Search the Community

social networking (not media) was a good idea. myspace was superior to facebook in every conceivable way, you could personalize your page, you could talk to people in your own town, you could meet new people. i got dates, nsas, discovered local bands. the site monetized itself only as much as it needed to exist. facebook in comparison is a sterile dumping ground for ideological propaganda and an engine for divisiveness. you dont meet new people, no, they demand you pony up your contacts and force feed you spam while you wait for friend requests and likes. it does the exact opposite of what myspace did and made it too corporate to boot. i only have a facebook to use my vr headset, i have 3 people who asked to be my friends and never said another word, it wouldn't be so bad, but i know two of them personally. i guess you are supposed to communicate by posting memes and ideology and it sorts you to your designated echo chamber. other platforms ive not really used. its just not worth it. i think i have a reddit that i dont use, dont have twitter, idk if youtube counts but i mostly watch it as a tv alternative. tik tok is pure narcissism and i avoid it like the plague. especially the phone screen format. i remember when they came out with the hdtv standards and proclaimed a 16:9 display optimal for human vision, so it really pains me to see people using screens the wrong way around. dont much like youtube's copycatting either. of course when humans are given multiple options for what to use, they always pick the worst one (qwerty, bluetooth, touchscreens, discord). tech companies are the worst. much of the products offered are last decade's features with this decade's bovine excrement. marketing solutions to long solved problems. oh and you need an account, a pc, and a smart phone and sign away all your personal data to use the service. even if you pony up you are still the product. a decade prior you go to a store pick the product off the shelf and pay anonymously with cash, no accounts on external servers. i really miss those days.

Yeah hard to talk about this without digging into the P word. Im just looking at total system efficiency and how the question 'who's paying?' affects what does and doesn't happen and who the real beneficiaries end up being.

Hey, if we wanna talk market share, whatever they're doing now has like 20% of the market of the previous game.

Really? I seem to recall that this was in Nate's "I'd love to do that but" bin. Do you have a source? Have any mechanics related to them been confirmed? Same thing here? I don't mean to rain on your parade but it does seem to me that you're drawing rather large inferences from a few things that have been confirmed -- to get from gravity rings to simulating kerbal bone strength and requiring medics is a pretty big leap! What I mean is -- it's fun to speculate about what might be in the game, or talk about stuff that you'd like to be in the game, but I think it's super important to keep the distinctions clear, otherwise you're just imagining a version of a game that'll never happen and set yourself (and anyone who gets drawn in) up for a big disappointment!

Talk about a precision landing.

10/10 just a great person to talk to also i am part of the ksp forums folklore lol

What's there to talk about? Blackrack's immense work for sure, but other than that? Yeah, there's gonna be easter eggs, and mountains. The rover doesn't seem to have anything new on it, or anything you could look at and say "wow they added that to the game!?!?!" The whole concept of POIs doesn't really add much to the gameplay.

Of all people, you're the one to say it Who are you and what have you done with Vl3d? This place is boiling at any sign of dev activity for the last 3 years and now there isn't much to talk about I'm speechless

Not much to talk about - it looks stunning. I'm excited for the new way Kerbol is rendered.

Nah, you just can't find a sample that agrees with your view and thus are ready to think everyone else is just a groupthink. Again, the subreddit has 1.5 million followers. If you wanna assume they're a hivemind and not viable as a sample because reasons when they represent almost 30% of the entire market share this game has the hope of achieving, then there's nothing to talk about, you're not interested in representativeness, just pushing a point that's completely not based on reality. It's an option, you're not forced to skip the entire system. Meanwhile KSP2 skips the whole system for you.

I know the feeling Sometimes you've just gotta go out on a limb and out of the comfort bubble and make a friend or two! That's what I did and I've got folks to talk to in every one of my 6 classes. In any eventuality, I'm glad that the forums can provide some solace and relief

