Marcus Aseth

I don't know, I think we are arguing english syntax here which is not even my first language, so you can call it what you want. What I am saying is that the title suggested by Aziz it is half message and it could be interpreted as full message still. My title is half message and it can only be interpreted as half message, so there is no room for misunderstanding. But since this title cause so much confusion, I changed it to "I won't pay a 50€ price tag on this game unless the single parent limitation is lifted" so 100% information is on the title and cannot be misunderstood even without opening it.

I'm simply putting forward the consequence before the required change, I don't see what's misleading about it. If I put the required change first as you suggest it could be interpreted as a feedback from the title, without even further need to open the topic and read it and not even conveying the consequence of not changing that, that would be misleading. The way I present it cannot be interpreted as a full message unless you open the topic. This way if a dev happen to read it knows the stake first and can then decide if he cares enough to know the reason and do something about.

I actually tried to report this when I first discovered it, but didn't found where to :\

Or maybe... I have standards. If you purchase everything at launch price and don't even care how much you pay what, just to prove (in your head) that you aren't cheap, that would be shooting yourself in the foot and also every other gamer as well, because you give developers a way to get away with less and less lowering the bar year after year. So yeah, my suggestion to you (given what I got by your association of "not paying full price == cheap player") would be to think harder before a purchase. From what you say you don't look cheap, but also don't look like a smart buyer.

I have 200 hours on the game though, I enjoyed it as long as it let me do stuff I thought should work and if didn't work there was a logic explanation for it. For instance, had the hinge snapped in two under the weight of the fuel I would have been totally ok with that. Well, I would have hit the wall soon after realizing I couldn't use 2 hinges per leg to support more weight. Yup, since all my ideas now tend to converge to "put two of -piece_name-", I think ksp run out of fuel for me xD So I really want a multiple parent system in KSP2 :):):)

I can't share right now because I got so frustrated I've uninstalled the other day, but I can re-install if you can't reproduce it. Though first try this, it should reproduce it: 1) increase the weight. I had 2 "reliant" engines on the side and 3 "medium version" fuel storage of the same diameter of a reliant, one on the center and 2 symmetrical on the sides (the reliant too both on the sides. The leg mounted on the center piece.) 2) You should notice the crazy shaking as soon as you put this on the VAB launch platform, try increasing the spring strenght to make it jump even more (rather than less, as I had thought) I think I also had a Science Jr., basically increase the weight until it starts dancing (rather than breaking the leg)

I get your sarcasm, but boring wasn't really what I was going for. My problem with it is frustration, imagine if multiple designs you create fail all in a row, and because of non-obvious reasons. That builds up a certain ammount of frustration. For instance, in a game that let you build rockets, the logic assumption for a clueless player would be you can have your 2 vertical decouplers holding the rocket, until you try and find the limitation. forgive my poor Paint drawing with the mouse, but a clueless player would assume that if one hinge is not enough to hold or operate under a certain weight, then adding 2 or 4 is the solution, except again, the game rejects your design. A clueless player would think that this would either hold the weight or collapse under it, but would never imagine that your lander using 4-6-8 of these would start shaking as if it had parkinsons for then jump from still (?!) and do a 360° flip in the air. And again, if he thought "let's link more hinges for stability", this is not possible. Then the only thought left in my head is: THEN WHY THE HELL DID YOU GAVE ME HINGES >_> If the point is getting frustrated time after time at a game that rejects your designs for non-obvious limitations (from a player perspective), then yeah, as you put it "what's the point in buying it" If it looks like you should be able to do it, then is the job of the developer to make it so you can do it. Betrayed expectations is not a player fault, is a game/developer fault for not explaning correctly to the player what is allowed and what is not from the get go.

if I'm getting ksp 1 but in a "nicer dress", I'll wait for a 7 - 15€ sale, depending on how good it is. if this remove those limitations mentioned previously, and the "nice dress" (graphics) is the icing on the cake, then I'll pay around 25 - 30€ if the previous case but also mining, unlocking components and missions are so masterfully thought out and crafted that the player is costantly challenged and engaged to push forward, having a concrete purpose and never 100% sandbox (without clear goals), if it can reach that addictive gameplay level, then I would be willing to pay full price. (that would be a title getting 9/10 in most online reviews)

From my perspective makes no difference... I mean if a problem people complained about since 2015 according to that post is still present in 2020, then to me ksp1 simply hit an "evolutionary cul-de-sac", no matter how many update they are going to make, this will always be flawed to me, because my designs will always be limited by something they can't fix. But if you guys are confident this new team is going to change stuff, then I'm watching what they are going to make. By the way, around which month is likely there will be new info about KSP2?

