Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Posts posted by Master39

  1. I won't enter the matter of the discussion, I haven't seen the video and I won't (never really liked Matt move from good gameplay videos to being yet another sensationalist infotainment gaming channel).


    But I've skimmed the thread, and I think it's missing an important consideration about Harvester being hesitant to talk about KSP2, or being careful, or whatever is the point of contention here even is.


    He is a developer releasing a new game, a new only marginally related game with a very different scope and size.

    Kinda like Obsidian when they released Outer Worlds.

    How well did it work for them presenting themselves in the marketing with those bold: "From the only true, real, original, and good creators of Fallout and Fallout New Vegas" claims?

    Well, sure enough Outer Worlds wasn't the Fallout NV 2 people hyped it up to be as a consequence, and they had to spend the last few weeks before release trying to set realistic expectations.

    Back to Harvester, Balsa never really took off, and I still haven't checked what's going on with the rebranding, but sure enough it's not a good idea to start comparing your still unreleased game/update/rebrand with another game, as it will almost certainly backfire.

  2. 10 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

    100% disagree. Learning how to manage heat flows through a craft is incredibly interesting, and leads to needing to use both conductive and insulative parts in the right places.

    This single-stage, heatshieldless Jool diver is the most personally rewarding project I undertook in KSP 1, and there are no exploits involved:

    The fact that you had to dive into Jool's atmosphere to make heat conduction between parts relevant kinda proves the point...


    On 7/24/2023 at 8:15 AM, RocketRockington said:

    Unfortunately for the OP, the parts that are most interesting are when internal conduction isn't fast enough to keep up.  EG: Columbia disaster.  Didn't happen because the whole shuttle got too hot - it's because a piece of its skin lost its heat shield and that part got too hot.

    Except there's no such a thing as a spaceplane heat tile in KSP, and generally used method for heat control during reentry, other than just being gentler with the profile, for spaceplanes is to just spin it as fast as possible to roast it evenly on both sides.

    Internal conduction between parts never* resulted in interesting gameplay in KSP1.

    Simplifying the never used simulation mechanics will allow to reduce the margin for error given that it can be expected from the player to understand how the simpler system works, thus making heat-related failure modes more common and easily achievable, increasing the overall challenge of the game.


    At some point in simulation complexity you stop adding gameplay challenges and turn it into tedium or into making the player feel like it's just a random system.


    *:ok except for Jool diving.

  3. 8 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

    Did you listen to the podcast?

    The day it released, that's why I was able to spot your BS before even opening the link.


    8 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

    Since you ask about context, we can move a minute back, starting from around 1:12:00 and end after the full quote. Nate and Paul are (were, since Paul got fired) a team, and it seems to me you're assuming they went in blind and got assaulted with questions and were incapable of saying no to this one question in particular, or for Nate to be incapable of stopping Paul. Well, not only do I not believe any of that, but they're also a team representing the same company and product, so what one ways, unless the other interjects and denies, goes.

    Don't try to spin things around.

    You said:

    On 7/8/2023 at 6:51 AM, PDCWolf said:

    has Nate in it, where he states:

    And then proceeded to quote half of the question form the interviewer and half the reply from another person, very much not Nate Simpson.

    That's misleading and dishonest.

    I can understand an argument built on interpretation of vague answers, but straight faking quotes banking on the fact that nobody is going to bother with verifying them disquilfies you from the  discussion in my eyes.


  4. 7 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

    Nate made it very clear that they are aiming for an acceptable frame rate for ships of more than a thousand parts.

    Nope, not even close, he pretty much evaded the question, just as I said.


    "1000+ parts ships?"
    "The CPU [rant about being CPU bound ]  ...making sure people on 'normal hardware' are able to build things on the same scale and complexity as what we've shown in the trailers without a noticeable itch in the framerate... [rant about optimization, physics LOD] you'll still be able to bring it to its knees because we're not going to put a hard constraint"


    To me it sounds as someone that doesn't want to say that 1000 parts ships are still going to be a problem, but I'm sure I'm biased. Sure enough it doesn't sound like a implying a "yes" to the question, let alone actually promising 1000 parts ships.

  5. 5 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

    It's a pre-recorded interview, and they surely (like any business doing PR) had time to review the questions or at least know beforehand what topics were gonna be discussed. How you interpret what they say is up to you, but they are both there in the interview, answering and following up on what the host said.