Well, the devblog has it right there, so you can compare the intricate system in KSP1, which worked to take into account the transfer between parts, and thus by nature the distance to heat dissipating parts, and also naturally by that simulation you'd have gradual buildup of unattended excess heat. Now literally nothing of that is taken into account. Also, re-entry is a single situation, and at the level of the simulated system it's just another heat intake point. Well, in my ideal world a sequel would present an evolution on most systems, otherwise what's the point? Also, whilst new features are really nice, Colonies and Interstellar have been done by mods, so they'll get compared to that when those arrive. As far as we know, they haven't even bothered solving the sequential vs simultaneous dilemma for interstellar missions (which we know includes timewarping at least decades). Drop the ball is the name of the game for now. Your biggest mistake is thinking prospective customers and refunders are not important, so let's rectify that: prospective buyers are the majority, even if you consider only the people who've bought KSP1 (5 million, vs not even 1 million who own KSP2 currently) as the only target demographic. This demographic limit we'll put in place so that we don't assume prospective buyers are infinite. Now, to conceptualize why the power of prospective buyers on the product is clearly enormous right now, consider the following: Both Lisias and my metaphor are equivalent. The people who will potentially purchase the game are the ones who have the most pull right now, the bosses in my metaphor, the mechanic's client in Lisias'. Why? because what they want in exchange for the game, is those people's money. Now, at this point a lot of people are surely crying "entitlement", but that's how capitalism works, and that's why customer integration has become so mainstream on almost every process, at a level or another. In fact, as further proof of this argument, again consider this: The people that already gave PD the money? In the eyes of PD they're completely worthless past their continued testing of the game and bug reports they may make. I'll rely on your job as a moderator to know this very well, as you know the people that were mad at the 20% discount were the ones who'd already paid, and the people who were mad that Nate "came down" (because they couldn't say it without being despective) to talk to refunders and the people "mocking him and his product instead of those supporting him" were the ones who'd already paid.

I think the thermal system is a good example of why they shouldn’t talk about their systems. The “it’s a downgrade” meme has already caught on, without any of us having seen how much difference removing heat transfer between parts actually makes in practice. (My guess: not a whole lot.) (I also think it’s a classic case of a trade-off: simplifying the system made it a lot less computationally expensive, which makes it possible to simulate thermals for all craft and colonies whether focused or not, which makes it possible to support entirely new user stories — like heat management for a base that’s shadowed by a crater rim a part of the time. Dismissing it out of hand as a downgrade is clearly premature.)

Exactly. We see parts and screengrabs designed to send some of us on deep dives and drive speculative discussions. We get the odd little hint, but overall no spoilers. Some of the older dev diaries did good deep dives on things like calculating orbits, but we haven’t had that level of peek under the hood in some time. So what would be insightful? A bit more technical depth on what they’ve got planned (remember the talk around metallic hydrogen a few years back?), perhaps. Some more transparency on how the foundational work is driving progress on the milestones, maybe. Info that might stifle some of the wilder-eyed speculation - if we’d had better comms around the roadmap and how they were planning on delivering it this place might have been more liveable. Look at how much better things have become since they announced For Science!.

I like Corsair. @Nukecan talk more about the 'flavors' of PSUs. He's got higher standards than I do.

That actually defines the bug. There were variants (or perhaps differing ways of explaining the same phenomena) but essentially, you get a craft into orbit (know that it has a set PE and AP both in space) then go do something else. When you return to the ship now you discover there is no orbit and you're on a steep dive to the planetary body. IIRC there was some talk about this occurring whenever said orbit was below a certain altitude (a generous one; like 50km for Minmus or something). Needless to say, it was widely reported and bemoaned months ago.

I think we (as a community) need to get off that "Four years!" thing. It is very obvious (at least to me) that the game that was advertised by Star Theory is a very different thing than was chosen by IG to be developed. This mismatch of expectations is likely EXACTLY why the transition was made. Sure, it would be great to hear some honest explanation - but they likely, legally, cannot talk about it. So when we gripe about 2020 - I think we're being both unfair and unrealistic. ... Having said that, I do think a LOT of the criticism about EA is both valid and necessary. We (players) are getting rolled by an industry 'standard' that seems disingenuous. Older players remember that going "Gold" meant a largely bug-free game and paying full price was worth it. Now, going "EA" apparently means different things to players and developers. We expect a largely functional product, maybe with a few bugs and lacking some features. We DO NOT expect an Alpha experience that we have to pay for - especially when the price to play is effectively 'Full Price'. The developers apparently disagree. (Note: this observation is not limited to IG... it's happening across the industry). I do look forward to "For Science!". I may wait until the first post Science bug patch to play again... or I might load it up just to see what's changed. Still don't know. My tolerance for disappointment has diminished greatly.

I haven’t had a chance to watch Matt Lownes interview yet but I fully agree the space creator presentation was worth a watch and very appreciated. There have been some toxic comments for sure, but I really appreciated the admittance that the trust breakdown came from the discrepancy of promised features and the current state. Some comments from IG made it seem (unintentionally I’m sure) like they thought the negative views some had for the game were unreasonable. Acknowledging that they were not unreasonable and how they (unintentionally) contributed to those views being formed was very appreciated. Pairing that with delivering a date for content being added was wonderful news. Now I’m still going to wait for the release for final judgement, but if science is performant and low on bugs I’ll be very happy and ready to edit my steam review and start enjoying the game. Because, as I’m glad they clearly see, the majority of negative feedback came from the lack of progress. Fix that, and you’ll see, I believe, a majority come around. And then they can talk as much or as little as they want because even tho the communication occasionally led to gripes, those gripes wouldn’t exist if the game was fun. That’s the fundamental issue, not communication strategy, and when that’s fixed things will get a lot more cheery I think.

