VlonaldKerman

I don’t think anyone would accuse them of lying about good news if, alongside the good news, there came any evidence that the good news was true! Would you like me to list all of the pieces of “good news” that have been false, again? This is why I think dev gameplay of new features and internal builds would be so positive. Can you give any examples where people have accused the dev team of lying, when the respective statement was true?

My boi really poking the beehive 0_0

This is actually one place where, in my opinion, KSP 1 mods haven't really figured this out. There are a few mods that allow you to store crafts and parts and add in construction time, but I always found them more tedious than interesting. In practice, "refunding" a ship was enough for me. The main reason I wanted to add in construction time in the first place, actually, was to increase the importance of planning ahead and having rescue plans with my life support mods. That way if Jeb gets stranded on the Mun, I can't just design and build a new rocket to save him instantly. I either need a rescue ship ready, or I have to big-balls it. This sort of connects to discussions elsewhere about finding ways to make "time" a meaningful resource. The other gameplay purposes of storing crafts are less interesting to me.

That would be amazing Imagine tuning into @DakotaTV? I'd gladly do so Actually, in a previous thread, I suggested this as a solution to their communication issues, by saying that this sort of absolute transparency is what early backers (which is what we are) should have, and I was shot down as being too demanding. I feel like we should see the internal builds of the game that the devs have been hyping up for years.

I think I made a post about this a while back, and I agree. I would add one thing- the ability to plot a trajectory using the “fixed” point-thrust mode, then convert it into a relative one (approximately). One of the main issues with the new maneuver nodes is that you can’t just make a maneuver at your apoapsis to circularize- where you make your maneuver depends on the length of your burn. You should be able to make a maneuver in this simple mode, and have the game recalculate to find a true trajectory of best fit which approximately matches the trajectory you made in instantaneous impulse mode. I haven’t really thought this through, but I THINK this solves your cosine loss problem. The cosine loss is really just burning at the wrong time in your orbit. I THINK… PS if you have math that shows I’m wrong I’d be interested.

I agree that publicly deriding programmers is not a productive thing. In fact, you can look back through even my most critical posts and see that if I tentatively blame anyone specifically, my hypotheses tend to blame management. However, counterproductive != abusive. Bad? Maybe. Morale draining? Maybe, though I would venture that is something that individual people whose moral is being drained have a lot of control over it. Throughout history, by this standard, most working people have had to tolerate “abuse”. Many or most of them took it on the chin. For some reason, we have either lost this expectation in the modern age, or at least don’t revere or encourage it. That’s a massive tangent, but the reason why I think it’s relevant is that it would be neither accurate nor fair to blame “the community” for almost anything associated with the game going wrong. I mean that both in the present sense, and in the future if people are doing postmortems talking about “what went wrong”. When we act as if devs are irrevocably harmed by community members lashing out in frustration at a bad game, we both fan the flames of anger and provoke backlash, and also rhetorically strip individual developers of their agency with respect to their own feelings and morale, thus potentially condemning them to emotional fragility and demotivation. I mean this in the broadest possible, culture-wide sense. When I get criticized unfairly over something I take pride in, I try my best to channel my frustration into proving those criticizing me unfairly wrong. Criticism, however unfair, is not an excuse for well-compensated developers. I’m not necessarily saying that you said it’s an excuse, but I feel that it’s the water in which your opinion swims.

Man, if the level of criticism you’re expected to handle as a game dev is so low, I want to be a game dev! It’s abuse to say I might be incompetent when my work product is disappointing (seemingly)? Where do I sign up?

I agree with basically all of this, including your view on USI LS. I think that a resource-based system with supply chains is something that could be balanced to be a net-positive for the game. One thing just occurred to me though, which some have alluded to… when you start sending your first interstellar missions, they will take a LONG time. That’s the sort of thing where it’s reasonable for the player to want to be able to time warp for long amounts of time, because much of the rest of their missions are probably comparatively small or at a standstill. So they would have to be really careful to make sure that you can feasibly use automation, etc. to set up a system that requires no player intervention for LS. Edit: I just saw that this is literally what the previous two posts were about, lol.

I’m the dairy analogy, I think it was advertised that there would be some substantial cheese off the bat. But that has already been litigated. MOOOO!!!

No- it’s like you spent $50 for a months supply of milk only to find that they are out of stock for the foreseeable future. In that scenario you are expecting something from the supermarket.

