Scarecrow71

Yeah, I don't do pumpkins. I love Halloween, but pumpkins aren't my thing. In fact, I'm about as good with a carving knife as a slug is with their hands.

Just when you thought it was safe to go into the pumpkin patch...

You are correct. It was asked directly if he knew, and he chose to not respond to that particular post. So...? And thanks. My time away was...enlightening.

Except that he literally stated in Discord that he has no idea what will be discussed by Nate at the event.

Dakota stated that he is unaware if anyone will film it, and that he doesn't know if livestreaming would be a thing at the event. My hope is that @ShadowZone films it and uploads it to his channel.

I wonder if we'll actually get to see any video of him speaking, or if we're going to have to get a nickel review. In fact, I'll ask on Discord.

Keep in mind that we don't know if the new science-based game has anything to do with space or not. And given the history of communications from this company this year alone, anything is possible.

Nate is going to be at Space Creator Day, and he has some announcement that he'll be making on the 21st. The job postings for Intercept Games all indicate that they are a studio working on Kerbal Space Program 2 and an as-yet unannounced stylized science-based adventure game. The wording of the unannounced game is important because we have been waiting on information regarding Science for KSP2 for months now. MONTHS. My fear is that the announcement will involve major work being done on the unannounced game, while at the same time stating that they have no further news on KSP2. 'Twill be a sad day indeed if that is true.

I'm not holding my breath. I really want there to be something of substance said, but his history is working against him here. That, coupled with the fact that the CM's have gone completely silent, tells me more than any words they can say.

And failing to communicate that is, again, poor communication. I get that stuff happens. Designs change, priorities shift, complications arise. But to say "weeks, not months", then have that turn into months, all without communicating what is going on? Not a good look.

Well, you can't really say that though, primarily because you aren't involved in the discussions taking place. How do you know they are actually talking about stuff? Because they say they are? "We know that you want an update on Science. Trust us when we say that we are talking about it internally, and will have information for you on this soon. Until then, here's a video we shot that we promised would be out mnths ago that may no longer be relevant." Them saying they are talking about it does not mean they actually are. And the big rub here is that they keep stating they are talking about stuff, and that they will have updates for us, but then those updates either never come OR they come out way beyond when they should. No, they aren't promising actual dates. But saying stuff like "Re-entry and heating will be out in weeks not months" only to turn around and tell us they are still working on the concept and design months later is, simply put, poor communication.

I think that this is exacerbated by the constant statements by CMs that an update will be coming soon, with no word of what or when, followed by complete silence. If there is really nothing to say, then say nothing.

As much as I would love to believe that, the fact is that no, I am not. I may be lucky, but I'm not that good.

Even the dev chat videos were delayed after being shot, so they don't even have time to do those (apparently). Unfortunately, if it walks, looks, and talks like a duck...

Citation for this? Cuz I just checked steamdb, and the current player count of KSP1 is 1230, and the 25 hour peak is 1723. Taking a look at the chart, yes, player count is about half now than it was when KSP2 dropped. But, a lot of people don't use the launcher. And some of us - myself included - have the game on Epic (and even then I don’t use the launcher). So...? This is the same kind of argument about KSP2 player counts that gets shot down constantly. You can't rely on SteamDB for the most accurate data because it isn't all-inclusive. And Reddit isn't the best example of threads and polls on the topic. The same person creates a poll every day about what people think of the state of KSP2, and the options are always "it sucks, it sucks bad, its really horrible, just show me the results". Not exactly scientific.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to convey when I said this wasn't prototypical for an EA release. The expectations that were set did not match the game when it came out, and although there are comparables in the market to this one (NMS, Factorio, to name a couple), this is the exception and not the rule. Thank you for stating it far better than I did!

The simple answer is that they are focusing more on actually dealing with bugs and content than interacting with the community. That doesn't excuse them from the lack of communication, especially when they have a social media department. But that's the simple answer. The complicated answer is that: They are short-staffed on the social media side, which explains the need for them to post for a social media guru to help with communication. This isn't the only title that TT is responsible for, which means priorities shift. The CM's are probably tired of getting lambasted at every turn, which means they are less likely to show up most days. IG truly is working on bug- and hot-fixes, as well as trying to incorporate new content and features. And this isn't easy to do. Have you looked at C code for a project? I'm a software dev by day, and I can say with a whole lot of certainty that the code for this game is just too big for me to handle. I can't imagine how the smart guys like Nertea and Trigger_AU (and others who I cannot name off the top of my head right now) deal with looking at the code on a daily basis. This project is LARGE, and it can take hours just to find the right subroutine to work on, let alone tracking down a bug that may be present in multiple spots in the code. And let's not forget that adding stuff like features and content would require altering multiple sections of code to deal with the content/feature/enhancement. That complicated answer is actually far simpler than the truth (assuming I'm even close to the real answer, which lord only knows if I am as I'm not a developer or affiliated with the company in any way, shape, or form). But you get the general idea. Would you rather they communicate daily and further delay the game, or have them work on the game and communicate when they have something to say? I'll state that I wish they were more active here. I'm not a fan of the CM's using Discord for communicating with the community and then hoping the dev tracker on the front page here picks it up AND people read it. That's not a good thing. But complaining about it won't change it.

