Stoup

Not to keep diving into a topic that is undeniably, off topic, but I don't agree. I mean, we already suspend our disbelief at the fact that kerbals don't eat at all, or freeze in the cold of space. I can say for myself, having played with mods like, for example, USI life support, that it feels like a decent balance to have kerbals just not serve their role as effectively if they're not given LS resources, effectively going "on strike". I don't think a directly analogous system to this is the right approach either, but it touches on the same realm of handling LS in a less binary way.

Yeah, I like the idea of balancing LS around being, not a binary "feed them or they die" kinda mechanic, but that maybe if LS was going to have some implementation, it would be for maximizing the resources you get out of using your kerbals. Better science returns and other bonuses like what you mention, rather than being outright punishing if you don't establish proper supply lines

I've been having completely the same feeling. I'm befuddled enough that this kind of this happens at all, given all the delaying initially done for 'polish', but the fact something so extremely simple to fix hasn't been touched in over six months is even less explicable. Definitely lends to my impression that there's little care given to user experience

Yeah, I'd say just based on the level of detailing in the texture of whatever we're looking at it's probably a smaller object like an asteroid or surface object rather than any kind of celestial body terrain. It definitely has that characteristic bloompocalypse that you see on standard terrain though

Even though at this point I'm definitely in the boat of people skeptical that it will, indeed, get there, I'd like to mirror this sentiment, without any further caveats. Thanks for all the hard work that's gone in so far, and for all the work to come!

Glad to see some fixes! Can't deny my own feelings though, quite honestly, the orbital decay bug is what's kept me from wanting to try to engage with the game, and since it's not fixed, it's just back to biding my time with other projects for me!

If your sticking points aren't specifically and explicitly addressed as fixed based on what they've posted, I'd hold off till next time. Maybe stick around a little to see when the next best time to check in is, but as it stands right now there's not really anything we have to go off of in terms of what's coming out in the short or even medium term With that out of the way, I'd say the energy you've brought back even in the past week or so has been a breath of fresh air next to how things have become, so I for one am glad you're still kicking around

As far as expectations go, you're free to set whatever ones you like! I for one am not anticipating much of anything beyond what was listed as fixed in the KERB report, and I therefore expect I'll be at least a little pleasantly surprised as in sure there's plenty they fixed and did not specifically mention there.

Honestly, I think the hard part about trying to stay positive about the future of the game is that many of the things, that would normally be sources of hype, have been proven to be unreliable for people to be putting their hopes in. So of course we can't change that. It's weird feeling like their has to be a dichotomy, between positivity about the game and negativity. I want to be want to complain about the things wrong with the game, but like many others I would also like to see this forum, if not full, at least largely so, of people engaging with the game and enjoying themselves. It's frustrating when the core problem is that people feel that they can't get engaged with the game enough due to all the bugs and whatnot. It's a valid feeling, full stop. I just wish the game was in a state where it was more interesting to talk about what we're able to do in it, than to talk about how difficult it is for us to GET to that point of engagement.

The statement itself? Completely unambiguous, sure. My point is that I have very diminished faith in the spirit of such statements, rather than in what they literally say. The line has been toed on technicalities before, and I only mean to day that I don't trust it won't be toed again

I'm just hesitant to take the claim of no microtransactions at face value, even with an outright explicit statement like what Dakota has given. Not to be baselessly doomerist, but just based on how I've seen some of the things in the past they've claimed twisted from what many have expected, I could definitely see them releasing paid content that they can technically argue isn't a microtransaction, but which nevertheless toes the line close enough to leave people feeling betrayed. I understand there's no way to know right now how things will turn out, but I just want to say ahead of time I hope the communication about how this topic will be handled will be clear, comprehensive and above all unambiguous

And just for the record, as of this moment, there is a new release slated to be shipped out next week, so if you're considering canning the game for another couple months you may at least wanna check it when it comes along!

