Scarecrow71

Well, gonna be hard for the company to tell us KSP2 isn't impacted by the layoffs in the event this is true.

You responded to my post by saying: So I'm not accusing you of something you didn't do. You responded to me with this, and I'm telling you I didn't say anything about massive amounts of bug fixes. If your response was not meant in the way it read, it is on you to clarify.

Is this still a thing? Can we post for modded versions here too, considering the last post in the sister thread was in 2022?

And I didn't say anywhere in my post that they should be releasing massive patches with hundreds of bug fixes at one time.

How so? If the entire team comes together to fix the bugs, then the entire team can get to work on coding enhancements. And as I stated before, you shouldn't be working on or pushing enhancements when the core product isn't working. KSP2 is playable to an extent. But why focus on something that's multiple patches away when the work can be put to better use getting the foundation right? As an example, let's use the dV calculation bug. Say we have part of the dev team working on this, and part of the dev team working on interstellar. Anything the interstellar team does regarding dV for trips is for naught until the dV bug is fixed. Same with colonies and the need to establish resource routes. You cannot plan anything effectively until that bug is fixed, so why not have all of these guys - who are all very smart coders, by the way - working together to fix the foundational bug first?

For starters, thank you for posting this. I am guilty of mis-remembering what is/has been said about development, especially on things like this. I am glad to have been reminded that the accurate statement is that it was Nate's opinion and hope, not a fact, that updates should come faster. With that said, it is a shame that updates haven't come out faster. We've had 7 total patches to this point - 5 updates, then For Science!, then 0.2.1 - in the span of 141 months since the launch of Early Access. That's an average of 2 months per patch/update, but even that is skewed a bit because it has already been 3 months since 0.2.1 dropped. And in the very first post of this thread, Nate stated that they do not yet have a timeline on when 0.2.2 will drop. My guess2 is that we are probably at least another month out from this patch dropping. I am honestly hoping it happens before then. One thing that bothers me more than the actual timing of the next patch3 is that we have been told by Dakota that there will be at least one more patch between 0.2.2 and 0.3. I get that they cannot possibly fix everything all at once, nor could they possibly shove every update into a singular patch. Development teams don't like to push multiple fixes at once for fear of something they didn't plan on breaking4. And I don't blame them for that. What I do blame them for is for not communicating what exactly they are working on - prior to Nate's post, so those of you waiting to slam me just hold your horses here - and making it seem like they aren't really doing anything. I mean, we should know they are working, right? But if they are, why aren't they communicating more than once a quarter? If it is simply an issue of "Hey, we don't have much to show you more than once a quarter" then by Jove just come out and say that. Or, alternatively, come out and say "Hey, we haven't gotten very far with our bug hunting, but at a minimum, here are the bugs we are tackling". Hang on. That last statement sounds familiar. Oh, I remember - that was the purpose of the KERB reports. Except after a while they decided to remove some of the stuff from the KERB that they were working on, for no other reason than they didn't want the bug reports they didn't have a status update to show to be clogging up the KERB report. However, in the face of this, you can go look at KERB reports that have come out since they made that decision and see that they have mentioned some of those bugs as a way to say "We got nothing new here". So I guess they did what they said they would? The last thing that really bothers me about Nate's post is the misdirection employed to keep people from looking hard at what they aren't doing. And they are using shiny pictures to do that. I won't apologize for this stance: graphical improvements are nice, but the core gameplay loop should be the focus/priority. I get that not every person working on the game is working on fixing bugs; I wouldn't expect artists to be diving into code any more than I'd expect code jockeys to be creating digital Renoir masterpieces. But when the communication is, paraphrased, "We are working on bugs, we have no timeline, but look at the clouds!"...yeah, to me, that sounds fishy5. And for those code jockeys who are working on colonies instead of fixing bugs? You should have the ENTIRE code team working on bugs. I refuse to believe that people working on colonies are doing better justice to the game than they would by helping out fix the stuff that's been broken since launch6. All told, and as a way of getting off my soap-box now, I do appreciate the communication Nate put forth in this thread. I wish we had more of this, and I wish this had more substance to it. But at least they communicated. 1 - This is another one of the things I mis-remember or mis-calculate. Early Access launched on February 24, 2023, and we are currently in April 2024. I continue to say 15 months, but it's only 14 as of the writing of this post when you do the math. 2 - Just speculation on my part. We have no way of knowing how long things will take the development team or the community managers to make public or drop, so take my guesses here with a grain of salt. 3 - I am bothered by the timing of the next update, and the lack of being given a timeline for it. There are just other things in the post that bother me more than that. 4 - As a software developer myself, I honestly don't want to push too much out there because, while I can test to my heart's desire, end users have a way of breaking stuff I didn't plan for. Too many updates at one time = a lot of new bugs we never thought about. 5 - I've got a lot of these little explanations, don't I? Well, I'm passionate about this, and I'm tired of people not being able to read between the lines in what I say. Like this one here: there are still game-breaking bugs that have existed since launch, and to be 14 months in and not be able to get them fixed is a complete travesty and a miscarriage of justice. 6 - Now you can go ahead and start harshing on me.

