Scarecrow71

So, I'd like to discuss this particular point for a minute. I don't think I was verbose enough (or was too obtuse to begin with), and didn't explain what I meant well enough. I'm not talking about a full complement of Kerbals at a colony in the hundreds of actual bodies. I'm talking more along the lines of "You want to build a colony here, you need at least 1 Engineer present", followed by "Ok, now you have a colony with x number of residents, but in order to do research you have to station at least 1 Scientist here". The actual number of residents can be fully abstracted by a number, but I was thinking you'd need to station specific Kerbals at the colony for it to perform specific tasks. Kind of like the KSC in KSP1, where you have to hire pilots and scientists, but you don't need to hire the desk jockeys at Administration or computer nerds to watch monitors at the Tracking Station. Or perhaps, instead of having to station specific Kerbals, maybe you have to use sliders like in the old Civilization games to say "Out of the 400 residents at the colony, x percentage of them are focused on science, while another y percentage are focused on expansion". Again, an abstraction of the actual numbers without having to go into micro-management?

I am software developer. Or, rather, an automation specialist, responsible for inbound and outbound file loads/generation to/from various internal and external entities. So yes, I fully understand the complexity of KSP2 to Kithack. The biggest difference is in the orbital mechanics involved in KSP2; Kithack doesn't have to worry about that...yet (there are rumors of taking some of the model rockets and getting them out of the upper atmosphere, but I don't think they are even close to that yet). However, you still have the issue of physics, and all the math that comes with that, when you are talking about what is effectively a digital Lego set to put craft together. And while KSP2 focuses almost entirely on engine-driven rockets and planes, Kithack deals with rockets, planes, cars, motorcycles, boats, and gliders. All with and without engines. I'm not saying one is better or more complex than the other, just that neither one really has the same scope as the other. Now, if you want to break down what I'm really talking about, let's do that. Felipe - who was the original author of KSP1, and who coded and released multiple versions in its history during his free time and without really being paid - has put together, once again, a game from scratch where no other space really existed before, and he's doing it with a very small team and very little funding. KSP2, on the other hand, has a full team of developers, and is backed by one of the largest corporate gaming studios. So my question, really, is "Why is Felipe able to get code done by himself faster than a full team is capable of". And, to expand on that, why is he able to do so in a space that didn't really exist when the team at KSP2 has the original on-hand for inspiration but they can't seem to even get beyond the dV or maneuver node bugs? I mean, they have the original in-house. They have the first game to go off of. They have everything sitting right there, but for some reason are refusing to use the old code to help them along. Let's take this a step further, shall we? Kithack is already providing mod support, while KSP2 is not really doing so. Even though we were told it would, it isn't anywhere near being able to provide that support. Kithack has a mission/scenario editor built in, while KSP2 has a very strict set of story-driven missions that we have been told on Discord recently won't change even with colonies. Kithack has full controller support, while KSP2 doesn't and has no plans to enable that any time in the near future. I would love to discuss multiplayer, but I have to admit that multiplayer in KSP2 is going to be very tricky due to time warp, which Kithack doesn't have. So why does KSP2 get a free pass here? Why is it that on some of the less technical pieces Felipe is able to implement stuff that the developers at KSP2 simply cannot? How is it that a singular developer can come to early access with a game far more polished by himself in a space that doesn't really exist, but a fully backed developer studio with a budget of millions can't even get out of their own way long enough to deal with bugs that have been around since launch 14 freaking months ago? The studio is filled with really smart people - Nertea and Blackrack at a minimum come to mind. How is it that they simply can't seem to do with historical code that Felipe can do without having any code at all to rely on?

Been more than a month since the last KERB, and the only thing we've gotten is that Mike is working on their internal calendar to determine when timing starts. And Darrin stated it's one KERB in a month, not one every 30 days. Throw onto this that there are changes coming to PD with the layoffs, and I'm just not feeling too warm about this title any longer. Just rip the band-aid off, already. Also, we don't have hope any longer on communication.

Royal ugly dudes ban.

I am playing it. And enjoying it. My point about bringing it up is to show that a dedicated person with a small team and almost no external funding is doing better than a professional team with the backing of a large corporation. Why can't TT/PD/IG do what Felipe is doing?

-1 9i

Not being Bruce Campbell is cheating.

Madagascar

Ban ban.

N 0

I'm not trying to argue with you. My mind can't keep straight where PD and IG fit into this, so my bad. Let me start over. TT is in fact failing on this project. Years of unfilled promises, endless delays, a buggy mess that barely qualifies as an alpha release, radio silence, and now the announcement of layoffs and project cancelations. The article literally called out that PD is going to be impacted, so regardless of what we are told about funding and work being done, the plain truth is that stuff is happening at PD. It took 10 months to get the first roadmap update, and now we can't even get updates on what they are working on. Bug reports are a joke, the bug subforum is hot garbage at best, and they are still researching bugs that have been present since launch. All while being told they will communicate more but give only silence. I love KSP1. I am in the middle of a career save in that right now, and I'm doing stuff I've never tried before. KSP2 actually got me to finally go to Jool, which is freaking awesome. There are so many things about this game that I want to like, but the performance issues, bugs, and lack of progression beyond the story have made me shelve it. The game is failing to keep a large section of the community engaged; this thread is proof of that. Again, I'm not trying to argue. You have your point of view on this, and I have mine.

I'm just saying a team of 5, led by the OG of KSP himself, is kicking butt while we all watch PD fail. Regardless of the complexity, you can't ignore the progress.