    The amount of "we can't talk about that" and "no comments", and the average (low) quality and seemingly improvised nature of most of Nate interviews makes me think otherwise. Here they're talking on a podcast that was new at the time, not CNN.


    17 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

    has Nate in it, where he states:

    Implies it's Nate talking.


    17 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

    ~1:14:00 - ~1:17:30

    "In KSP1 if your ship has 1000 parts; your computer no matter what isn't having a good time. That's one of the big boulders that we're breaking apart: making sure that framerate/performance does not suffer. The scale is so much bigger than KSP1 [...] with so many ships there's so much more to maintain"

    Implies it's only one person saying all of this, and that person being Nate. Conveniently you've also cut out all the discussion about the background simulation.

    That's misleading at best.


    5 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

    Now, regarding what was said, or implied: this is definitely not the "1000 parts promise", for sure, but it's the closest we've had, and it is yet another one of the probably hundreds of quotes relating to their performance/partcount targets, all of which had been nebulous as best, and have, at the very least, been drawn from what the community desired to craft said statements. You must remember that the current narrative of "1000 part ships", "reworked core systems", "new codebase", and so on, all comes from stuff they've either directly said, heavily implied, or at least lightly implied from their answers. They're 100% responsible for the expectations they let build up without managing and in some cases even continue building up, and are also responsible from what backlash comes from those.

    There's a whole argument to be had about the gaming community making up Devs promises and then getting angry at things they've imagined while they over-hyped themselves to oblivion.

    A big part of it is that anyone trying to deflate hype and debunk fake lies is seen as an enemy twice at first then they don't blindly believe at everything the hype machine says, pointing out that nobody ever talked about something, or confirmed anything. And then after the game released when they say that the thing they where hyped about was never even mentioned by any actual dev.

    Then someone makes a list of lies on Reddit, or Crowbcat makes a video, both of which will be 90% wrong, but still saying it automatically puts you in a "you're the enemy" position.

    I'm still not saying that it's the case here, I'm more than open to receive a definitive piece of evidence, a recording or post from Nate saying "100000+ parts", but weirdly enough while everyone seems to agree that that was promised, the only examples are 2 interviews in which the devs clearly evade the question and are very careful at not committing to anything.



    5 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

    If you ask me for a new car and I said "well, I'm working on something with four wheels and five doors", and then showed up at christmas with a hotwheels, you wouldn't be happy.

    Interviewer: "Mr. Dev, will your car have 5 doors?"

    Mr. Dev: "Well, doors, uh? It's a thing we're working on... You see, you can't have a car without doors, and we're working on this new type of hinges that will optimize the door utilization, allowing us to have a number doors on our car."

    The community: "You've heard that? They said the car will have 10 doors! And that hinges must be needed to flap the doors and fly, so fully autonomous flight capabilities too"

    The car releases, it has 3 doors, the community is mad because it can't fly.

  6. 8 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

    http://forum.purdueseds.space/pspodcast/episode2/ has Nate in it, where he states:

    I'd really like anyone to click on that link and listen for themselves who's talking about what, I'd begin maybe 30 seconds earlier,  1:13:30 to really get the full context.


    The misquote is a mesh between a statement from the interviewer (speaking the part up until "good time"),  and the start of a reply from Paul Furio (not that matters much but that's definitely not Nate Simpson), who changes topic immediately to speak about performance in general and relative to the background simulation of multiple ships/colonies, not committing nor repeating any actual part count.


  7. Given that part count and the 1000000000000000000000000000+ parts  "promise" came up again I think this (and the discussion that followed) is relevant:

    On 4/9/2023 at 11:01 AM, Master39 said:


    Please read my whole message. You'll discover I've already addressed both your points.


    Point is, if you listen to the reply Nate gave to Shadowzone he treads around the thing without committing to anything specific. He outright states that you'll be able to make the game slow down with high part counts, only saying that the number of parts needed for that is going to be higher.



    I see this thrown around a lot, but actually look at that ship, a crew cabin, something behind it, 4 rings, 2 big habitats, maybe something else in the middle, let's say 10 parts and we've already finished the crew section.
    Let's say the long structure is not modular and made up of 5 segments, let's make it 10, we're at 20 parts and 2/3 down the ship, 6 containers in a 6x symmetry (I don't see the ones below, but, let's pretend), another 36 parts, we're at 56, then we have 3 tanks in another 6x simmetry, 74 parts so far, 82 with the bigger tanks, 83 with the single-part huge engine.

