[Week One Adventures]

2 hours ago, croviking said:

Another benefit of Early access is that modders get to officially start digging deeply to do what they do best!

I mean yeah that is great, but to me that does smack a bit of letting modders sort out the weeds first to some degree. The less cynical side of me would still like to point out that, unless I missed something, most of the most prominent KSP modders are holding off on modding KSP 2 until the official modloader is released, which, again, unless I missed something, still isn't out so modders aren't really getting to "dig deeply" if you ask me. Not yet anyway.

2 hours ago, Wyleg said:

Objection - things you named work in the game right now. You probably should stop posting false facts.

To be fair, of the things they listed, the music is the only thing I haven't encountered an issue/bug with. I think, might not have noticed a music related bug. Especially while trying to swat the other 10 out of my face.

1 hour ago, Delay said:

But they have plenty of gameplay. An entire KSP 0.17 release worth of gameplay!
With several improvements to UI, graphics and certain gameplay elements (Wings, for instance)!

Have you had the "I had to reload my save with an active craft with procedural wings only to find that they were crumpled like an old paper out of a notepad and so you have to start from launch again only to find the same issue?" yet? I love that one.

[Week One Adventures]

9 minutes ago, croviking said:

Yes, I want this game to succeed, that's why I bought it KNOWING WELL IN ADVANCE that it is going to be Early Access, so I didn't expect half the things to work, and was not disappointed. I knew exactly what I signed up. I'm having a lot of fun just enjoying the Kerbal way of doing this and it's epic. It's exactly what KSP 2 was supposed to be. Following all the official announcements I was well informed of what to expect. The team has been open and transparent the whole time.

I really, really can't see how you actually believe everything was open and transparent. I think the game is rather far behind most EA games on launch in terms of a fully operable game. It's not that most people that have an idea about how betas and EA work are upset that it's not "fully functional" but rather that for many, its barely functional at all. Wobbly rockets, performance, camera drifting from craft mid flight, decoupler bugs, etc etc. You and a lot of others may be having fun because you managed your own expectations in a more reserved way, or just aren't having the same bugs, but in my opinion, unless you were really wary or maybe had some inside knowledge before release, you couldn't have known it was going to be so difficult for so many to even test some of the major bugs, because other bugs are blocking them from even progressing beyond building a model rocket. 

 

[Week One Adventures]

17 hours ago, Kerbart said:

They'll probably quote Rule 6:

 

Of course, it comes down to what is playable? And they will conveniently leave out Rule 5, which implicitly states that, for instance, "game save" not working properly does not count as "unplayable."

 

But rule 5 doesn't state that. It states that if you have an issue such as that in your EA build, you need to communicate that clearly and concisely everywhere you talk about your game. So one could argue that since Intercept might have known that, and they certainly didn't communicate it anywhere that I'm aware of, it could be a consideration for counting as unplayable. Just not so sure where you got the idea that it implicitly stated that the game save issue isn't an unplayable qualifier, especially considering no one knew about it until release, though the devs might have.

[Week One Adventures]

19 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

You don't make any of these assertions as a developer, you make them as an impatient consumer who paid into an incomplete product without looking at what they were getting into first.

To be perfectly fair here, I think it's important to note that to the public's knowledge before release due to the communication about the game we received at the time, it was unclear just how incomplete said product really was. Especially considering it's not really lack of content or features that we're missing here but a solid foundation of a game to actually be able to do the play part of the playtesting to do our part in early access. A lot of people I've read and heard from are saying they've been presented with bugs and straight up broken elements that prevent them from doing much more than making model rockets and planes, myself included. 

So while, yes, you should know what you're getting into with an EA game, I think it would have been far less of an outrage so to speak if the devs were (able to be) clear in their communication about the state of the game. You couple that with the asking price which is something like 80-90% the cost of a full release game, and people, in my opinion have a right to prod and complain about it. I don't think it's fair to call someone that's engaging in dialogue that's progressive, however critical, impatient for buying an early access game that many of us here, regardless of stance on the game also bought.

19 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Again, said by an impatient consumer with no understanding of the development process. Hell, rushing led to the "excrement" you are talking about. If you touch a candle and it hurts, you don't reach in again to see if it'll still hurt, do you? That is exactly what you are suggesting the developers do.

Again I feel compelled to ask you, why you think the devs are touching that candle in the first place? You seem to be somewhat suggesting the idea that the devs touched the "candle" and now don't want to do it again, but what or who might have made them do it to begin with? And since this is so common in the industry, why aren't more dev's "avoiding the candle"? 