I guess the sarcasm was lost on you. While I don't agree with the entirety of the post - especially being told "Hey, we have a patch, but we can't say when it will drop" - Nate did communicate with us.

Then what exactly was the point of the post? "Hey, we know you wanted more communication, and we're sorry for not being better at it. To make up for it, here's a list of the stuff we are working on for an upcoming patch. We aren't sure which patch, nor do we know when it will drop."

I'm answering these together because my answer kind of fits both. Anyhow... I started with Sandbox. Which was a massive mistake. Too many parts, no indication of how anything went together, no idea of how to build. After being fully overwhelmed by that, I stepped back and went into career, which gave me the progression I was looking for. I'm used to playing Civilization (did I mention that already? I did?), which is turn-based and uses money to control what buildings you can pay the upkeep on. Similar concept to me here, in that money controlled what buildings were upgraded or not, which in turn controlled my ability to build. It honestly helped me understand far more about weight and fuel efficiency than the tutorials or reading stuff online ever did. I'm not saying to not play your way. If you don't want to deal with funds, then don't. All I'm saying is that you wanted to paint the funds system as being crippling to all players, when in fact it's only your own experience that's at play here. You do you.

And you are wrong. Period. It isn't crippling to all new players. And in fact, you haven't given one example other than yourself where it is crippling. Nor did you answer the question I posited asking what was so crippling about it. Nor did you answer PDC's question about Mission Control/Contracts. I can't help you at this point. We are at an impasse. If you feel it's crippling to you, that's one thing. But again, that's your limitation, not anybody else's. Don't speak for others as their mileage may vary from yours.

You stated, right off the bat, that money was crippling to new players. Literally: I stated it wasn't. You continue(d) to state that it is. Upon pressing further, you then stated it was crippling to you. Literally: I then stated that being crippling to you does not mean it's crippling to anyone else. This is your limitation; don't push your limitation onto all other players. I cannot explain this any more plainly. I am stating that it isn't crippling to all new players, but if you are having/have had an issue with it, then that's your limitation. Don't try to twist my words over something you didn't explain properly up front.

Crippling to you does not mean crippling to all new players. This is your limitation, not a limitation of the game or to any other players. And what was crippling about needing money that wasn't crippling needing science points? The major difference between Career and Science modes is having to upgrade buildings. In Science mode, you can't get better parts without getting more science. In Career, you can't get better parts without more science, but yes, you are also limited to what you can do based on the buildings. Which can be upgraded with funds, which are given out through Contracts. What about this is crippling? Pretty much everything you want to do you can get a contract for, so funds shouldn't be a problem. In fact, about 3 tiers into the tech tree, funds stop being a problem.

That makes sense. It was a long and drawn-out way of saying that, but after re-reading it makes sense that's what he's asking! Thanks! No, I'm not comparing apples to oranges. You stated money, I came back with an example of money, you came back with gameplay loop, then got a bit condescending with your comment about me starting in career. Money is not crippling to new players. All games, regardless of whatever you call the mechanic, force players to use currency or points or something to limit what they can/cannot do at the start of the game. Money, fuel, science points, experience, ammunition - all of these things limit what a player can and/or cannot do at the start of a game, and only after playing a while can they do more and more. All games have a mechanic like this, and I would disagree whole-heartedly that it is crippling to any new player of any game that this mechanic is crippling.

Granted. You kill yourself turning it on. I wish for an SSTO design that doesn't explode upon re-entering Kerbin's atmosphere.