    Now, on the station, I see 160 parts in panels alone, and with the truss structures, if they're as small as they appear, we can get up to 250/270 parts easily. To that we add 24 huge spherical tanks, 24 containers, 8 big habitats, 9 rings, 2 smaller inflatable modules, 1 orbital VAB (the whole assembly the big ship is attached to) and, why not, an additional bonus 100 parts for whatever that thingie at the end of the rings is plus antennas, RCS thrusters and all the small bits not present in this image, another 168 parts to the count.

    We have 524 parts.

    And we can cut half of those out if we have procedural trusses, solar panels, or if we scrap the ISS look and do the right thing by bringing a nuclear reactor to our fusion fueled colonization ship shipyard which is sitting in jool orbit.


    It may not be a huge difference, but we're sitting at half of what people is saying was promised with that image, and half of that are aesthetics (again, solar panels on a fusion-power capable station in Jool orbit)


    The most important thing I take away from counting the parts is that barely a third of the parts are actually functional, the rest is all piling on of smaller parts to get to the desired size and a ridiculous amount of solar panels in a 8x symmetry (seriously, it looks like trying to use the OX-STAT to make the ISS arrays). The ability of welding truss segments together, or them being procedural is going to dramatically reduce the part count of everything, the same goes for solar arrays. 


    Not saying that the game shouldn't be able to deal with 1000 parts ships, only that optimization goes both ways, a lot of effort goes into reducing the amount of parts needed. The orbital VAB alone is going to do a lot for that, given that most user examples of 1000+ ships posted here are on the launchpad and including the rocket needed to take those contraptions to space (BTW I get the challenge of launching an already assembled ISS from the ground, but docking ports are a thing, no need to launch a single 1000 part rocket when you could launch 3 400 parts ones).


    TLDR: In the famous promise Nate said they were working  on allowing the player to build as big as the things shown in trailers. The "thing" shown in trailers was barely 524 parts, and that counting the spam of solar panels, with procedural solar panels you could easily cut another 150 parts from there (or just put a single nuclear reactor and cut all of the solar panels).

  8. 15 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

    a PURELY FLUFF feature (which regardless of how much one wants or likes multiplayer, multiplayer is a 100% fluff feature)

    Purely fluff features usually don't have the same potential at bringing new sales and user as multiplayer does.

    IMHO, controversial opinion, IVA is a Fluff feature*, not spending time on it would make someone complain but it would die rather quickly and not make a dent in sales. Sadly, VR would be another such feature*, we VR users are too small of a niche to even move a rounding error amount of sales. But multiplayer? Seriously? You really think all those games wasting time and resources in implementing multiplayer it's all for nothing?

    *I want to make it very clear, I'm not saying that I don't want those, just that them missing wouldn't be a big deal marketing/sales wise.


    15 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

    A while back i openly stated that I feared what would happen if they devoted dev cycles too early

    Retrofitting multiplayer into a single player code base causes 100000x the problems and headaches (Look at FO76, it was supposed to be a coop DLC for FO4).


    15 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

    and how it may negatively affect things.

    Even if all the stereotypes and misconceptions about "Fortnite kids" invading the game were to be true you still can play in single player.


    15 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

    Flash forward to the day of early release and it seems my fears were justified. Im not saying their focus on mutiplayer caused some issues that we see currently but im also not not saying it. 

    [Citation Needed]
    To me it looks like a lot of systems are far behind at the same time, I don't see how you could even hint at the idea that it's all to blame on multiplayer development somehow. It's not an easy feat, sure, but so are a hundred other things when you're rewriting KSP from scratch trying to avoid the same pitfalls.

  9. 10 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

    Never interact directly, but can alter the shape of the game?  You literally just described why I will never play multi-player - other players going out of their way to hose the rest.  At its core, the ability to alter the shape of the game without ever having to deal with other players, whether that be by colonizing planets or cutting off trade routes or what-have-you, simply means that there WILL be players on a server that have no interest in actually playing together but rather going out of their way to "win".

