Search the Community

Yeah, that is a fair take. I hate to indulge in the inevitable drama that results from this kind of ambiguous silly analogy, honestly, but regardless of what he meant, it still feels to me like that's what we're expected to do: Deal with what we have now, because sometime maybe eventually in the future things will be better. And I acknowledge the irony of saying this in the wake of a video where they specifically talk about short term solutions, but... I mean, why would we need to talk about short term solutions? I don't feel the damage they could cause would be outweighed by the sentiment of neglect that I feel has grown, at least in my own experience

I'm loving the dev chat format! More of this! And I love hearing engineers talk about the nuts and bolts of the issue! That being said, I'm not sure what we learned that we didn't already know. We already knew it was a complex issue and that different solutions have pros and cons. Couldn't that be said about literally every choice made during development? Nate's follow-up post is encouraging but, yet again, it's a case of telling us rather than showing us. It's good to know, though, that many solutions are presumably being explored deeply, and I'm excited to see what the ultimate one chosen is!

Just my 5 cent, but showing that tool with a bit of explaining text and a few pictures would likely be much more informative than this talk was, which just repeated points that were made in the past. And it would be a more convincing demonstration that there is progress and not just talk - the issue with these talks is that people (rightfully or not, different discussion) feel that past communication hasn't bee reliable.

Feel free to talk about the License agreement, how it applies to the industry, etc etc. But as soon as we start trying to apply it to any one jurisdiction, people get confused and arguments arise. To avoid any needless bickering over topics the vast majority of us have no official training in, please don't give legal advice. Some more content has been removed.

why do you assume that's not what they're going to do? They've been investigating this for a while, so there's definitely a good chance that they've come up with some short and long term solutions that they want to address. Also, wobbliness is what's been the community's biggest issue so far, the fact that they're talking about it makes it communication. The community broadcasted it's concerns about this, and they heard it, and will address it. that's the 2-way you're talking about. or do you want them to hold your hand and bring you on the talk so you can express the same things everyone else has over and over again? let's see tomorrow after the talk if they've discussed possible solutions or not.

Communication is two-way. Sticking your fingers in your ears and announcing “a talk about wobbly rockets” (a talk, not a discussion, not addressing it, not discussing possible solutions — and they are masters in picking their words when it comes to this) without any regards for what has the most attention right now isn’t communicating. It’s broadcasting with a bull horn and showing no interest in what goes on in the community.

One thing EA has taught me is that Intercept's PR is exceptionally well versed in saying something that sounds like something else. Afterwards you can't really say "you promised x" because they never actually said that. Yes, that's toxic and creates distrust from your customers in the long run and here we are. Maybe I'm overly negative but I didn't see words like "address" or "solution" on the announcement. We do have announcements about timelines of when they will announce the timeline of bug fixes. This one isn't even that. It's just a talk.

I am reminded of 2 things that happened during KSP1. First, they announced that they were going to have Kerbal Experience affect things like ISP, which makes sense from an RPG perspective but KSP isn't really an RPG so it's understandable to not like it, but "the community" went above and beyond not liking it. The uproar over it was akin to a revolution. I really think people would have stopped playing if it had ever happened. There were warnings that next we'd be equipping Jeb with "Boots of ISP" or "The Ancient Space Helmet Of Landing" or something. Squad changed their minds because of this and ended up putting a different Kerbal XP system in the game which is fine I guess. Second, years later, they worked in silence on a feature we didn't even know was coming. And then one day, that feature dropped, with no warning or explanation. That feature was Ground Based Experiments. Cool! New things to do! We have a reason to send Kerbals somewhere and - even better -reasons to send DIFFERENT TYPES of Kerbals somewhere! Because as we all know engineers placing power generators makes them generate more power, and an experienced engineer can make it generate a LOT more power. Similarly, experienced scientists can cause an experiment to generate more science over time! Also, no more worrying about electric charge. One solar panel can power 1 thing. Unless an engineer does it then it's 2 things. A good engineer can power 3 things with 1 solar panel. To the best of my knowledge, no one has complained about how ridiculously unrealistic this is. How exactly does Bill get 3 times more power out of a solar panel? And why does that solar panel produce the same power on Eeloo that it does on Moho? Imagine if they had announced that first. With no ability to play with it and realize that - in fact - it didn't matter one bit how reasonable or realistic it was because the system generated interesting gameplay options which is what we actually wanted all along, people would have FREAKED OUT. Boots of ISP? What about Gloves of Solar Attenuation? Anyway, I'm continuously surprised that the developers keep trying to talk to us even though every time they do someone slaps them across the face. I'm no longer surprised, though, when they do get slapped across the face.