No, I am complaining about the fact struct is the workaround to do this, which shouldn't be the case. And also all the consequences and limitations this single parent system brings to designs. If your designs are even slightly complex, you should have met this limitations yourself somewhere. And for me, the introduction of hinges only stressed the problem even more.

I agree with you, this is probably by no mean a simple change - but the game comes with an AAA title price tag - so wouldn't be fair if they simply recycle all the core code without adding any improvement on it, for how I see it. I'll still keep an eye open on it looking for some indications of those changes, even though that interview didn't gave me any reason to believe this changes will be made. So we'll see

1) was already mentioned above, also I've answered to it (though might not be visible since new user need aproval on posts) 2)and yet after all those years you can only have a booster supported by 1 decoupler rather than 2 for stability, to me seems I have plenty reason to complain about. 3)I've already said that in my first post: "People might try to work around this using a strut (which is ugly imo) " and the reason you have to work-around this is exactly my point - the product isn't polished

you mean they can't go back and fix this things on KSP 1? But still, given the situation I wouldn't mind that as long as they do it better on KSP2, but from what I got from the interview, this is basically a porting/refactoring of KSP1 code, I didn't saw any indication this will not have a single parent system for parts. in this video at 4:14 you can see those boosters with a single anchor point that wobble like crazy, I think anyone would try to use two decoupler there for stability rather than a central one, so the fact they showcase this lead me to believe they won't change a single thing on that regard, so until proven otherwise, can't get hyped about this team/work either.

After yesterday my hype for KSP 2 almost dropped to 0, this is the reason why I won't pay a 50€ price tag on this game, and also why I think this title doesn't deserve me hyped about it: I was playing KSP 1, got 2 radial decouplers vertically lined up, attach a booster to them (thinking it would have enough stability with 2 anchor points) but because of ksp system of a single "parent" object, the booster was held only by 1 decoupler... after all this years, still this limitations... People might try to work around this using a strut (which is ugly imo) but is even worse with the dlc that adds hinges: if you want 2 hinges to push out an element from 2 points (again, the example of a booster, pushed out for arbitrary reasons), you can't, only one hinge does the push because of the single parent system. Another example would be a folding hinge holding a leg (with 4 around your vessel) which would be so unstable the vehicle will shake like if it had parkinson and occasionally build up so much "woobliness" it will start jumping and doing backflips on it's own for no reason... if you want two folding hinges holding this leg for stability reasons, you can't, same reason as before, single parent system. Something that show the lack of polish: try to place radially 4 hinges with a structural element at the end, then 4 radial struts from the hinge's parent to the structural element. Now if you fold the hinge in the editor, the strut cable will only be folded for the one you manually placed, and not for the 3 copies made by radial symmetry. This might look like a small thing, but is the kind of thing where you can measure how much a developer care about quality and polish of his product. And they move forward to KSP 2... after seeying the painstaking dedication from Factorio team to improve and polish their game to perfection and beyond, I can't give a sliver of trust anymore to a developer that simply moves on to the next title leaving things half assed in the current one, this behaviour for me is on par with Egosoft (X-Rebirth and X-Foundations, one backstab to the fans after the other) And they even bragged about keeping all the same physics dynamics from KSP 1 (and I fear this imply they won't actually change a thing regarding the single parent system) in an interview with Scott Manley... which to me seems a very convenient way to be lazy about it simply because many players loved how KSP 1 is... the reason "it worked well enough" is still no reason to not try to do better than that, so my trust in them has fallen even lower after hearing that. They will do an ok job, I don't doubt that, but not near to my previous expectations for KSP 2, and thus this is the reason I won't fall for this hype train. This message is in the hope the developer will happen to read it and re-consider things on the light of it, maybe as far as going back to KSP1 and improving the 2 things mentioned. Anyway, let me know how you feel about this (though being the reader people that probabably usually frequent this forum, I suspect I'll be outnumbered 10:1 in this "non-mainstream" opinion, but I'm prepared for that)