    Let's take the inverse here.  If you are in a multi-player game and you simply don't want to interact with the other players, then all you are doing is, effectively, hosing them.  You are taking away resources and trade lanes and planets from other players simply because you can.  It's MP?  They need this too?  Oh, forget them; I came to play BY MYSELF.

    You literally made my argument for why some of us will never play multi-player.  And again, if your goal in multi-player is to never interact with the other players, then why are you there?  Why not just play solo instead of taking up the space?

    You are ignoring all I said about player groups.

    You don't just join random Stellaris campaigns and start doing stuff. You know the other players beforehand, it's an organized thing and it probably takes a few games before you even try actually opposing empires (as in, trying to conquer each other).

    For the first few games you just enjoy mild competition, and the assurance that if the endgame crisis happens at the other side of a player's empire they're not going to block your fleet for some dumb "no military traffic" rule.

    Every game is going to leave behind someone at some point. In the case of  coop game, based on collaboration instead of mindless conflict (or games in which conflict is a bit more complex than just clicking heads, such as Stellaris) that limit sits at player groups. For the best experience you need to be in a somewhat organized group or it won't work. It is like that for the vast majority of multiplayer games.

    That doesn't mean you have to be IRL friends with a ton of KSP2 players, just that you may open a topic somewhere here in the forum, find a few like-minded players, talk about the dos and don'ts maybe even write them down, and then you start playing, in a private game/server, with either a whitelist or a password, and frequent backups of the main save/world.

    If you don't like that GOOD, you be you, but it works, it's a tried and tested way, it's how most of the multiplayer games work. On bigger servers you may start having griefing problems or trolls around, but as always when trying to build something bigger than 10 to 15 people on the internet, at that point you need moderation and moderation tools, nothing new here.


    I don't know what are the expectations here, to me it's obvious that you don't play some games with random people. If I want to start a D&D campaign I'm not going to stop random people on the sidewalk and scream at them: "Hello Sir, you are now the Dwarf warrior in my D&D campaign, here's your D20, roll Initiative".


  10. 12 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

    Using the VAB in tandem sounds like a horror movie.

    Depends on what you're trying to do, I wouldn't constantly use it, but I can see lots of scenarios even if I'm not even actually playing multiplayer.

    I've lost the count of how many times I had someone stream me their monitor on Discord to get my help to fix some problem with a craft or a rocket.

    Or if we're building a space station together, planning all the modules at the same time in the same VAB would be quite useful. Then every player can take their sub-assembly and build their rocket separately and launch simultaneously from the different launchpads.

    And, the game is confirmed to have multiple VABs, so it's not like you have to do it simultaneously. It's all about choice.


    7 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

    If this is the case...then what is the point of playing multiplayer?

    At the most basic level, players are smarter than the AI empires, no matter of how good or complex they make the AI.

    Even if you're not interacting directly the politics play a huge role in the game, everything you do as an impact on the game universe and can change things for everyone.

    In KSP2 you're going to have an even bigger and more direct impact on the players, you don't have to be synced with someone and be in the same physics bubble to benefit from their infrastructure.

    Look at the Mars sample return mission plan, bring it into KSP, the player playing ESA and NASA would never have to actually interact directly to complete the mission.

  11. 56 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:


    These are about as similar to KSP* as Shooter Of The Week is. Why? Two things KSP has that none of the above games have (to my knowledge): Time Warp** and the VAB***

    They're similar as in they are all mostly coop games, in which you play things together, mostly played in small servers.


    57 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:


    *And by "KSP" I'm talking the main gameplay loop of KSP. Not the area around KSC messing about with planes.


    57 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

    **I mean time warp as an absolute necessity to enjoy the game. I know you can "sleep" in Valheim and Minecraft if you convince everyone on the server to. That's nothing compared to "Hey meet me at Jool." "Okay I need to time warp 6 years to get there."



    That's why I brought in Stellaris a few replies ago. You can go a full campaign without ever directly interacting with the other players, and yet people enjoy their multiplayer games nonetheless, and it goes similarly for basically any strategic game with a fog of war system, coop or otherwise.

    But that's not all, it was never confirmed that the VAB is not multiplayer (not to speculate, but if you were to implement that and disable the multiplayer it would absolutely look like a mere system to build multiple vessels at the same time), and they've already talked about an asynchronous system to deal with time warp.

    None of this are insurmountable problems, but, again, I'm not forcing anyone to play multiplayer.