Sad part is the admin likely wont do squat. When I was in 6th grade many years back, I was sitting in my spot on the gym floor waiting for coach to call roll. This giant of a kid walks up to me and kicked me in my left side like i was a football and he was trying for a 90 yard field goal. When I finally could breathe again and stand let alone talk I went to coach and told him what happened. He was in charge of and responsible for our safety and his EXACT response? “What did you do to deserve that?” I had just been ASSAULTED and the coach didnt care. I dont know what if anything else happened after i told my mom. I know she told the admin but i saw no change at the school on my end. 135609262023

Considering that’s a steam thing and not a ksp thing, you should go talk to them.

Fair enough. If we want support from the layman, we need to make them a bit less layman! Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, I looked for someone (way better English fluent than me) that had done it nicely. And I not only found one, but it talks explicitly about how the Source Game can help gaming! The importance of having access to KSP¹'s source code was already discussed ad nauseam on this thread, I suggest to read this bunch o links to have a thoughtful explanation - you may want to read some other posts of mine too. But, in a nutshell, having access to the Source Code is essentially why we have Internet nowadays - the whole TCP/IP stack (the thingy that allows computers to talk to each other on this big network we call Internet) is Open Source, and it's the reason that everything including the kitchen's sink (LITERALLY) can talk to Internet - as there's no need to rewrite it from scratch for every new device (or pay someone to do it), what would drive the costs to the stratosphere. That said, not everything need to be Open Source in order to succeed. Most games are an example of that. But sometimes, some games get relevant enough to demand a higher level of support that perhaps may not be under the reach of the publisher! Some people may be willing to port the thingy into ARM processors, some other may want to run it on RISC-V dev boards, perhaps a new lightweight, energy efficient and powerful (but pretty expensive) tablet is being launched somewhere in the World and NASA would love to have it on the Space Station running KSP. It would not be feasible economically to KSP's publisher to spend all that money themselves, neither reasonable they start to charge people that run KSP on PCs to fund such development. If KSP¹'s source code would be available, interested people (as NASA engineers) would be able to do the port themselves using their free time. Now we need to talk about something else: what Source Code is not. As it was said above, having access to the Source Code is not the same as being able to relaunch a version of the Game yourself and make some bucks from it. Images, characters, lore, sounds, animations, missions, all of this is also Intelectual Property, and they are not part of the Source Code. So, unless KSP¹'s published decides to release everything as Public Domain (as did by the Fables author!), you may recompile the thing, and (depending of the license) perhaps redistribute the compiled code to whoever may want it- but not the rest of the game. The dude that would download that code would need to buy KSP¹ the same (if not had done it already), because the compiled code by itself is not enough to play the game. Being pragmatic, the real need for the KSP¹'s source code is to fix the bugs. For years KSP¹ is being plagued by bugs that were not fixed - or were poorly fixed, leading to yet more bugs). Obviously, such bugs are not going to be properly fixed anymore now that the KSP¹'s development cycle is finished. Having access to this Source Code will allow us, Authors, to be able to properly fix or work around these bugs without creating new ones, because we will be able to check on the Source Code (and by debugging sessions) exactly what's happening under the bonnet, and so be able to do something about. (I will not discuss, again, about shaddy ways to get access to that Source Code and that's being already exploited on the wild - we aim to be EULA and Forum compliant on this task, some of us are professionals where it's unethical to do such things, as it may affect negatively our careers). Completely unrelated to KSP¹ but affecting it, recently Unity Technologies decided to go the Racketeer way and virtually almost killed their game scene. It was really that bad, and perhaps will keep being that way. The Worst didn't happened (yet?), but if things had really gone down trough the tubes, having access to KSP¹'s source code would improve the chances of having it ported to something else by the Community (porting things is where Open Source guys really shine). On the other hand, if KSP¹ were made using an already Open Source engine like Godot (or anything else that could suit them better), all that drama would just not affect them - because it's plain impossible to go rogue on the customers that are using Open Source themselves. One can withdraw support for the object of the contract, but can't prevent someone else from offering a replacement contract (see the last Red Hat drama). — — — I have noticed that someone (I forgot who, sorry!) is using my Banner on their Signature: But just miniaturising the image made it ugly due the white text being illegible and screwing the aesthetics. So I rendered a new one, without the white text, in a small "form factor": Whoever you are (and everybody else), fell free to use it instead! Cheers!

