Scarecrow71

I'm going to start this by reminding everyone that I have been one of the loudest naysayers of KSP2 to this point. I have been very vocal about how I feel about EA, and what we believe was promised vs. what we got, and the future of KSP2. I want everyone to keep that in mind. With that said, this video should be must-see TV for the entire community. As someone who came to the party late, I either had no idea or had forgotten the details about how far KSP actually had to go to get to a playable state. All of those updates prior to the 1.0 release are nothing short of amazing, and the fact that most of it was handled by 1 person? Mind-blowing. Like, my mind is blown and may never get put back into its original shape. Just...wow. When compared to KSP2, I can absolutely now see where KSP2 is vs. where KSP1 was at specific points in its development. Although the comparison still isn't apples to apples (because of who developed which game in the series), you can see where KSP1 was, where KSP2 currently is, and how each got to where they are. And that's a handy piece of information to have right there. My only question that I have left: Why didn't TT/PD/IG follow the same development path as KSP1? I mean, they could have and we'd never know it (because we will never know what decisions are made internally, right?). But if you look at what was available in EA for KSP1 vs. what was made available in EA for KSP2, it seems to me that the only real issue here is the TT/PD/IG tried to give too much in EA. Or, at least, they tried to give more than what KSP1 had during EA. And that, I think (for whatever my own opinion is worth) is why there are so many bugs and game-breaking mechanics. They simply tried to give too much, and they rushed it. Now, that doesn't alleviate the questions as to how it all happened, or why the endless delays while stating they were just polishing the game up and such. Nor does it entirely excuse the state of the game at this point, especially when you consider that the latest patch introduced a pretty nasty bug (and I agree with @schlosrat that this needs to be the #1 priority for fixing right now). But this does help me to see the whole in a new and different light. And it reminds me that perhaps I need to take a step back, calm down, and keep Kerballing on because, in the end, we are all hoping that KSP2 not only becomes as good as KSP1, but that it surpasses it in ways that we never dreamed. Thank you @Wheehaw Kerman for posting this video; it was certainly an eye-opener!

Wheels are still frustrating to this day. I am trying to hold out hope that this happens. I'm not sure if it will be faster now than KSP was back in the day, but I do hope it happens. The one thing that KSP2 has that KSP didn't - at least in the early days - is an entire team funded by a parent corporation. If I'm correct, @HarvesteR was the only person coding KSP for the longest time. So to compare what was vs. what is and speed really isn't apples to oranges. It's more like apples to crab apples. But still, I do hope that it happens.

That's the billion dollar question right there. Unfortunately, we are never going to get an answer, which is nearly as frustrating as having the question to begin with.

I don't disagree with us not knowing internal dynamics. But what I do know is what we were told, which is that the game was nearly ready for years. And that is why it makes no sense how this is what we got after being told this. I mean, if the game really wasn't ready, why tell us it was? Why not just come out and say "Hey, we are taking the game in a different direction, which involve rewriting the entire core code base, so we have to correct our timeline again"?

One of the biggest issues here is that Nate literally stated for years that the game was close to being done, and that they were polishing things up. The game was supposed to be done before they launched it during Early Access. So it isn't a matter of if the game would have been completed or not, but rather why it wasn't ready or nearly complete to begin with.

Yep, I should have checked the bug report subforum first. This is what happens when I log on before I have coffee.

Well, people are understandably upset that the game still has bugs, and that the first roadmap feature won't be here for months (Nate's words). People want the game to be good. People want the game to succeed. People want to play the game. And all of us, in one way or another, are trying to deal with a game that is both less than it could be AND less than what we thought it would be. Some of us - myself included - are just so passionate about this game that we don't think before we type sometimes.

Before I take video and report this as a bug...has anybody else noticed that things in map view aren't in the same position there that they are in flight view? For example, when in map view this morning (I was testing to make sure the one mod I was lucky enough to write still worked) I oriented my craft with Kerbol dead center of the screen. This put Dres to the craft's left and...well, for lack of a better term, up...from Kerbol. But when I switched to flight view, Dres was to the left and down. I tried changing camera angles multiple times, but that didn't change the planet's orientation to the craft. It is entirely possible that there is a camera angle or setting I'm using that is causing this, but I can't find it. So before I report this as a bug, has anyone else noticed this? Or is it simply me?