Kithack has controller support, multiplayer, and a mission/scenario editor. Not to mention KSP2 is backed by a major organization, while Kithack is a team of 5. And if that isn't enough, Felipe is actively engaged with the community to squash bugs and give/get feedback. I will agree that orbital mechanics trumps the complexity. But somehow a team of 5 has managed to incorporate what PD has stated is the most difficult aspect (multiplayer) during their own EA.

Not to harsh or anything, but HarvesteR just released Kithack with a team of 5...and it is far more polished than KSP2.

Rounded up, and not including the current period, thats an average of 49 days between patches.

Keep in mind that it took 8 months to get the first 5 patches, which is more than 2 months between them. Then another 2 months to get 0.2, then another month to get 0.2.1. Already been 3 months since 0.2.1, and no communication on when to expect 0.2.2 (only that it is coming soonTM). If we are looking at 10 months since 0.2, that puts colonies (0.3) at October(ish)...which is after they told us it wouldn't be that long.

Agreed. If only we had some kind of bug tracking spreadsheet so we could see all of the reported bugs at once. I think we even asked the developers for that at one point. On a separate but related note, I wish we had the ability to sort the bug report subforum by number of votes.

Semantics aside, those are the same things. A patch includes bug fixes.

So I'm sitting here thinking about something I wrote just a few minutes ago about being able to go interplanetary, and the thought about colonization of other solar systems came to mind. Made me happy for about a second, and then I asked myself "How many Kerbals is it going to take to actually colonize another planet". And that led me to the ask myself "Is there a difference between the types of Kerbals needed to colonize another planet". And then I started down this whole rabbit hole of "Used to have pilots and engineers and such, and now we just have generalists". Which then leads to this thread and the burning question on my mind in the last 2 seconds: Will we see a return of Kerbal careers, to include having colony-specific careers that are needed to launch and sustain a new colony? I remember that this was discussed a long time ago, but I can't find the actual thread on it for the life of me. For all I know, it could have been discussed in multiple threads, and Discord, and in AMAs. But I'm blind and my search-fu is terrible today, so I'm here to present YAKSPTOATYPDWTD (yet another KSP thread on a topic you probably don't want to discuss). So what do people think? Do you think we will see a return to KSP's career types for our lovable space frogs? Do you want to see this? Do you think it's important enough to warrant the developers even thinking about it? For me, personally, I liked the career types in KSP1. It made me have to think about who was going on what missions, and would I need to hire new Kerbals to satisfy the requirements? I couldn't send Jeb up to fix a broken satellite; I couldn't restore the Science Jr. after running it with Val. I could send Bob up by himself, but there would be no SAS control unless I also put a probe core on the rocket. And in KSP2, at least with For Science!, developers and CM's alike have all stated that the goal of the gadgets now was to think about how to craft your rockets and planes instead of just slapping them on somewhere convenient, which I think plays into having to think about who to send up into space. Can a pilot found a colony? How many engineers do you need to build at a location? Do you need a scientist to do surveys of the planet to find the best location? Is there a generalist Colonist like we had in Civilization (as an example)? What does everyone think?

Yeah. A net loss of ~$200 million in cancelled projects and severance packages. An approximate 5% reduction in the overall workforce. But a reduction in overall operating costs by ~$165 million annually. What really gets me about the article is that they are touting GTA VI as being the next big game, and it's expected to be the top-selling game of the decade. I know that Rockstar and Private Division are two entirely separate subsidiaries of TT...but one has to wonder how much management is shifting overall corporate focus to GTA, and how much that shift is impacting other titles such as KSP. I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying it will happen. I'm just curious, is all.

And that's another issue with the developers using the up-vote process as a way to determine what bugs should get priority. As an example, docking is a critical component to the game; without it, you (not you personally, but you in a general sense of players) might not be able to go interplanetary, and will certainly not be able to go interstellar. But if nobody sees the bug, and therefore they don't up-vote it, the developers think "Well, this isn't all that bad" and they ignore it in favor of something else that's actually not important at all. Like in your example, the mission to get 35 science for landing 200+ tons on Minmus. That developers are relying on this system instead of using some common sense with bugs is mind-boggling. If they want to use the up-vote system to determine what non-critical bugs the community cares about should get fixed next, then fine. But don't prioritize something small over something integral to the game simply because a lot of people want more science rewards instead of being able to dock.

I was not aware that we got a third game. Guess I just didn't pay attention after the first two were so bad. (And yes, good/bad is very subjective).

I remember having to wait for like 5 years for Watch_Dogs to finally drop. I followed the news and tidbits and read articles on websites I never went to for anything before just to see if and/or when the game was going to drop. And when it did finally hit shelves, I bought it. Spent $60 on that title because of all the promises of what it was going to be. And it BOMBED. HARD. The game was absolute hot garbage from the moment it fired up on my 360. None of the actual mechanics we kept reading about at Kotaku or Penny Arcade were there. The hacking mechanism was basically a match-3 mini-game to keep people occupied and forgetting about what a mess the combat system was. Reviews on this game were so bad that people refunded it almost as fast as people were refunding KSP2 after EA launch. And Ubisoft took such a hit from this one that the sequel got zero attention and sold so few copies that the property was dropped and won't ever get the proper treatment it deserves. Being a patient gamer doesn't always work out.

I think the primary issue is that the bug report subforum is simply a hot mess, coupled with the search function not working entirely properly. It's hard to up-vote an issue you're having when you can't find it, then have to report it, and then hope that the Spicat's and Space Peacock's of the world merge your report into an existing one. And then, if they do so and tag you, you have to go into that bug report and up-vote it...and then hope it doesn't just fall into the archive without explanation. I get where you are coming from, and I love the initiative people are starting to take to gather up feedback to present to the company. I'm just not sure the deaf ears all of our words have fallen on are going to actually open up any time soon.