Profugo Barbatus

[snip] Regardless, on the 4 sites 4 players line, your making the assumption that the four sites will be agency and single-person restricted in some way. The former, agency restriction, is highly unlikely barring the four launch sites being clones of each other along the equator - It'd provide mechanical advantage/disadvantage to particular missions to launch from them, and only be restrictive of a players options, which tends to go against KSP's fundamental design goals. And we already know for a fact that the multiple pads on the KSC are explicitly for allowing multiple launches at the same time in multiplayer, so the idea that its one site one player is just not true. [snip] Regarding the actual original survey of this topic, I'm surprised Disruptors are so low, or that free spirits are so high, for a talk about KSP multiplayer. I would have imagined that Disruptors would have been higher, what with multiplayer KSP being an opportunity to show off live the absurdity of some of the launches we can do. Then again, small sampling size, and office hours are only just coming to a close in NA, so maybe it'll balance out as more results come in. Achievers are about where I'd expect, lots of folks flying to do their first X mission or Y challenge variant.

And if you look at the material I posted, incorrect. The actual literal screenshot of multiplayer, being played, has owners of objects at the moment numbered, and we see up to P#7. We already know the intent is to have additional launch sides beyond the KSC in the future, and there's nothing preventing multiple people from sharing a launch pad - they just can't launch at the exact same moment. And as agencies set up their own colonies orbital or otherwise, that constraint lessens. Its really nice to see all the excitement over multiplayer, but my frustration is growing more and more [snip]

Canadian here, you haven't had real bacon until you've had Canadian Bacon As for KSP 2, I don't play modded, but only because there's not really any mods that I want yet, rather than a desire to avoid modding. Once we see some nice part packs rolling out, and/or life support mods, I'll be jumping on the bandwagon. A fair position, but I wouldn't completely dismiss mods in the value equation - There is cost and effort put into modding support and frameworks, take it firsthand from a hobby dev, making a moddable game is harder than not. Doesn't excuse a poor quality base game, but it might be a few parts sparser than otherwise on its own.

I highly recommend you go and actually read the stuff thats been posted out about multiplayer, because no, that's not how it works from the details we do know. There's still gaps in the exact details of 'how', but actual interaction is confirmed, along with some talks/mentions of time track/synchronization system to allow people to play at different times and into the 'future' relative to another players perspective. We don't know what that looks like in UI/Mechanics/Gameplay, but just that a member of the team (think it was Nate) mentioned coming home, jumping into a multiplayer game, and seeing what a friend has done while he was away. What we also know is that its not some massively multiplayer or universal drop in/drop out multiplayer - Its specific save sessions, together with other players, much like a more traditional coop game. There's not going to be a server browser or hundred player games - Expect to be playing with a friend group, or doing LFG forum posts.

Mostly the fact that the devs have release screenshots of multiple active players controlling vessels in the same scene. It doesn't get much more "See and interact" than that.

Not really, but I didn't put much expectation into the initial launch, and still have KSP1 installed and heavily modded, which has seen more play. I knew that KSP2 would be me playing around once or twice at best before Science is introduced, and still don't expect to really run a protracted campaign until colonies and resources are in. The particularly rough launch just made that decision easier, but even in a smoother boat I woulda done the same thing, I'm a very systems and goals driven player.

Hi Nate, two simple questions for you. Without making any promises, can we expect to see new Parts introduced between Roadmap releases? While the major roadmap releases are pretty likely to see new parts relevant to their particular functionality, it'd be really nice to see new parts popping up that are less revolutionary and more utilitarian between major milestones. Building and taking advantage of new stuff is one of the reasons to keep coming back to KSP2, particularly in Early Access days. Stuff like a new Station Core type, or fuel tank/cargo tank set/piece etc. The second question is specifically aimed at you and your experiences with the game, what is the Jankiest mission you've ran personally? Not Buggy, that's a whole separate ball park, but a mission where your design choices turned out to be sub-optimal at best, and lead to some weird, borderline stupid actions to compensate. Stuff like realizing your suicide burn was more suicide than planned for, and the Rapid Unplanned Disassembly that somehow didn't end the mission, but made the return trip fun in the Dwarf Fortress sense of the word.

Kek, I love you guys, dumb fun threads make the forums what they are. Dakota's probably gonna come back to let us know that precise collision was a victim of KSC Optimization. I never drove in, so I can't say whether it was a full blown mesh collider or something slightly less expensive, but I wouldn't blame them for turning them all off and just giving it a big old simple box collider to squeeze out a fraction of low hanging gains. Colliders don't have the biggest impact, but every drop counts when your trying to appease an unhappy audience.

This is a VERY meaty patch, you touched a lot of things across a lot of spaces. I'll be giving it a try today, hoping the other half of "didn't break more stuff" holds up. If the team can sustain this pace until the games in a more stable state, and they don't break too much else (The LoD on lights is very trivial, glad it didn't act as a blocker) then I'm going to be a lot more confident in this games feature. Either way, great job from the team, love to see detailed and thorough patch notes. Bonus thumbs up to whoever was keeping track of all the commits and impacts and collated the list. Too many games try to get away with "Assorted Fixes" and it just sucks to have to guess "is that one bug that bricks this particular option still here? won't know until I waste my time I guess".