  12. 5 hours ago, EvelynThe Dragon said:

    What an ableist thing to say. Some of us deal with significant mental health issues that make that extremely difficult. It must be a very rosy world for you.

    No, most multiplayer games are designed around teams of 2 to 6 people.

    If you go solo you WILL have a bad experience in most games. Finding someone is the solution to that.

    Again, I'm not saying that you must play multiplayer or how you should play them, just describing how that world works.


    5 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

    The other is perfect for single player and sure you can race planes or something but if you want to actually play it as a space game multplayer is tacked on. I don't care how well it's going to be tacked on, it's going to be tacked on.

    The other is not the same kind of multiplayer game, had nothing in common with it, and the only ones making parallels apparently never played any multiplayer game in their lives.

    Factorio, Minecraft, Stellaris, Trailmakers, Stationeers, Space Engineers, Valheilm, Satisfactory...

    Let's use examples that are at least relevant to the discussion at hand, shall we?

  13. 2 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:


    I'm in the same camp as @jost with my selection.  There was no option for "I'm not going to play multiplayer in any fashion", so I went with the one that was closest to that.  I sincerely wish the OP would have included the "Never going to play it" option because now the results are skewed in that the poll shows that everyone who has replied is going to at least try it, which isn't accurate.

    Fun fact I haven't voted because I feel it lacks on the other side of the spectrum too.

    I'm going to be the host, the server is going to be my single player save, and I'm going to play a lot more than the rest of my playgroup, which will probably buy the game after MP drops.

     Technically speaking, "I will mostly play single player, but I'm also going to engage in multiplayer." is the most accurate description of my situation, but it's also the farthest possible from it conceptually.

  14. 1 hour ago, KSK said:

    Although I've never been traumatized :rolleyes: by a multiplayer computer game.

    These days it's very simple. Computer games are what I play when I want to get the heck away from people for a while, and I don't find that my computer gaming time is any less meaningful :rolleyes: as a result.

    If you're not coming here with the idea that people playing multiplayer are only interested in "Shooter 23 from Megacorp", you're not not so subtly hinting at the idea that they are too dumb to play KSP, that the only possible outcome is griefing of your work, or that the game is somehow too much for the attention span of the multiplayer crowd then those weren't pointed at you.

    I'm not telling people that they should enjoy multiplayer if they don't, just trying to shine some light in a huge portion of gaming that, when it comes to this forum, is only seen through the worse possible stereotypes and misconceptions.

    The narrative brought by people clearly not interested in multiplayer is as far from the actual experience as it can possibly be, they're thinking Fortnite or LOL when we have a ton of examples of games that are way more similar to how KSP2 multiplayer is going to be.


    1 hour ago, KSK said:

    For social gaming, I prefer board games or tabletop RPGs. Currently playing in two D&D campaigns (both played on a virtual tabletop) and DMing a third (played around an actual table with real clicky-clacky math rocks).

    I love D&D, but sadly in my group we never managed to start a successful campaign (We can manage the time in games like Minecraft and Factorio because we can play even if someone is missing, and we usually do).

    If I can borrow it as an example what is happening every time we talk about multiplayer on these forums is that what the Dev talk about is a D&D campaign and people react by using as an example and taking at face value the common jokes and memes about Monopoly breaking up families.

  15. 4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

    My only option is not playing at all then

    Like I said in my first post, don't like playing with strangers. Most of the people I hang out with don't play what I play because they have toddler level attention span and don't bother with games requiring any sort of long term commitment.

    And also when playing groups were forming 10 to 15 years ago I usually couldn't play with them because of very crappy broken pc that effectively prevented me from playing for longer than 20 minutes, so I was left with singleplayer games.

    You're constantly switching between a general argument about multiplayer gaming to your specific situation.

    You are making the personal choice not to know new player groups, and are in the specific situation of not liking the games your friends like to play (or not having the hardware to do so). That's totally fine, it's your choice, nothing wrong with it.

    But that has nothing to do with the general situation, multiplayer gaming is designed around player groups, a ton of games similar to what KSP-2 is going to be are basically impossible to play with random people, the already mentioned Factorio or Stellaris are good examples of that.