Signed Contracts can't be changed, but Terms of Service can. If you have a contract with Unity, check it. It will tell you that the Terms of Service can change - as well the licensing terms. EULAs, on the other hand, can change - and they are contracts the same - ergo, some contracts can change. Microsoft is doing it for years. Hell, Android is doing it for years - just updated my phone that I paid in full and I had to agree with the new ToS. "Just don't update it, so" someone could propose - but them I can't install and use the productivity apps I need to carry on my work (as a freaking 2FA for github, or even my new banking). Don't think you are safe from this - the only novelty on this crap is that, now, Software Publishers are being bitten in the SAS the same way their users were being for years. This will hardly reach the tribunals because a lot of big players are (ab)using this on their business (see my last paragraph). So any attempt to pursue legal action on the matter will A public gaslighting campaign, and perhaps a character assassination one. That failing, some serious retaliations. The dude/small company surviving the retaliations, an agreement will be signed solving the issue punctually (as well as a NDA preventing the agreement from being disclosed). If and only the agreement is not accepted (but usually the money is too good to let it go) things will reach a Court of Law Where some really serious money will be spent for years. IMHO, you will have about 12 months of tranquility. They will try something again unless they managed to stop bleeding money. Keep in mind: they desperately need lots of money, and they have little to no hope of getting it from expanding the customer base (I can't imagine why… ). So they will be forced to squeeze the current user base instead. They didn't retreated - they just did a step back to earn time and do two steps forwards later. They don't have a choice, to tell you the true. Not the CEO, I can guarantee you. He may be a scumbag, but he's a seasoned one - he knows better. The next obvious suspects are the BoD. Talk to a Psychologist about pathological personality disorders, then attend to some PMI (or similar) classes, then tank to the Psychologist again about what did you learnt from how to… well… do Management. Of course I'm not implying that every Manager is a sociopath - but every manager need to act like one now and then. When they enjoy what they are doing, things get hairy.

As much as project managers really, really, really wish it was the case, sheer developer hours sat in front of a problem doesn't come anywhere close to linear correlation to actual productivity. Its also unlikely the daily scrums are hour long beasts, in all my experience its more like 15 minutes, with the occasional longer one for proper backlog grooming. When it comes to trying to project manage bugfixes specifically, its pretty much all bets off trying to actually predict anything. At any point, for absolutely no discernable reason, a developer can have a brain flash and suddenly find the problem. Other times, they spend a week painstakingly iterating through every step of every point in the process a dozen times over, only to later find out that they were accidentally 'fixing' the very issue they were hunting due to some bizarre specific criteria to reproduce the bug that they just never knew to try. As far as the whole instigating communication question of this thread? I'm really not sure what they can do. The root cause of the lack of communication is painstakingly clear - They just don't have anything to say, that's a good idea to say right now. That's not because they aren't doing anything, but because of the specific predicament they're in right now. The core guts of the game are in bad shape, and the timelines for the major updates have been unsatisfactory to the general community. You can't really provide effective frequent communication on bugfixes if the bugs aren't getting fixed - You'd put out regular "Yea still looking" messages then suddenly "whoop its done here's a hotfix", not really anything of substance to speak of between the two. On the major update space, the bad state of core guts means a lot of people take any major talk about the upcoming features as smoke screens, or misallocations of resources, etc - I don't want to hear about the new toys when my current ones fall outta the sky. And any early communication about the next major milestone also risks delivering unrealistic expectations. People will see X features complete, and some will fabricate connective features wholecloth in their mind, setting themselves up for disappointment. Some will use the feature list to predict delivery windows, which often end up circulating in the community as fact rather than expectations, setting up for disappointment. And its also risky to show off things that might not end up making the final or first cut - The last thing you want is to show off a bunch of really cool, fully fleshed out features that don't get delivered right away, especially with community trust being in the state it is currently. On top of all of that, the longer this state of affairs goes, the worse it will get. People want communication because they feel that things are not getting done in a timely manner and want answers. But there are no answers or timely solutions to software bugs, that sort of work is very much an artform. The long term solution really is "The game needs to be stable".

What is there to talk about that hasn't already been said? There's nothing new in KSP2 and hardy anyone is playing it. There isn't even anything from the devs to discuss.

Which place is better? Just don’t talk about the great goals of the developers; today, where can I see, touch and check this better simulation?

