Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1,831 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • About me
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Great job putting this together, lots of effort and it shows. So far, this does not change my opinion that Colonies looks mechanically very shallow. It does however make me realize that they haven't talked at all about part variety relating to a certain role, other than the parts in the heating system. And the fact that colonies are implied to have physics is heavily worrying once you remember how the save system is really bad at scaling to big part numbers versus loading time and general game performance.
  2. I'm happy wobble got looked at, let's not confuse that. What I criticize from that move is making us wait so long telling us they were working on a long term solution only to, when the pot boiled, apply a hack they repeatedly told us they were avoiding, in place of a proper solution that we have no outlook on (as in, we don't know when are they implementing that, or if they chucked it to the backburner since the problem is "fixed" now).
  3. This assumes there was never A. We're here because we passed A long ago, we had another round of A before and after FS!, and the only real thing A managed was a bandaid fix on wobble... which also meant they went back on their own statements of not wanting to implement bandaids. The problem with your argument is that you seem to think B is unjustified, and it's somehow blindsiding you by being a completely unwarranted surprise appearance. In reality B is the obvious consequence of what happened with A, along with many other fiascos along the way both inside this project and others. Sure, IG can't fix the industry, because no individual studio can, but maybe they can follow better practices instead of the bottom of the barrel that "industry standard" has become.
  4. Well, that's the problem with generalizations. You'd think a business that just failed a sales number by about 4 million would be a bit more interested in making changes, and so far the only structural changes have been sinking a studio and firing Paul Furio... and there seem to be no results unless we keep assuming they've been doing magical invisible work or that they'll just do better if we give them infinite time. I'd say we do better at being realistic, clients expectations just haven't been treated well, not the ones clients built themselves, not the ones the business built for them either. Further on, this has been a common trend these years, putting the spotlight in just how good that mentality of calling everyone who criticizes a hater (or worse) has been. It's been 10000 jobs lost last year, and already 8000 just from january to today, with studios falling like flies and new, flagship products being absolutely destroyed by early access indies pushing the counterculture to the common zeitgeist and becoming the literal highest selling games in the last 20 years. Now, I'm definitely not saying business ought to just go out and listen to everyone, just that... the spark of humbleness has been lost, so has passion, and maybe, just maybe, people are angry because there's real stuff to be angry about.
  5. Hmm, and by "screening hard" is how industry people arrive at choosing to never communicate anymore... because clearly everyone else is outside the club, or misanthropes, or haters, or whatever. Right? Everyone else is the problem, not the workers, their team leaders, their managers, the product, nah, it's the narcissist misanthropes that make it all about them and not the fact we're ripping them off and leaving them in the dark after taking the money.
  6. Did you mislead about the state of the sofa for 4 years whilst pushing back the date? Did the sofa break apart as soon as they sat on it? did you tell them how your speed at fixing it and adding the promised features to the sofa was good but it took a year for the first cushion to come in? Did you tell people that the sofa was gonna be more expensive once it was done only to sell the same model cheaper two months later? That you'd imply that common scummy behaviors on the industry are ok because "it's a luxury product" is probably the lowest this forum has ever reached.
  7. And that's how we get $70+ "AAAA" "games" that are a tencent store with some barebones skinnerbox built around them. Nobody expects lack of bugs in an EA, but a playable (something KSP2 wasn't on release) product, with timely communication and the capability of the dev team to say X is coming Y day, and then X to come out around Y date. Or for hotfixes that aren't nebulous collections of fixes that include more untested regressions than actual fixes. KSP2 on those fronts is 0/4. The nature of the biz is as it is because gaming happens to be one of the very few industries where you can get away with releasing a broken product without massive repercussions. You released a broken electronic device, a car, a home appliance? You get a class action lawsuit and forced into recalling, replacing, and paying for shipping. Greedy gaming companies release a minimum viable product that barely works? aww shucks, poor megacorporation, you critics are unfair!
  8. Fixed my post someplace else on my end too. That's a much better end for the thread in my opinion.
  9. I was the live-chat moderator for the biggest site in south america. Then I became the in-game and forum moderator for the biggest videogame community in south america. After that, I worked for a youtuber's Discord server. My opinion of moderation can't be shared because it goes against the praise-only rules.