  16. 6 minutes ago, The Aziz said:




    11 hours ago, Master39 said:

    PS Suggestion if anyone want to get into any MP game: DONT PLAY/INTERACT WITH RANDOMS. Just search a small community/guild/forum/discord server that has a beginner section and start from there, if that group is toxic just leave them and try another one. It will make any game a lot more enjoyable.


    IMHO If you don't have a playgroup you're playing wrong.

  17. 2 hours ago, Piotrr said:

    Factorio is my favourite game (sorry KSP). With about 1.5k hours sunk into it I've never even touched multiplayer button. And it's not about traumatic expieriences. I don't think I have any. I simply get the most enjoyment when playing alone. Yes, I would like to bring a person or two into my modded Factorio Space Exploration campaign, but it would simply be a pain to find the time to actually play together. Either someone looses a lot of progress or we don't progress at all. Couch coop, hotseat, in-person board games - it's all fun. Once my only option is someone random through internet connection, I'd rather not.

    It's not abut the fact that everyone has to play every game in Multiplayer. I'm just pointing out that the kind of audience that only play a specific game when they can do so with friends exist, and the kind of bad experiences people point out are more the consequence of the lack of a play group than anything else.

    I never finished Factorio alone, not that I haven't started some solo games, but usually when I have the itch to get back to that kind of game my friends soon follow suit and we just start another multiplayer run. But I play other games in the genre, my 58 hours on DSP would be 3x that if only that game was multiplayer, and I don't think I would have endured the 22 hours of Satisfactory without a friend to suffer through it with me.

    And, right now, I'm back to the origin, a modded Minecraft, Create, Immersive, Mekanism, always with the same play group.


    Most multiplayer is like this, being it Minecraft, "Shooter 3506", LOL, Overwatch, Armello, Sea of Thieves or whatever else, most people don't go solo and deal with randoms, people usually have playgroups, if anything to use as an excuse when someone asks them why they're still playing that, old, objectively terrible, P2W game (we all collectively had a blast playing FO76). KSP2 with the announced 4 agencies with 4 players each max (if I didn't get it wrong) seems to be targeting to that audience and that kind of gameplay.

  18. 1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

    The big thing with KSP that doesn't apply to Minecraft or Space Engineers is you can't collaborate/assist while designing and building. That's a single player thing with KSP. You can fly with each other, but if you need to design a new craft, you're better off going to single player because there's no chance of interacting with anyone during the designing phase of KSP.

    For the first FEW HOURS of a Stellaris game you don't even know where the other players are or what they're doing, a game is long and you can play the first few sessions without ever seeing one of the other players you're playing with, if you do one or two sessions a week, you can go on for a couple of weeks before you actually interact for the first time with another player empire.

    And that's just for the first contact, both cooperation or war aren't that straightforward or obvious, you can find yourself at opposite sides of a lot of things, the map, the political spectrum, an alliance, a war, and often enough you interact from far away and in indirect ways.

    And yet MP is a huge thing for that game, and games like it, slow interactions never was a problem for gaming.


    1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

    Nah, I didn't miss it. It really seems like a lot of KSP players will have a tough time with multiplayer whether it's lack of interest with their group of friends or they don't want to cat herd rando players.

    Yes, I get it, tons of people around here don't have a group of friends that is interested in KSP, my point is, those groups of friends exist out there, and it's a prevalent phenomenon. Even among people "violent 13 years old gamerz" playing at "Shooter 385" (that doesn't sound elitist at all) or MMOs you usually don't play solo but more often go with friends, a club, a guild or some sort of play group, especially for team-based games, you're not really playing seriously if you go solo (in those games). 

    Again, when Microsoft had to offer a paid service for Minecraft multiplayer they didn't open huge servers, or minigames, which are the most obvious choice if you only superficially know the game (Just open an official Hypixel equivalent, no?) but decided to capture the true invisible audience, they started hosting small servers, the Realms, for smaller friend groups.

    I'd argue that most multiplayer gaming is like this, you play a game because your friends also play it and solo players jumping in with randoms are the exception.


    PS Suggestion if anyone want to get into any MP game: DONT PLAY/INTERACT WITH RANDOMS. Just search a small community/guild/forum/discord server that has a beginner section and start from there, if that group is toxic just leave them and try another one. It will make any game a lot more enjoyable.