1.5 is a step in the right direction. Still, the talk is just that—talk and pretty pictures. We've seen that before and it disappointed before. I'll be overjoyed if 0.2 delivers, but I'm not hyped about it. I'll wait and see.

I have nothing against hopeful thinking, but let's talk hard facts: there are still a lot of bugs in the base game and the new systems and parts will bring their own bugs. What KSP2 needs now more than anything is polish to it's current feature set.

I get what you're saying, and it's a valid point. But! The For Science! update probably isn't just going to be adding science bits, it'll almost certainly contain bug fixes as well, and we might even get another bug fix patch before For Science! comes out (although it's unlikely, I think devs have said it's 1.5.0, then For Science!). So the bugs you talk about could be fixed in the For Science! update.

It's not about nostalgia. It's about replacing historical figures. It isn't necessary. The only reason to remove these two characters was to appeal to a vocal minority of the ksp community. The devs talk about how they want to draw in new people to play ksp and inspire future space enthusiasts but then what, we erase the questionable parts of history for those new people because a few other people complained that they didn't like looking at an ugly part of history? C'mon man. Also, anything controversial SHOULD be debated. It's how we grow. We can't always just hide our problems away.

So it should be common knowledge by now that I am one of the people who is a bit critical of where KSP2 is right now. I've made my point on that clear, and I've given my reasons why. I'm not going to dive into that; you can go find my bajillion other posts if you want to know my personal feelings on the game. No, this post is to talk about this video. That I did not watch all the way through; I got fed up after a few minutes. Let me explain. People are unhappy with KSP2. We get it. But these videos do absolutely no good; they don't further communication, but rather they just regurgitate the worst arguments against the game. The 3 major points I want to bring up from what I did watch of the video (again, I only got a few minutes in and decided my eyeballs didn't need to hurt that much): Again with the player count argument. We've beaten this to death; there is really no need to bring up that the count is low per SteamDB other than to make yourself feel better and to keep saying "But see! Nobody is playing!". The creator of the video states at one point that he needs KSP2 to succeed, primarily because if it doesn't his channel - and his income - go away. No, it seems that you are still garnering views by rehashing what we already know. If the primary reason you have a channel dedicated to KSP/KSP2 is to make money, then you may need to reconsider your employment choices. We can't all be Matt Lowne or Scott Manley. The creator literally pointed out that it took 2 years to get Science into KSP1 (version 0.22, in October 2013). I realize that, at the time, they had to come up with something brand new that hadn't been done before, whereas the devs on KSP2 have KSP1 to look at and (from what it looks like) at least partially copy. Yes, it will have been nearly 10 months since launch to get the first roadmap update into KSP2. But that's still more than a year less than what it took them to do KSP1 (and let's be honest here that it is quite a task to do modeling and texturing and animating, even if you are simply copying the mechanics of the original). I'm not proficient in Blender or Unity or whatever other software package is used to create assets, but the one time I actually tried to follow a Blender tutorial to create a simple fuel tank it took me like 5 hours. I'm a software jockey by day, so to take 5 hours to do something as simple (in my mind) of creating a cylindrical object with a very basic coat of paint/texture to me says that it will take far smarter people than I at least a little time to make all the assets necessary. All told, we don't need videos like this. We need people to sit down and take a good hard look at the game and get engaged with reporting bugs. Find something that makes the game unplayable (and I don't mean lack of features)? Go see if a report exists. If one does, upvote it and put your own post in it. If not, write a bug report. I'm trying to take that road myself instead of simply bashing the game because I'm unhappy with it. And even I need a reminder every now and then that I'm being a PITA about it and that I need to shut up for a few seconds. I'm not perfect; I'm not infallible.

This just isn’t true! For most premium games at least. Most publishers and studios I talk to who are in that space aren’t at all interested in those kinds of business models. Free to play or freemium casual/mobile games are a different story but I don’t think that’s what you had in mind?

Because "click button -> receive payout" is boring while actually doing something is fun. For that matter, putting a satellite into orbit and waiting isn't what I'd call a "mini-game", something like KSP Interstellar's seismic experiment where you have to crash something into the planet after setting up the experiment was interesting. Because it serves no purpose beyond preventing the player from doing what they should be allowed to do if they have enough delta-V. If I have enough delta-V to make it to Duna and I line up my exit maneuver at the right time and place, I should absolutely be able to make that transfer. Telling me I can't because I haven't, what, looked at the planet in greater detail even though I know its orbital parameters, and should have known those orbital parameters literally hundreds of years before my space program was even conceived, is artificial gating. I'm just repeating myself at this point. Then there's nothing left to talk about.