I really like a lot of aspects of your suggestion, especially the concept art. However I’m worried you’re solving a problem that may not be there. I understand the problem is, “We like LS because it makes time important, but it seems too punishing to a) “one mission at-a-time” people, and b) casual or new players. I feel like the solution to this is UNCREWED exploration. I agree that having Kerbals onboard should increase your science yields. But this should come with some disadvantages. Namely, the added risk of losing a Kerbal (will there be penalties for this???) and the extra mass needed to keep them alive. Also, I feel like the ship has sailed (no pun intended) on catering to “one mission at a time” players. When colonies are introduced, the player will probably have to have multiple colonies running concurrently with missions being conducted on or around each. Eventually, the player will have to begin managing several missions at one time. This seems like a natural part of progression. It follows, then, that as the player becomes more advanced, they begin to use crew and therefore run multiple missions at once, which acts as a natural buildup towards colony gameplay. As I understand it, the goal with KSP 2 is the same goal that many sequels have: decrease or maintain the skill floor, while raising the skill ceiling. KSP 2’s new player onboarding and similar gameplay will fulfill the first requirement- and it seems like the addition of basic (one-resource) LS would be a natural solution to the third. I think there’s a more general point here, about the fail to learn, DIY spirit of KSP. The nature of a rocket sim is that it is difficult, and not for all kinds of players. It is impossible to FORCE or FACILITATE someone’s developing proficiency at KSP. This is a fundamental element that won’t change unless they drastically nerf gameplay. In my experience, LS is not, as a feature/consideration, wildly difficult relative to all of the other challenging aspects of the game. And the fact that players may struggle, or even fail with it, maybe several times before succeeding, sounds like more of a POSITIVE for a playerbase like KSP’s than a negative. Perhaps they want to change the playerbase drastically to accommodate less intrinsically motivated or interested people. I think this is a mistake, and fundamentally impossible. I fell in love with KSP because I could immerse myself completely into a mission. I could transform my room into a ghetto KSC planning room with whiteboards full of mission profiles and weighing the pros and cons, etc. I feel like a LS system that’s all carrot, no stick is inconsistent with this vibe, and I may be wrong, but this vibe is that which I feel is fundamentally associated with KSP in a unique way.

Actually, it could be- never mind, I’m not gonna finish that joke…

I think there is a fourth group: the “morally superiors” (not necessarily you, these people tend to be more active and aggressive). These people scope out the forums for the places where the “same old arguments” are taking place, then make a post bemoaning these arguments and advocating for more civil, substantive discussion. However, they themselves never actually participate in that discussion! The threads with substantive discussion lie dormant because there isn’t that much to discuss, what with the lack of updates and all. Bonus points if they ignore the specific points being made and lump all of the criticism into the same “angry about bugs” basket.

In KSP 2? My condolences.

I ordered chic fil a

Unfortunately, this statement is probably not as surprising or impactful as you might expect. Judging by the KSP 2 player counts, most of those who bought the game are in the same situation. I personally haven’t played since launch- I’m waiting for reentry heat. Also, I see that you have expressed some negativity about the state of the game and the pace of development, and I regret to inform you that this indicates that you are an impulsive and irrational hater intent on polarizing the community. Welcome back

Yes, you may be right. However DOTS is not the only way of doing multi threading- with how much KSP 2 is supposed to be “ground up” I would think that building the game with multi threading would be a priority from day one. I’m pretty ignorant about this technically, but am I way off?

I think that communication style was more socially acceptable because HarvestR didn’t hype up the full release of KSP 1 for 4 years before releasing an alpha EA for $50. I think when players make the point that bugs are game breaking and obvious and ask about QA they’re really asking why the game needed to be released in its current state, given that they don’t really need much player feedback yet. Also, I would be supportive of a stable and unstable build. Or just an unstable build, because let’s call a duck a duck, this is an EARLY EARLY ACCESS not a polished experience, even with extensive QA testing. You might think, “Well, for $50 I would expect some QA testing,” but that’s more of an indication that the price is wrong, not the QA.

Great post. I think this is a microcosm of a general theme with style over substance (as far as we know- maybe they’ve got big things planned on the backend). I made a thread about this kind of thing a while ago: I suppose we can add multi threading to the list. I think he was explaining it for the benefit of other forum users.

Well, this is not necessarily a result of lowering the velocity barrier to plasma- when deorbiting you are going faster than on ascent (because you circularize above atmosphere) so you can in theory lower the v requirement of plasma effect to a speed which you are only likely to achieve on a descent. I suspect that the reason the threshold was even lower is because they want the plasma effect to last a long time, and on a typical hyper-aggressive KSP reentry trajectory you slow down so quickly that if the v for plasma is higher than typical ascent speeds you slow down to slower than that really quickly. One way to solve that problem would be to make reentry less forgiving, so that players have to take less aggressive trajectories and thus slow down slower —> plasma effect lasts longer, even with a higher cutoff velocity.

For what it’s worth, I think I recall them saying that they’ve played with colonies in an internal build, though I could be misremembering. Also, unclear if that build was actually secretly a KSP 1 build, as I think these claims were made a year plus ago, and I find it kind of hard to believe.

LMAOOO this aged like fine milk.

Personally, I’m a huge fan of when games don’t tell you how to feel, but leave the reaction to in-game occurrences to the player. In KSP 1, as you mentioned, the player gets to interpret/generate their own lore for who Kerbals are, what Kerbal society is like, how tragic is Kerbal death, etc. I think you will find this “show, don’t tell” attitude in a lot of god-tier games, especially simulation/non-story ones (Minecraft comes to mind). In other words, I agree. EDIT: Subnautica is another game which does an incredible job of this.

I believe the devs have said that is not in the cards. I suspect there will be a supplies system for colonies, but for individual ships, I don’t think so.

I’ve rarely, if ever, had severe difficulty with KSP mods, even with 100+ mods in one install. The only issues I’ve had are version issues or mod intercompatibility issues. There was that one time in modded KSP that the KSC teleported into space in front of me and I crashed into it… oh, wait… @The Aziz Certainly there are performance and stability issues with modded KSP- that is the sole reason why KSP 2 exists! To provide a polished version of a modded KSP experience with better performance and fewer bugs. But, as someone who uses tons of mods in KSP 1- I find it bareable, which I cannot say about KSP 2. With respect to wobbly rockets, there is another thread about this in which someone proposes a system with rigid joints + instability and joint failure which would punish bad designs but without the unrealistic and tedious effects of rocket wobble. I think it’s an interesting suggestion.