far away. You cannot even tell me when you will be done...no "ballpark figure" even...its done at some point from now until infinity...I for some fan boi reason still have confidence in this enterprise." But somehow this is acceptable in video games.

And exactly how did you arrive at that conclusion? Go check out what some of the things people who got inspired by this game have went on to do. Kinda like when I was 7 years old, my Mom won a hot air balloon ride. Now you might call it "just a balloon ride" but that day, I knew that I wanted to be in the sky...like as a career. And it has influenced many of my big decisions since. This is a large community and we all need to keep in mind that we don't all play the same way. To you it is "just a game." To others it is not. Your answer of "I don't think so" is selfish because you don't reference anything other than your own opinion. Not on vacation they aren't. As I said before, I do not condone crunch, but the opposite end of the spectrum is don't charge premium prices for a non-premium experience, then go on vacation. It looks bad. The updates are sparse both in content and frequency. Nobody is impressed with this game. If it was called something other than "Kerbal Space Program" this thing would have died months ago. You will notice I said "once there is a game worth playing.." not "once the devs make a game worth playing" I specifically typed out lots of my opinion on how publishers are making games for shareholders, not gamers. I can't force you to read it though... Have a good one. Oh, almost forgot...you conveniently did not reply to my point about how KSP had one of the best communities on the internet, hands down, before KSP2... I can't make you get it, obviously, but its frustrating that this forum is dead. Like we must be less than 100 posts a day here. Clearly public opinion has spoken that the interest is waning. The answer is to make a game that attracts interest, not frustration. Stop trying to spin it...its simple...make a good game, people are happy to play said good game, and ultimately a good community is organically grown. You can't astroturf it with a half-baked facsimile.

I think we have the disconnect here. To you, it is "just a game," to many, it is what inspired their career, or re-kindled a love of science that maybe wasn't nurtured when they were in high school, etc. This was hands down one of the best communities on the internet due to the fact that a game brought us all together. You can't do that on purpose...it has to happen organically...and its been ruined. Nobody wants the devs to live in a cave...I'm pretty sure they just want them to work on the game...which we can all admit needs some work. As I've said before...once there is a game worth playing again, I bet the community will put their claws away.

@Bej Kerman The point of making a video game should be to make players happy, thus "look at the product the consumer receives." Its the devs job, literally, to make a good game. Having said that, I am 100% against crunch, but making games isn't supposed to be easy. If you wanna make good games, its gonna be stressful at times and hopefully it pays off in the end. I don't get this idea that the devs are "victims." I think we agree. Have the option to do both.

[Snip] The general idea behind making things toggleable is that we are a diverse group of people who do unintuitive things with the parts available. KSP allows very different people to have fun in entirely different manners all within the same game. Rather than shooting down my argument, do you have a suggestion? The coolest stuff about KSP, at least for me, is seeing people use parts in ways I never could have come up with on my own...and it inspires me to make crazy contraptions. This won't happen if we make fairings only to be fairings. The popularity of this game is that you can play it totally different from me and we can both have fun due to the fact that things are options. [Snip]

Buddy, stop talking to me as if I have a learning disability. I know I can play KSP1...that is my entire argument! The first game overshadows the second.

Edit: @gluckez You don't get it. KSP is a niche game. You can't just "go play something else." Its not like its an fps or something. And "inflation?" Nah, Take 2 has set their price point at $50 for non-blockbuster releases...look at Red Dead Redemption...re-release? or whatever you call it? The thing that costs $50 but you can go buy an Xbox and copy of the original game for cheaper...its not inflation, its greed. They aren't making games for gamers, they are making "games" to fleece us for our money.

My argument is not that the game sucks. It is rather that the negativity would vanish if the game didn't suck. You complain that there is negativity. People aren't going to stop complaining because you think its annoying. People paid $50 for a downgrade...they have a right to be upset.

Way to not answer the first part of what I said.

Maybe they should make a game that doesn't suck? That should cut down on the toxicity. Its not reddit, its the game.

People know what KSP is. If anything KSP2 is ruining the legacy, not our complaints on this board about how KSP2 is objectively not ready to be a successor, because its not.

You are not being constructive, you are just yelling louder than me. And deflecting from what I'm trying to get at. But I'm not here to play games. We agree to disagree, have a good one.

Lol. Yeah, its MY fault KSP2 isn't holding up to expectations...I'm the one who changed... Its funny, cuz I immediately change back when I boot up KSP1.

[Snip] I think that players are going to do things with the fairings that the designers never thought of, so I'd say keep as many options in as possible. The whole point of KSP is its not an arcade game.

I'm very tired of the argument that its hard on the devs. Look at the product the consumer receives.

Not all of us hold KSP2 as the second coming of jesus...where are the sunglasses and joint descending...deal with it...KSP2 sucks in its current state as of posting.

Ok, fair enough, fair enough...I'm just raining on your parade...Sorry, I should have realized. I'm glad that you are all happy about this patch. Again..sorry, I didn't realize how cringe I was being.

Every time there is a poll for player's preferences, the answer unequivically is "make a clickbox so players can choose"

Is there anything to say about this game that is positive? Lets be 100% real here. This piece of software, for $50 USD, with what it offers, deserves praise? Edit: The soundtrack is pretty good. Thats about it.

So where are we? Still not on the roadmap it seems... Edit: Call me a hater if you want. I just want what was advertised. If that is being a "hater" then I guess I'm a hater. If this is true, there should be rewards for modders doing the work (for free) of the paid developers. Fair is fair.

That is all well and good...my issue is that billion dollar companies are shifting the cost to us individuals when they can afford it themselves. Games aren't made for gamers anymore, they are made to make shareholders profit. Whether one thinks that is a plus or negative is their own prerogative, but there is a very obvious sentiment from a significant amount of players that games that are made this way tend to be poor quality when compared using metrics such as budget to produce the game vs amount of fun per hour (or in other words, how much grind). I don't want to derail any more. I am just stating why lots of people are sore about the whole EA thing.

I think this is where the disconnect lies. "Games made professionally and backed by publishers" sounds suspiciously not like Early Access; in fact, I'd go so far as to say that professional games backed by publishers should be barred from using the EA model.

I guess you are trying to get at the fact that "the internet" thinks Raptor engines are a scam, but covers are frequently used in aerospace. Especially on engines. Why are they using them now and not before? Good question, but keep in mind this is a flight test campaign where they are constantly refining their procedures. It is common to see something added (such as engine covers) when something else is modified (like the OLT).