  19. 46 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

    As you know, most multiplayer communities are rife with toxic players, cheaters, and just plain the ugly side of human behavior. Then there are the kicks and/or bans for breaking stupid crap "community" rules. (Rocket League head-on deadlock for example) or just not being good enough or small mistakes. That's what most people think about when thinking about multiplayer and don't want to deal with it. (Most fps, mmo games)

    Then of course, there's a ton of people who don't like playing with randos. That will also kill the want for multiplayer for people who are the only person in their group of friends that plays the game. 

    My personal reasons for disliking public multiplayer is I can't stand the toxic behavior and language. With my friends, I'm not chatty and usually doing my own thing. So why play multiplayer?

    In case you missed it:

    4 hours ago, Master39 said:

    When "Multiplayer" became a term uniquely limited to MMOs or games with matchmaking and random people?

    It's not like "normal" multiplayer games are unpopular or niche, what you describe is exactly how the multiplayer for Minecraft mostly* works, you know, the best selling game of all times.


    * Yes I know there are massively populated Minecraft servers in which you play with randos, I used to manage one, but that's not the most popular multiplayer gamemode. Private, small, servers and shared saves between friends are (Otherwise the main paid multiplayer mode wouldn't be Realms, which is exactly that, small private servers for friends)

    KSP is not going to be a multiplayer game like the ones you have been traumatized from, so why even worry? It's the term itself? Would it be better if we called it a "coop" game instead?

    BTW What you describe applies to most of the internet, and by most standards the rules of this forum are quite draconian (Not that I disagree with them).

  20. 23 minutes ago, Ferio said:

    Not so much looking forward to multiplayer as it won't be multiplayer as we know it from other games, where you can just free roam and encounter many other players. It will a game where you start together in a lobby and invite up to about 3 to 5 other players (such as ANNO 1800) with a save game option and one agency together or maybe several agencies where each person controls one. Which doesn't really work with strangers, since the game consumes so much time that you really need to play with friends, as you will use that save to continue.

    That's just a description of how multiplayer works in probably half of the games out there.

    When "Multiplayer" became a term uniquely limited to MMOs or games with matchmaking and random people?

    It's not like "normal" multiplayer games are unpopular or niche, what you describe is exactly how the multiplayer for Minecraft mostly* works, you know, the best selling game of all times.


    * Yes I know there are massively populated Minecraft servers in which you play with randos, I used to manage one, but that's not the most popular multiplayer gamemode. Private, small, servers and shared saves between friends are (Otherwise the main paid multiplayer mode wouldn't be Realms, which is exactly that, small private servers for friends).

  21. The more multiplayer topics I read on this forum the sadder I get for the kind of experiences that must have traumatized the KSP community to get to this level of apprehension towards multiplayer.


    6 minutes ago, TLTay said:

    It's one thing for a friend to buy "shooter version 23.4 from MegaCorp" to play with their friends (they play that kind of thing already), it's quite another for them to buy "semi-realistic rocketry program with intensive learning curve" because that one friend with tape on their glasses plays it.

    KSP may be difficult on a conceptual level, yes you have to learn orbital mechanics, they're not easy.

    But as a game is not harder than Modded Factorio or Minecraft, or strategy games like Stellaris, and flying may be a hard skill to learn, but it's not any harder than landing headshots in an FPS, learning how to position yourself as a tank in an hero shooter or driving in a race game.


    17 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

    I don’t think multiplayer will be as fun as people think it will.. once everyone has had some sort of air or ground battle in and around the KSC, performance permitting it will get stale real fast. 
     Although building world bases together in a persistent server could be fun I guess. 

    What it is that makes it get stale faster than Minecraft or Factorio?


    I think we're all missing a whole category of players, I have 230 hours on Factorio, not a lot compared to other more dedicated players, but enough to count as more than the playtime I have on most AAA games. I never finished a single run in single player, I'm simply not interested in doing so. For me Factorio is a multiplayer game and every so often I start a new run with the same friends I've always played it with for the past few years.

    I bet there's plenty of people not interested in single player runs, but that will jump to the game as soon as they can build something together, maybe with that friend of them constantly talking about Kerbal. I know at least a few. 

  22. 1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

    Specs weren't posted, but here's a  claimed 1300 part vessel with FPS in the corner. Playable? 10 till 19 frames per second. 

    Don't think KSP1 did better? 