Again, no answer short of "Every employee we have is working around the clock on this game" will satisfy people. So why ask? As long as the answer is non-zero, that should be enough of an answer. Don't get me wrong - I'm not happy with the game in its current state. I haven't even fired it up since 0.1.4 dropped, and at that it was only to test the mod I created to make sure it was still functioning. I probably won't fire it up again until after Science drops (which should then be 0.2.0, but I have no clue how their numbering will work with roadmap features). But asking how many people are working on this game won't get anyone a satisfying answer. Period. Some people are going to be upset no matter how many people are working on this. And still more will be upset at the state of the game until it hits whatever milestone they are waiting for (the vast majority of which are, based on my potentially incorrect research, waiting on multiplayer, which is A LONG WAY OFF). Wrong. I'm not a born-again KSP2 enthusiast. I'm just trying to be more civil about how I feel about the game. Trying to get my point across while not being a complete PITA about it. I still don't like the game, I still don't like the cadence, I still think we got jobbed, and I still think that the company needs to do something quickly before the IP dies. I'm just trying to be less d-baggy about it. I can get my point across being civil, which is what I hope I'm doing.

As long as the answer is non-zero - that is, > 0 - it doesn't matter how many were working on it. Per Nate, the game is funded for years, they are releasing bug- and hot-fixes, and they should be working towards releasing Science. The going is slow, and is certainly not the speed with which a lot of people would prefer. But there is nothing to be gained from asking how many people are working on this other than to be continued in being frustrated for not having an answer that you want to hear.

It's no different than putting a bag of popcorn in the microwave and wondering why it takes more than 90 seconds to be done. People want instant gratification (generally speaking), and nothing short of getting something full and complete before actual release will make them happy.

While I agree with the sentiment, I think the major point is that expectations were not set properly by the company, and this has left a lot of people - myself included - wanting to see what we were told we were going to get. This hasn't really been the prototypical early access release, and I think people are simply put off by that. My opinion only, and I can only speak for myself with 100% certainty.

Again, dealing with new features when the base game isn't up to snuff won't do anything but add problems. You need to solve the base problems before you add stuff that could potentially add more problems.

Considering the number of people here upset over wobbly rockets, coupled with the numerous discussions on the topic...yes, it is absolutely relevant right now. And should be the second priority (after orbital decay). Implementing new features won't mean much if you still have to worry about flying a noodle.

The decision whether or not to buy boils down to a few things: Can you afford the $50. This is a legitimate question. For some people (myself included), I'm not worried about the $50 or having to worry about whether or not that $50 spend is going to come back and haunt me. If I'm worried about $50, then I've got bigger problems than just the cash. But for some people, that $50 is a good amount of cash to have be expendable. You need to decide if the cost isn't all that much. Are you able to wait for new content. You'll be waiting for new content regardless of whether or not you purchase the game. But can you have the game sit in your library untouched until the day comes when you get the content you are looking for (whether that be new parts, Science, Interstellar, Multiplayer, etc.). Are you ok with the amount of bugs, and are you willing to play through them until they get fixed. This isn't so much of a detriment now as it was at launch as the developers have fixed some of the worst ones out there. There are still bugs that exist, though, so don't think that there aren't any left. But can you play through/with the ones that exist. I personally cannot recommend this game to anyone right now. I've got friends who have seen KSP and think it's a cool idea, and they want to know if they should pick up KSP2. I tell them "I wouldn't". Their answer is always "But dude, you bought it day 1; why shouldn't I pick this up". To which I say "Ok, go buy it. But I have KSP1 and was well versed in playing the game, so picking up the sequel - even in its buggy, ugly form - wasn't a stretch to learn. You, on the other hand, have never played. But go ahead and buy it and then shelve it until it's fixed." My point here? No, don't buy KSP2...yet. Wait until it's a little more polished. Until then, play KSP1 with mods (EVE, Parallax, KSRSS, MJ, KER, etc.). The wait will be hard and probably long, but worth it.

Hey, at one point in my life I had to decide if I wanted to pay rent or buy a new guitar. My mom was not happy when I moved home.