And I cannot follow what you are even asking here. I get that it's some scope/mission statement that you are coming up with, but I can't follow what that is or what it should be. Unfortunately, we are left with nothing but the ability to speculate because we aren't being communicated with effectively. And this isn't just a simple "You aren't talking to us" thing, either. It's been years of misinformation and silence, culminating in the community having to guess what is going on. If what we are guessing isn't true, then it's on the company to tell us AND to then tell us what the truth is. Anything short of that just keeps us in the dark and guessing. Unfortunately, their failure is what has led to the speculation. As I mentioned above, anything short of the company coming out and quelling the fears and guesses will only lead to more fear and guesswork. I've asked before, and I'll ask again: At what point are we allowed to no longer be patient? It's been 6 years of development, with promises and teasers and changing deadlines, and I think the community has been pretty patient to this point. In fact, prior to the EA release, every changing deadline was met with the general sentiment of "That's ok; we are disappointed in another delay, but we want you to give us the best game you possibly can". Unfortunately, after the release into EA, that no longer applies because we saw first-hand that our faith and hope was pretty much stepped on and taken for granted. And throughout the last 15 or so months, the developers have proven that they either don't listen or they don't care about what we are saying. That post from Nate last week is nothing more than a hollow promise until and unless they actually deliver on it this time. Now, I know someone will come in here and argue "There was an internal shake-up, and COVID hit, so you cannot blame them for those". Um, yes, we can. Internal re-organizations happen everywhere all the time; using that as an excuse for delaying and then pushing out inferior product is the result of management not caring about their customer-base. As far as COVID goes, I'm pretty sure that everyone in the world was impacted by that, but it didn't stop business from moving to telecommuters and still getting the job done.

Are you being intentionally facetious here? You stated "Money is crippling to new players". I countered with Sid Meier using money in Civilization as an example to prove it isn't, and your response was to mention the gameplay loop. I again countered by stating I was responding to your comment about money, not the gameplay loop, and you completely ignore that by saying "Congratulations for starting in career mode". Let me be perfectly clear: Money is NOT crippling to new players. Money, resources, funds, cash, moola - whatever you want to call it - is a basic element of most games. It is not crippling to new players because we are all taught in every game we play that some mechanic limits what we can or cannot do. And even in Science mode, you still have to deal with Science Points, which are a form of currency in the game.

You were talking about money, not the core loop. My point was that money is not crippling to beginners.

I think the modding community would disagree with you considering they gave us colonies, interstellar, resources, extra-planetary launchpads, and a whole host of other things KSP2 is supposed to provide. I think Sid Meier would disagree with you, what with his genre-defining game Civilization using money as a basis for most of what the series does.

I'll have to go back through all the posts, but I believe in one of Nate's posts regarding For Science! he stated they wanted to be on a cadence of 6-7 weeks for patches, not months. It will take some time to find it, but I'll go digging.

You are aware that we have EVA construction in KSP1, right? Which, if I am correct (and I could be wrong) would be the foundation of a VAB-type atmosphere for orbital colonies. All that time people spent in KSP1 fixing broken satellites and attaching new parts to craft outside the VAB is simply orbital construction with a different name. It's just that the type of construction you'll do in KSP2 in this environment will be very similar to what you are capable of doing in a ground-based VAB. Again, I'm speculating this based on what I'm hoping we see. As far as what to add? That's no different than building a space station in KSP1. What function do you want it to serve? Do you have mods that add life support or give other parts that you don't have in stock? Is it a fuel refinery? An orbital launchpad? A waypoint simply to say "The crew needs a few days of R&R before moving on"? That's all up to you to determine. And whatever you define is what determines what you add. My guess is that we will absolutely NEED orbital colonies/launchpads in order to even think about going interstellar. I mean, unless you want to try launching a billion-ton mega-ship from the surface?

Technically, we just got the following announcements: 0.2.2 is on its way There is no timeline as to when 0.2.2 will drop That there will be a 0.2.3 There is no timeline as to when 0.2.3 will drop So there are at least 2 more patches/updates prior to getting 0.3. It has already been 3 months since 0.2.1, despite being told the patch cadence would be 6-7 weeks so as to help prevent a 10 month cycle for milestones. Well, 1 month to get to 0.2.1, 3 months (at least) to get to 0.2.2, then say another 3 months to get to 0.2.3, and then another 3 months to get to 0.3, and you have...10 months to get to 0.3. Dear lord I hope I am wrong. I hope that the delay to get to 0.2.2 is because of killing major bugs, and to get to 0.2.3 is small and QoL stuff that should be there anyhow. But color me unsurprised that the company still cannot hit the timelines they keep telling us they want.

The first rule of cheating is to not talk about cheating. Which means everyone in this thread is breaking the first rule, and therefore cheating.

Don Dokken ban for being a Dream Warrior.

Granted. Everything else in KSP is now worse. I wish to be a Kerbal who respawns on Tylo when I die.