I have this coworker who has a few roles because we're a small firm and part of it is IT and and he really seems to relish in loudly berating tech support folks who are trying to help him, to little effect. Everyone else in the office has to have real conversations about actual business while rolling our eyes at the stream of expletives from the other room. Sidebar: One time I had a Macbook that was 3 years and 2 weeks old, but Apple had (possibly deliberately) failed to notify older owners that laptops have a humidity problem that in the end compromises monitors and the motherboard. It took a couple of weeks of calling, but eventually I was able--with determined, polite conversations with tech support, to have the recall covered under Applecare. Im sure there's a macro-strategy of waging a social media campaign against a particular company which might raise the heat enough to make its way into an actual upper-management meeting. Maybe Im more cynical than some imagine but I don't think they much care. At that level your [complaints] about bugs and communication is weighed against investor demands and you will absolutely lose. There's a famous scene in the life-lesson that is The Wire wherein Bunny Colvin declares: “Middle management means that you got just enough responsibility to listen when people talk, but not so much you can't tell anybody to go [snip] themselves.” For those of you using fellow forum members as a prop in a theatrical pressure campaign against a subsidiary of a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation this is who you actually want to direct your attention to. Please don't waste your time bickering with hopeful fans. We have our own campaign: to as best we can accurately and conceptually convey to the actual makers of this game what real meaning, quality, and value translates to in concrete deliverable terms in the context of KSP.

Good thing my complaints encompass a lot of statements and content posted for about 4 years and not this one time I was almost wrong. You're doing exactly what Razark is doing below here, which is ignoring the dates of the few ones I quoted: 2 out of 6 messages I found on this forum alone, are from before Dakota's clarification that it was gonna be just two hotfixes. People were expecting more than 2 hotfixes. In fact I'll gladly bet all in that most laymen back then expected this to mean the start of rapidly deployed hotfixes as a concurrent practice, and not just 2 "hot" fixes spaced almost a month from the update they were fixing. Dakota's clarification and not Nate's post is an example of how to properly communicate when looking to create and then manage expectations. I'm totally on board with that, though I'd prefer it if had been Nate's post without the need for clarifications. Asterisks like those have been a consistent theme sadly. This is you assuming their work pace and productivity. I'm sure if you told anyone outside this forum or the discord that they're almost crunching to produce the current volume of content, you'd be laughed out of the internet. Sadly, lack of communication is to blame again, as they really haven't shown any other bar of their productive capacity other than delaying a product 3 years and not being able to produce a roadmap feature for at least 7 months. The "5 years ago" thing is brought up constantly because people seem to forget when development started, constantly, or talk about credibility whilst gladly ignoring that. No, looking away from it will not make it go away. [snip] Maybe if people stopped constructing arguments from erroneous facts [snip] then people would stop bringing those things up. You talk as if deadlines and spec sheets are things of the devil. Which is funny considering we now have the design specs for heating thanks to Nertea, but Science being much closer allegedly hasn't been talked about past a part and a screenshot of what could easily be a KSP1 copypaste in KSP2's UI.

I think there's a difference between trying to build up hype, and talking about new features they have already finished creating. Talking up hype would be like interviews and content before EA release, where they went on at length about how KSP2 was going to outperform KSP1, and just generally be better in just about every way. The kind of talk I would like to see, might be for example, even one screenshot or short video of something not analogous to a system we've used before. And we've gotten some of that for sure, it's just that it feels to me like it simply gets moshed in with generic screenshots of assets that don't tell us anything we don't already anticipate. Instead maybe these newer features could be put front and center where a little bit of further explanation can be given about their specific context. I'm just trying to run ideas out, honestly. They've said they want to improve communications, and I'm trying to help brainstorm how that can happen. Because I hate to see that they're stuck with the same feeling that they know they have to improve communications even though, between the two statements they've made on the matter, they definitely have TRIED to do so

I think what people want to see more, is how NEW systems are going to work. We already knew science would have parts, we already knew it'd have... some kind of mission control system? Or rather, we knew science would have some kind UI from the KSC to manage it. I don't think we knew there would be cranes, but on the topic of communication... what's the context behind some of the images like that? Will we use that for building assembly? Or is it just a backdrop piece? If it's just a backdrop, why drop it along a supposed display of new features without explaining at all What we've yet to see, is much of anything about systems that we have not played an analogue of before. Stuff that KSP2 science will do, for example, that KSP1 science never did. There's been a bit of talk about that, but no show unfortunately.