    Good example, now weld all those struts together, you save half the parts and lose none of the creativity, add orbital construction to the equation and you also remove all the parts needed to launch it from the ground (I get what the challenge here is, I'm just pointing out that high part counts are not strictly required for that kind of gameplay)


  23. 3 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

    Including how people seemed to try to lower/raise expectations for the game based entirely on which version of events is most in favor of Intercept's current state. 

    I linked a post of mine made in 2020 in which I was talking about "mosaics of MK3 spaceplane parts" already, that has always been my stance on the matter.

    There's a serious discussion to be had here on parts counts and bigger parts, about what end of the spectrum hampers creativity more.

    You brought up Lego, in the Lego AFOL community I've seen a certain diregard for the creativity needed to build somethin past a certain scale, it's difficult to convey a specific type of car at minifig scale than it is when you make it half a meter long, at some point it just becomes a matter of how much money you can spend for a certain build, or, back to KSP, how much performance you can throw at the ship.

    I'm pretty sure that building a 1:1 replica of the Rocinante out of Oscar B fuel tanks is going to result in a ton of custom made tiny details, but also be unplayable in both KSP 1 and 2.

    But the argument wasn't about that, it was specifically about the truss segments and solar panels.

    We already know that the Devs went with bigger parts, that engine is a single part, and they've showed it back in 2019, I was merely talking about welding together truss segments or providing longer ones.

    I repeat my statement:

    There's no creativity lost if they give us 50m or 500m long parts instead of forcing us to line up dozens of 5m ones.



  24. 15 hours ago, Alexoff said:

    Yes, I got it. But should consumers be counting the details in this station and the docked interstellar spacecraft fueled with solid hydrogen? For example, no one told us that this size of the station would be the limit for the game, or rather, such a number of parts. To tell after the release of the game that it was the fans themselves who fantasized about high performance is a dubious thought.

    I don't think if the game will ever be able to sustain a 1000 parts launch from Kerbin, still, due to a number of choices of game design, I'm more than convinced that such stations and ships as the one shown in that footage are more than possible.

    Again, the station is half of the 1000 parts target, the Devs clearly claimed that bigger rockets should not be wobbly, meaning less things to simulate at that size, bigger parts will reduce the need for spam of smaller ones too, further reducing part counts, and, finally, orbital VABs and delivery routes means you can build stuff directly in orbit, removing hundreds of parts of launch veichles from the equation. 

    All of that points towards a game in which ships and colonies as big as the one shown will be possible well within KSP-1 parts count limits, even disregarding potential future optimization of KSP-2 code.



    15 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

    Anyway, the solution of just making all the parts bigger isn't a good one.  I don't buy a Legos to I have 3 pre built pieces to stick together in a pre-defined fashion.  More parts offer the possibility of more creativity, less parts means less creativity, its as simple as that. 

    That only works in your over-generalizarion.

    As if most 1000+ ships weren't actually almost entirely made out of 3 or 4 different MK3 fuselages (admittedly we evolved a bit part that, now we can include fairings and flags too, so what's it, 6 parts?), have you even seen the Shadowzone bit you pointed me to in your last reply?

    Wasn't everyone happy about procedural wings because they drastically reduce the parts count of planes while also increasing the creativity?

    And it's not a new thing I'm making up on the spot just to adere to some narrative, I've been talking about "mosaics of MK3 parts" at least since 2020, and repeatedly after that.


    15 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

    And I didn't want to have to read between the lines of every dev answer that pointed toward better physics with bigger craft as if I was listening to a politician speak and give "diplomatic" answers.  Regardless, 80% of the people answering the poll expected higher part counts with reasonable performance - whether it was because of developer-created hype or personal expectations.

    That's quite far away from they've promised us 1000+ parts ships" and, again, I'm not even claiming they've not said it


  25. 1 hour ago, regex said:

    We can cut it all out if we treat it like a single colony structure, which appears to be what they'll be doing according to Nate. That orbital station is now one big part (essentially). So in-frame we've got 100, maybe 200 parts at most, in orbit around Jool, with only Jool visible. Of course it's going to run really smooth.

    That may hamper the ability to use colony parts in normal crafts, but yes, I imagine having a difference of some sort between crafts and buildings would simplify things a lot.

    And there's also the matter of what Nate said recently about wobbly rockets, ships and stations that size aren't supposed to wobble at all, which is a great source of optimization if you just weld them together.

  • Create New...