I could not possibly disagree with you more. Three fundamental, core mechanics from KSP1 that have been reported as broken since day 1 are still not fixed: Orbital Decay SOI Trajectory Decoupled Probes/Loss of Control What the patch fixed may be core mechanics, but they certainly weren't the most fundamental. Heck, the first two bullet points up there should be the top two mechanical things in any space game. And this doesn't even take into account that a major drag bug was introduced with this patch.

You made a few incorrect statements. That's not me telling you the glass isn't full, or the wrong color, or that the water tastes funny. It's a simple correction of fact. If that offends you, there's nothing I can do about it. Truth is truth, my friend.

It is only because I am so passionate about this series and want to see it succeed.

I am a software developer by trade. The major difference is that bugs in our software cost the parent thousands, if not millions, of dollars in encounter revenue. We have no choice but to be all-hands, doesn't matter what team you are on, overtime if we need to in order to fix things and keep the revenue flowing. And all of that is invisible to the markets and vendors we have under contract. So no, I don't understand how this isn't an all-hands thing. I don’t understand how they can go months of saying "we are looking at it". I fail to see how they can focus on things other than the major bugs right now. I'm not talking about graphic artists working on code. But there are other coders in the building that could be pulled in. And no, I cannot understand the concept of "well, that isn't this person's job or team, so they can't help out" because, as a developer myself, I am constantly having to learn the functions of others to help fix stuff.

Nate says EOY 2023, but I doubt we get 0.2 any time before the 1 year anniversary of the EA launch.

I can't speak for anybody but myself, but at a minimum I feel deceived. I feel scammed. I feel taken advantage of. We have heard that the EA price is the EA price, and it isn't going to change except to go up at 1.0. Dakota has stated that he dropped the ball on letting the forum members know a sale was going to happen, and that erodes what little trust I have in the company right now. For years we were told the game was almost ready, and that things are running fine, and that this is going to be this awesome sequel to a wonderful game. And what we got not only did not live up to the hype, but it was overpriced. At a 1.0 release the game would have been a steal at $50. In early access, with all the bugs and such, it's overpriced at the sale price. And, at least to me, it just seems off, like IG is trying to get sales numbers solely to justify not getting shut down immediately. We all know the numbers about players and such. We can get an idea about how many people bought and refunded, which is money IG never got their hands on. And we can assume that the low player numbers recently aren't just showing that nobody is playing, but that nobody is buying either. And a project that isn't profitable, regardless of type of product, doesn't live very long. So to push a sale when the game is this bad? It feels...off. Do I want KSP2 to be shut down? No. Heck no. A resounding heck no. But I also don't want to feel like I've been lied to, or taken advantage of. I don't want to feel like most of the community here is against me simply because I'm not happy with the way things are going, or because I'm not afraid to stand up for myself and say what is on my mind about what I think the game is. And until things smooth out and the major things get fixed, there is nothing anyone can do to alleviate those feelings short of the company coming out and being entirely open and honest about what is happening. And we know that will never happen.

It seems fishy because it stinks of trying to raise quick cash so the project doesn't get cancelled. Anyone can see the historical player counts, which were not good in the days leading up to the patch. What we can't see is sales figures or revenue generated. Dakota mentioned that this was supposed to drop at the same time of the Steam Summer Sale, but it came out early. Why?

How this is still not fixed months after initial reporting is beyond me. I wish I could tell my boss "Hey, I know there's a critical bug affecting our code, but I just can't get it fixed for several months". I'd be escorted out of the building if I tried pulling that. I am honestly not sure whether I applaud you pushing release dates or am angry about you doing that. You have already slowed the cadence for fixes down, and several people - myself included - have indicated that we simply won't even fire up KSP2 until after these bugs are fixed because EVERYTHING WE WANT TO DO IN KSP2 IS IMPACTED BY THESE BUGS. I can't put it any more plain or clear than that. These bugs are preventing some of us from playing a game we paid you for. Orbital decay, SOI trajectory issues, and losing control of decoupled probes are the 3 most impactful and important issues right now. Personally, nothing beyond these three should be getting any attention until they are fixed. Several months? You yourself stated several years ago that the game was almost ready for release. How can this still be months away? Can you explain how the timing of this sale isn't fishy considering the lack of players prior to the patch, coupled with dwindling - if any - sales of the game? I believe the next earnings call is probably coming up, right?