Past experience has indicated that, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a singular comprehensive place that you can visit for ALL the latest info for KSP2. The strategy seems to be to intermingle platforms. For example, it's advised that bug reports are not handled on Discord and only the forums, but at the same time there's a fair amount of smaller dev info that is only posted on Discord, with a ticker on the forums to keep up to date with that. And then things like Twitter get thrown into the mix. I believe the tweet about the release being delayed was posted on the discord, but then, if you're trying to go to one place to find all the info... What you have to deal with is to go to the forums, look at the discord ticker, see it point to a Twitter thread, and hope you've got all your bases covered in that way. Just seems convoluted to me! I'm sure there's a better solution in here somewhere

Not directed at you personally, but this statement is a pretty good example of exactly WHAT with their communication needs to improve. This is a very ambiguous statement. Does this mean they have a functioning version of the heat system, but they're only going to enable parts of it as they go along the roadmap to fit with their specific milestones? I gather that that's the impression they WANT to give. But it's just as valid an interpretation to say that they're building it as they go, for each milestone. For me to consider their communication to have improved, what I expect is that I'd be able to read a statement they put out... And not have to wonder about interpretations of what they say, but instead to be left with a clear idea of what is actually happening with KSP2's development

Ehh, just to play devil's advocate, jumping to negative conclusions without evidence is just as problematic as jumping to positive conclusions despite the evidence of all the problems this game has had in its development. Neither action is going to lead to productive discussion, but instead is just going to further the partisan atmosphere that's been taking over around here. In my mind, all that can be done is to hope things improve, but not allow anything short of direct successful content deliveries sway my opinion of things

Me too. The issue I have is the fact that this is the same logic that lead to hype for the game's EA release, and that sadly did still come out half baked

Just to speak for myself, what still grinds me a little is that they haven't said they're "fixing all the big issues". Specifically what comes to mind for me is issues like orbital decay, which is one of the biggest things preventing me from wanting to give KSP2 a whirl. I understand complicated issues like this can take a long time to correct, but it's just... disheartening, I guess, to think about how this may reflect on what we can expect to be delivered in the future. If, for example, let's say Science mode comes out. If there's a bug on a similar scale to orbital decay present in that kind of update, based on past experience waiting so long for a bug like that to be fixed, AGAIN, is a very frustrating prospect.

There's a pretty big difference between acknowledging that things are moving in what can be considered a more productive direction, and holding a tiny little glimmer of positivity aloft and pretending it means that everything will be good, fine, and perfect forever. I really don't see the latter being eggz's point, personally. I can honestly say I don't know what I'd expect them to say to alleviate my concerns at this point, but that things like this tweet are what I estimate to be the closest they seem to be willing to let their corporatese language get to it.

Are there any kinds of parts you're going to be adding to KSP2, that as far as you know, weren't even really available as mods in KSP1? Some unexpected bits and bobs, maybe

I mean, as much as I feel it's important to voice malcontent over the game's state if that's what we feel, that's not the message I think he was trying to get across. There's a distinction between blind positivity in support and defense of the way KSP2's development has come along, and positivity from the perspective of trying to improve the general state of communication between all of us members of the community here. Instead of coming from a point of condescension, it's just trying to keep discussions from falling into the same repeating pattern of bickering that has become very commonplace.

Knew I remembered there being a thread for this! Yeah, this argument has been posited from the very start. I for one think that both are pretty readily accessible. The modding subforums for KSP1 still see plenty of traffic

Maybe instead of grouping by the size they go with as you suggest, there should be an option for a UI overlay that places a little size indicator directly on the nodes of parts, so you can see exactly what size part is meant to attach to each node on any given piece. Like, a small (XS) indicator on top of the mk1 pod for example

Of course not, I'm not expecting them to have every detail for the rest of KSP2's lifecycle nailed down so far in advance. But when you bundle the only stated possibility that that the game might get cheaper as a footnote, in a single discord post, which otherwise explicitly states that the game's price will not change over the entire course of early access... I don't exactly see that being very clear communication. I don't feel scammed personally, but I was very surprised to see the game going on sale. I may very well just have mismanaged expectations, but it's very difficult to set any kind of expectations when there's such dissonance between what we hear and what we get.

If it was planned from day one... Why was this fact not communicated day 1? Or when people were upset in general about the price? Would have been the best to mention this then, rather than to infer that the only 'price drop' we could expect was the fact that we spent 50 on EA instead of 60 on full release

Even if that's the case, that not every part is physically stimulated... Didn't they want colony buildings to have physical stimulation not unlike how parts are stimulated? RE: the end of that first trailer where the whole colony starts falling all over itself. I know that wasn't a gameplay trailer but I feel like I remember there being talk about how that's what they wanted. I'd be quite surprised if that's how things actually turned out at this point, it seems more likely to me buildings and maybe also orbital assets might be static to some degree.