I want to do what I can, to give them feedback that might help them make a better KSP2, because I hope that one day the game might approach the heights they've laid out a plan for. I won't ignore the incongruity of the things they've hyped up versus what they've produced, so my practical expectations are not high. What can be done to match hopes with expectations? Since most talk is discarded out of hand, what talk do we feel would be appreciated? I for one would love to hear some reasoning behind their very specific 'Fridays are communication days' kinda idea. I get that they want to have a regular predictable report, but it becomes a pain point when some Fridays pass and there's no word on what progress was made, for example, that very week. Just as an example. Trying to get the ball rolling on that train of thought

the thing i was trying to point out is the lack of "real" talk of science, showing us one model (the gif) that had ALOT of people interested in... may... 4 months down the line to see another model, from reentry alongside mission control WIP, in a 7 month span, most people lose interest in it when people expected to be "alongside" the development.. Like, I'm going keep screaming at the top of my longs, look at Twitter user dedaPong.. He is Co-Founder / Creative Director at Gamepires, and is pretty much in "charge" of a game called SCUM. This guy "leaks" as much as you can without just giving out pure dev clients stays talking to his community, leaks things that are months/weeks out, asks the community questions about how the game should be developed, or what can we do to fix it if there is a huge issue, even when there is something wrong, he is there. Now, don't get me wrong this game has had issues in this game, but the sheer amount of work leaks and user engagement is on another level, and when there is nothing, well it does go silent.. KSP 2 has been different in kind words for a game that had a rough start, and a rough post launch 30 days +... Even in bad "little to no payoff" he still posts. idk, just offtopic.

Oh this bad community! They constantly write about the problems of the game and the poor work of the developers (including their PR department), why don’t they talk about the merits of the game in a variety of ways with good arguments! Or fantasize about the fact that there is a magnificent game hidden somewhere in a closet that is being hidden from us

As a professional Community Manager with nearly a decade behind me, it was my Job, to talk to the community. It was what I was paid for, that meant taking all the abuse that was hurled at me. The death threats, the people yelling and screaming at me telling mw that I was the worst thing to walk the earth, and listening to people hurl insults at my co-workers who I knew for a fact were working as hard as they could. I started this thread because I was and still am disappointed with the pacing of communication and I do personally feel that the community deserves more communication, of a higher quality, but the main issue is that takes time, energy, and resources away from dev ops, (if you want comms from the dev team) which as CM's, we are not. We're not in the editor making the game (some of us might know it well enough thanks to being taught by our team so we can answer questions) but it's not our job. Our job is to be out here with you all so the team can focus and work. Those people in dev ops, DO NOT owe you anything, but going in to work and doing their jobs giving their best and making the best quality game they can. It's up to the CM's to relay what they're doing to the Community and senior leadership like Nate. Any "Beef" should always be directed at people like me, the forward facing Community and Media Relations People, the PR people, and Leadership. Never the rank and file dev-ops person coming in to work today to work on some models, textures, sounds, animations, what have you. Even then, keeping your disappointment directed, reserved, and polite is possible while still getting across how disappointed and upset you are. Which, again, you're allowed to be...no one has ever said and will ever say that you're "not allowed" to be disappointed with the state of the game, the state of communication, or be worried about future updates and content. You have that right as a consumer who spent their own hard earned money on this product. We're simply saying, you can get all that across without being toxic and abusive (not that I am accusing of being either of those things, please don't take it that way.) In short, to end my rambling, be vocal, outspoken, and yes, demand better, ask for answers, etc, but do so realizing these are still human beings that make mistakes, and don't just stop being human beings because they sold you a product, good, or service.

To use your analogy though typically folks who get served a bad meal send it back, talk to the waitress about it, or if its really bad maybe they leave a nasty review. They don’t typically return to the same restaurant day after day for months on end to harangue other costumers about it. That would be seen as a bit weird.

I've been pretty vocal regarding science mode. I'm willing to give him (Chris) the benefit of doubt on the responses as I've got no reason to assume he is being disingenuous. I'd love to think a lot of people here are in the exact same place, I don't think *most* people in the forum want to see the game fail (although I question a few if I'm honest). So where do we go from here? Well, we do all we can do, talk amongst ourselves and wait. Wait to see what 0.1.5 brings and wait for @Nertea Dev Blog regarding science is released. I mean if one of the lead developers can see the benefit of doing that, then I think as a community we to listen. Maybe some really interesting stuff is buried in whatever form that takes. I'd be more than willing to listen provided that some tangible information as to what is going to be going on in science is shared. I can't believe at this point that science isn't a finalised thing, just going through the later stages of its inception. As soon as science and progression drop, the game changes and takes an immediate step forward so I can't imagine it isn't high on the list of things to do.