Understatement of the year. Correct, but a pretty large understatement when you look at how bad the game actually is right now. Incorrect. There were a total of 165 items in this patch, some of which were things that were added (such as new parts). So it's not a couple hundred. In fact, only patch 0.1.1.0 had more than 200 things addressed with it. Not for all players. Also, while it may have better performance, there are still major bugs that were reported day 1 that haven't been fixed yet. In addition, multiple people are reporting new game-breaking bugs that have been introduced with this patch, not the least of which is drag on the command pods.

At this point today, I am simply waiting on what Nate has to say on things. I am curious to find out why the bugs haven't been fixed, what happened to cause the patch to slip a couple days, and how on Kerbin the patch could be released with the new bugs that have been identified. I'd also be curious to see if Nate dives into why he/the company thinks the timing of the announced sale is a good thing, and whether or not it is being driven by an upcoming earnings call. I doubt he will, but it would be nice.

It's really hard to understand that this happened when: It is buried in a thousand posts in Discord on that very day and is hard to find; AND It wasn't mentioned here on the forums, but rather on Discord, and some of us don't use Discord due to #1; AND Dakota continuously mentions here on the forums that the price in EA is the price in EA and will not change except to go up at 1.0. So this seems more like an error in total communication to the community, which is even worse when you consider that we have been complaining about transparency in communications for months. I know, you are a mod and may not know what is going on entirely with TT/PD/IG. So the fact that it's buried in Discord and may not be easy to find isn't your issue or fault. But it is the fault of the company and CM's for not making sure it was clearly communicated across platforms. EDIT So, this sale is only applicable on Steam? Those of us who use Epic don't get this benefit? I literally just checked Epic, and the price there is still $49.99?

Agreed. I think the real test of this game will be when (or if) roadmap features are released.

[snip] @RaBDawG has a valid point as it relates to your original statement. The patch was delayed by 2 days to help get things in order, and you commented that the 2 days wasn't a big deal and that it was worth the wait to get a better patch. Now, after having the patch drop and seeing that not only is it not good, but has made the game worse, do you still think that waiting the 2 days was worth it? Do you still think the community shouldn't be upset or angry over the slowed cadence, having patches get delayed, and the game being so buggy as to be unplayable in some instances? I'm interested in hearing your honest thoughts here, not a bunch of sarcasm-dripped one-liners meant to insult or offend.

That 10 seconds really isn't saying anything. What I'd like for him to do is a full video on his thoughts on KSP2, not bury a single sentence near the end of a 2 hour chat session.

You are making the assumption here that I don't understand how business works, or that I am oblivious to games going on sale regardless of whether they are EA or not. And that assumption is wrong. Let me be clear: games go on sale. Whether they are in EA or not. I fully and wholly understand that. I also understand that companies are in business to make money, which involves price adjustments and/or sales. With that out of the way... The timing of this sale is plain wrong. We continuously get told that the price is the price, even after months of complaining that it was too high...and then on the same day a patch is released they announce a sale. The timing is questionable at best, and downright shady at worst. This smells of there being a problem financially with the project, and this is an attempt to boost numbers so that it doesn't get canned (even though we have been told that the project is funded for years). I don't care about the $10. If I was worried about $10, I'd have larger problems than needing $10. My concern is the state of the game (continues to be buggy and, for me, mostly unplayable), coupled with the potential financial problems that come with having little to no sales for a couple of months AFTER having to refund a lot of initial sales (speculative of my part as I do not have insight into the actual sales figures).

2 things. 1. I thought I saw the high at 731...but I could be wrong 2. You changed your avatar!

Well, it has been 4 since EA launched. I dont know when the last report came out, so I dont know if it has been 3 months since then...but odds are it has. Maybe?