Also I'd like to ask what about this launch, other than the state of it, suggests rushing to you? If I'm not wrong it was delayed 3 times, and I definitely could be wrong here, but wasn't it originally not planned for early access as well? To me that sounds like postponing, not rushing.

[Week One Adventures]

2 hours ago, MechBFP said:

Can you private message me your ship? Press CTRL+C in the VAB and then you can paste it to me.
I would like to try it and see if I have the same results.

If I still have it. I tried doing a new save and to be honest the new save and load system is a bit more confusing to me than I'd like to admit, so it might have gotten deleted. Along with not being super willing to deal with the game as it is right now. Feel free to message me a reminder later on though and I can see if I can shoot you at least a ship I feel should work that doesn't and you can tell me whatcha get.

[Week One Adventures]

16 hours ago, MechBFP said:

I think it does somewhat come down to ship building. After all my hours in KSP1 I have an intuitive sense of what will be stable and what won’t, with and without struts, and I haven’t had any issues either with wobbly ships or planes or anything.

The problem is that with the state the game is in right now, most people are simply going to shout “BUG!” even if the issue was 100% not a bug but because of a poor design.

Now whether or not some of the consequences of a poor design should be in the game is an entirely different discussions.
 

However until the game gets more stable I think it will be difficult for most users to differentiate the difference between what is a bug and what is intentional. 

I've personally tried making a much smaller version of the Mun rocket I made with stability in mind, and without at least a set of struts connecting one of the stages, and using the trick of editing the physics.settings.json file to increase joint rigidity the craft is still way more wobbly than it has any right to be, intentional or otherwise. Even with said fixes I've still had it completely fling itself apart simple pitching downrange for a gravity turn at 10km, and even higher. Beyond that, separating stages sometimes leaves my camera somewhere between the two separated stages and I can't find a way to refocus. That last bug is what made me put it on the shelf until an update or two come out. I could design around the Kraken and noodle rockets if I have to to have some fun and check out the game but the camera drifting (eventually) Kms away from my craft literally breaks any progression I could have. 

When these things don't happen (rarely) or somehow don't end up ruining my craft or mission, it can be really fun and excites me for the future of the game. But as it stands it's almost too buggy to enjoy what little is there feature wise. Still have hope it'll get better, but I feel the need to stress to people that aren't experiencing the same thing that it is an issue. Even without autostrut nothing made out of the materials we're supposedly working with when building these rockets would behave like that. Noodle rockets are simply not flight worthy.

[Week One Adventures]

20 hours ago, Sequence said:

I'm one of the people that hasn't experienced some of the very aggravating sounding issues with rockets disassembling themselves or with struts not working. I've built launchers with solid boosters and held them steady with struts. I haven't had KSC follow me anywhere either. 

I find it difficult to believe that it could have anything to do with how I build and design my ships. It must be hardware related somehow. Maybe different chipsets or driver versions are causing issues with the game engine? 

Yeah I've been wondering a similar thing, like how could user experience vary so much on game parameters? Like performance makes sense, but like different chipsets producing different gameplay experiences is new to me. Maybe a dev can shed light on why this might be the case or something similar.

[Week One Adventures]

25 minutes ago, Periple said:

I haven’t had to use much struts at all! Went to the Mun and Duna so far and built many planes.

I don't know, I don't understand how the struts issue could be so varied. My buddy and I are both experiencing craft stability issues and I've seen it all over the internet but there are tons of people like you who seem to be having almost no issues of the like at all. I don't understand how the bugs aren't at least a little bit more uniform, especially when they're so integral to gameplay and not performance.

[Week One Adventures]

5 hours ago, Raptus said:

The first 4 planes I built had zero issues, including my my first SSTO which made it to orbit on first flight. 
 

This game requires learning and patience to understand how it works. It always has. 

Yeah this is BS. The game as it is requires you to use copious amounts of struts without autostrut or some similar system in place. Almost every part when placed onto another part flops around like a fish, and even when strutted up, it still flops. The worst is boosters attached radially, they flop when you load the craft in, and pretty much fling into your rocket when they're activated. So I tried making a similar rocket without boosters, and wouldn't you know, as soon as I did my gravity turn the thing just disassembles itself.

I assure you, this is not a case of needing to have patience, and learn. I know how this works, I'm more or less a veteran of the first game. I wonder if people being dismissive of this issue like this are the reason it's not being addressed in this blog post, because that has been mine and many other people's single biggest complaint about why this game is unplayable in its current state.