  10. It's kinda fair. They wanted discussion, but not that discussion, the same way we wanted communication, but not that communication. I'm not gonna discuss moderator actions because that's obviously outside the rules, so take it to Dakota directly. Word of advice: don't bother. I've gone up to IG support, not a single person outside the mods here care about the forum, so you can only complain about the mods to the mods themselves... and guess which side they pick.
  11. The original claim, the one we actually have proof from MechBFP, is that they fixed "wobbly rockets", by virtue of showing a like 100 meter tall single tower of tanks. We all agree that such a particular case is fixed. My claim, and that others like cocos echoed, is that such a fix is both a bandaid, and a performance hog, and also fails to account for a lot of cases, so the problem kinda really isn't fixed. Someone else (I think cocos too) claimed that rockets might still disassemble on launch on certain configurations. Now, if you wanna blame me of something, sure, I'll spell it out for you: you can absolutely blame me for my lack of will to even bother opening KSP2, let alone designing anything in it, going through the trouble of launching, docking, and so on, just to grab a screenshot, or metrics of how performance is affected, and what not. So yeah, my claim, on my behalf, shall remain unproven if what you want is photographic evidence, on account of me having games I actually want to spend my free time with. Sorry I can't help with that.
  12. The atmosphere and clouds were unjustifiably bad for a 2023 game. They weren't cartoony, they were bad, buggy, ugly and killed performance. This was compounded by the atmosphere properties and rendering also being more or less the same, and them being unable to fix it for over 8 months. THAT is why they hired blackrack, because they were in over their head over something so basic, to the point it was cheaper and faster to hire an specialist than to teach themselves how to get it working. Clouds and atmosphere weren't "a pretty thing", they are both the first thing new players see after the horrible UI, and were also making it hard to play the game because the starter planet has both clouds and atmosphere. And you made the same mistake. The game is mainly about rockets, sure, but it's far from the only thing that the game needs to portray. You don't see the ISS needing to strut the panels to the main hab for it to not spaghetti unto itself. You don't see the curiosity rover needing to strut the camera mast to the body because it's a surface attachment. Rockets work if you don't try anything too wild, anything outside rockets that happens to be big is still pretty much unaffected by the fix and grinds the game to a halt with auto struts. "Realistically" is clearly a word you use without knowing what it means, unless we both get down into aerodynamic calculations to test bending forces of whatever material KSP is supposed to make its stuff of, and the configuration of attachment points (why are radial decouplers made of wet spaghetti?). The word you want is "intuitively", because it works to the idea you think you have about how a real rocket experiences forces and bending. There's a whole discussion on wobble already so I don't feel like reviving the issue. What we have now is a bandaid for the most experienced (but just one), use case: single stack rocket with, at most, smallish radially attached boosters. Anything you build outside of that still flexes some, even the stuff that shouldn't.
  13. Big problem with those statements. It is not fixed, in the sense that the "fix" only accounts for a single configuration. In a game where you build land vehicles, aircraft, spacecraft, space stations, land bases, interstellar ships, and so much more, a solution that only ever works for vertically stacked tanks on the same central axis of the root part is useless. That's not even going into the performance tradeoff (huge) when you build big stuff with autostruts on. There's such a huge amount of possible cases that only fixing one is probably a single digit percent of the total use cases. It's not fixed, it's a lame bandaid that they themselves said were not going to apply, to hold back a glorified bug that they themselves can't be bothered to patch out; and the community sucked up to said bug to the point of adoring it, and ruining not one but two games for.
  14. It's also important to say that they fixed it with duct tape, after saying they'd not be using duct tape, after saying *this glorified bug* was part of what made the game so Kerbal. Also, after months of it being the top voted issue and multiple youtubers saying it was making the game unplayable. Credit where it is due, but just like the bugtracker, we had to make not just an excellent case, but also put them on blast.
  15. Taking your comments out of context is just a thing that didn't happen. You wanted to compare the low cadence of information with how SCS does things. My 2 cents on that comparison is that people let SCS do that because they actually have a trustable track record build upon like a decade (I think it's more, can't remember) of delivering actual results. Meanwhile IG has 4 years of pushing back a release date, not delivering a full product, the launch being what it was, and this last year... what it has been as well. They're not Hello Games, they won't be Hello Games. They're not SCS, they will not be SCS.
  • Create New...