Good stuff - Glad to see the rolling patch cycle is starting to pick up, with patch 2 already in the oven. Is 2/2 for Dev/QA the dream goal, or is the hope to slide out to a 4/4 once the immediate fires are out, make room for some meatier works. Understanding that its all planning and speculation, and not commitment, of course.

This reads like you've only ever made static environment, limited interaction games at best, and have no idea what your talking about at worse. What you've written reads to me as "Just abstract away every interacting element of the simulation in pursuit of a stable physics delta" which can be translated for the less development inclined as "Just use the KSP Physics model from 2013 and drop all the new simulation details". It defeats the purpose of a freeform sandbox simulation of rocket building and flight. Not to mention half the abstractions via assumption you propose break fundamentally under anything more complex than single resource sink perfect scenario operations. And if it were as simple as "if 15 seconds passed irl and lag means you only finished 8 seconds worth of processing, just simulate the other 7 but faster" is like telling someone to charge their phone by turning up the brightness - you can't fix an execution speed problem by enforcing that the execution happen on time without just abandoning a processing cycle halfway through every time it goes under load - which would ensure complete collapse of the physics simulation at that point as you just have to ignore impulses or time travel. Reducing the physics delta is what they already do, and its the only viable option. Pretty much the only thing I nodded along to with a "Yea" was the rename/map issue where someone just forgot to set a flag somewhere in their UI toolkit or input mappings.

Its unlikely to be related. Significant layoffs like these take months to plan out, not the barely week and a half that they've had. You also don't axe from the corporate top if its a few projects that just dropped that aren't showing as expected. Its much more likely that its actually what they said, that they've got too much in the corporate and planning levels that they don't need now with their current projects in their current states. Everyone is looking to be ahead of the curve in clawing back to reasonable operating levels after the last few years drove the markets into a weird frenzy where organizations dealing in digital goods felt invincible. Its likely that they're reducing their project load now, so stuff that woulda dropped 2-5 years from now is not getting the greenlight, and they don't need these people as a result. Odds are they're expecting to lean on currently confirmed projects that are released or underway to make the gap, like Outer Worlds 2 and the long tail of KSP2.

I think so as well, but the whole goal here was to be ironclad about mitigating the infinite quibbling and panic over terminology people seem to get when they're blazing the hype or fear trains. If I definitively say it will be Exploration mode, and then it comes out as "Kardashev Mode" People will panic and freak out that they're not getting the thing that they were looking forward to - Even if its just a rename after a classic way of measuring a growing civilization in Sci-Fi. Whereas if I'm relatively clear that it may not be called that, people may not immediately jump ship in despair Yes, and it has me excited too, but once again I err on "probably' just by virtue of the above. Once folks get it in their head that something 'is' happening, they are very very very displeased when its not, just look at the EA launch As far as I'm aware, this is how resource distribution worked in the first game, with relatively randomized ore distribution. Modded expansions to that system did much the same, with biases for worlds to have certain materials in certain biomes, but within a given range. Its unlikely that they would materially regress in this area, considering the relative ease of development to expand it to have randomness.

There seems to be a lot of confusion and misinterpretation going around about what has been said, so I will try and make it clear for you and others Career Mode - Funds-based vehicle construction restriction, with Science Gathering required for tech unlocks. This mode is NOT coming back. Sandbox Mode - Unlimited construction, all parts. This mode is already in and will not be going away to our knowledge. Science Mode (Name unclear at this time) - Unlimited construction, Science Gathering required for Tech unlocks. Science Gathering may not resemble the previous instrument heavy, biome specific approach, but not much detail is known. This mode is road mapped and coming in the nearer future. It is likely but unclear as to whether a science-only mode will remain in the game into 1.0. Exploration Mode (Name unclear at this time) - Resource-based vehicle construction restriction, with Science Gathering required for tech unlocks. This mode is the Career Mode successor. The funds cost for a vessel is being replaced with a resource cost for a vessel. Rather than running contracts for cash, players will run missions (Potentially still contract-system guided) to acquire and increase or transport their resource income/supply/stock (Resource model and whether resources are 'consumed' or treated as a checklist is unclear at this time) to pay the costs for ship assembly. This is road mapped and coming in the farther future. So yes, Career mode is gone, money is gone, and it has a feature equivalent successor that fills the same game space. The exact mechanical details are unclear. There is no plan to create a cash analog at this time. Now, while modding is no pure substitute for game mechanics, there is no obvious barrier to modders implementing cash as a resource just like steel and uranium, with supply mechanics (Taxes on colonies? Dunno, up to the modder) to ensure its available and expandable. If you really want to be playing a pure-cash KSP or want finances as part of your construction considerations, its very likely to be a modded option. This is highly speculative, as we have no idea what's open, exposed, easily edited, etc., but its extremely unlikely the games hardcoded to only handle certain resources.

A feeling I know all too well - Making games is super fun. Finishing games is miserable lol. But gotta push through to go from 'Fun, wonky prototype' to 'hey its a game'.