Couple of concerns

[Lisias]

On 8/23/2019 at 4:35 PM, Klapaucius said:

I like the milestone approach. The thinking behind it is to prevent gaming the system. They go into that a bit in this article (in case you have not already seen it) https://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-2-dev-reveals-how-baby-kerbals-are-made/  And it makes some sense. Societies don't just thrive due to the passage of time. Certain events can lead to rapid growth or rapid decline or stagnation. 

That's the point - I want to game my system, that's why sandboxes are meant to. I don't mind a milestone gaming approach, I just don't want it to myself. There's Career, Science and Sandbox modes on KSP1. I hope KSP2 have similar approaches.

 

On 8/23/2019 at 4:35 PM, Klapaucius said:

To me, the possible bigger issue is one of mission creep: will a science and physics based simulator be able to simultaneously be a social simulator? How far does it go before it becomes SimCity or Civilization in space? 

Or Total Annihilation!  Every single multiplayer game I ever spend some time suffer from this syndrome. But yet, it's not really a concern to me as long I have the option of not needing that feature for game progressing.

I don't mind having people accomplishing things in easier ways than me - I'm not a trophy collector.

hummm….  Perhaps we are guessing a yet non announced feature? Trophies?  That would be a good reason for "preventing people from gaming the system".

On 8/23/2019 at 4:40 PM, Xavven said:

When someone posts their prediction that KSP 2 will be a massive failure and they have very little factual info to back up that prediction, I'm skeptical. 

So you are talking about another guy. Or are trying to poisoning the well by inducing people to think I'm talking trash when I'm not.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Lisias
Note. It took me some years, but I finally realised they published Planetary Annihilation . My bad.

[Xavven]

5 minutes ago, Lisias said:

So you are talking about another guy. Or are trying to poisoning the well by inducing people to think I'm talking trash when I'm not.

I'm referring to the OP.

[Klapaucius]

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

That's the point - I want to game my system, that's why sandboxes are meant to. I don't mind a milestone gaming approach, I just don't want it to myself. There's Career, Science and Sandbox modes on KSP1. I hope KSP2 have similar approaches.

There is your challenge. You are not allowed to game the system in the obvious way. You need to be more clever, more sneaky, more...Kerbal.  

2 hours ago, Xavven said:

I'm referring to the OP.

I read the OPs post much differently. I did not see any indication he expected total failure. He was just posting some reasonable questions on  a few specific points about which we can reasonably speculate (but of course, cannot know the answers to for sure at this time.)

 

I realize that there are a few constantly negative folks out there on the forums who assume anything the developers do will be bad. I have little patience with those people, but I really do not think that is the case here at all.  If it was, I would have skipped this thread entirely; I cannot be bothered with countering those folks anymore. 

We're engaged in a bit of fun speculation which reflect our hopes for the new game--which of course also by definition means our concerns that they get it right . Nothing wrong with that. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Klapaucius

[Xavven]

11 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

I did not see any indication he expected total failure.

You're right, I was being hyperbolic.  OP is afraid the game will not be a worthy successor unless they push the release date back,  and that they have no idea how they want to implement multiplayer. I think drawing that conclusion is premature.

[Guest]

My biggest concern is that so far, they don't seem to be doing early access. Indeed, I haven't even seen any of them post here. Once nice thing about early KSP was that Squad communicated with the community and incorporated their ideas. You know how the thrust of a rocket engine varies with altitude? For a long time, what varied was the fuel flow. If this error wasn't pointed out by several realism-minded community memebers (myself included), they'd probably act like this to this day. Or, for that matter, anyone remember how the whole spaceplane segment of the game came about? KSP simply wouldn't be the same game without extensive community feedback. If KSP2 lacks that, I'm just not seeing it ever getting this good.

That goes double for a multiplayer game, actually. Another, though very different, realism-oriented multiplayer sandbox, ArmA3, also involved the community from the very start (once again, myself included, though I reported exclusively on the SP side), and benefited greatly from feedback. Community testing is especially important in this case, since there's no way you can set up a testing system that mimics a server with a hundred players scattered all over the world. 

It doesn't matter what release date they set if they don't start consulting the community way, way before that. Considering the standard KSP1 has set, and the hype that's already building up, if they bungle the second part at release, it might well be curtains for the series. One way to avoid that is to bungle it at pre-release, where the only people who'll be affected by that will be the ones willing to work with the devs to fix things before the actual 1.0, hopefully making the official release live up to the hype. 

[CyclonicTuna]

10 hours ago, Xavven said:

You're right, I was being hyperbolic.  OP is afraid the game will not be a worthy successor unless they push the release date back,  and that they have no idea how they want to implement multiplayer. I think drawing that conclusion is premature.

Lets agree to disagree. But if you read my full first post you'll also know I am largely optimistic about the game based on what I've seen so far. Its clear that Star Theory know how to capture the essense of what made KSP fun. 

However based on what I've not seen I think its also fair to raise few questions. I am hoping the dev's will be able to respond at some point, which is why I started the thread in the first place. 

10 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

I read the OPs post much differently. I did not see any indication he expected total failure. He was just posting some reasonable questions on  a few specific points about which we can reasonably speculate (but of course, cannot know the answers to for sure at this time.)

I realize that there are a few constantly negative folks out there on the forums who assume anything the developers do will be bad. I have little patience with those people, but I really do not think that is the case here at all.  If it was, I would have skipped this thread entirely; I cannot be bothered with countering those folks anymore. 

We're engaged in a bit of fun speculation which reflect our hopes for the new game--which of course also by definition means our concerns that they get it right . Nothing wrong with that. 

Thank you 

Edited August 24, 2019 by CyclonicTuna

[Gotmachine]

It seems very likely that the sole purpose of TakeTwo buying the rights to the KSP franchise in may 2017 was to allow the development of KSP 2 by another game studio. To quote the press release :

Quote

We view Kerbal Space Program as a new, long-term franchise that adds a well-respected and beloved IP to Take-Two’s portfolio as we continue to explore opportunities across the independent development landscape.

So it isn't too hazardous to assume that plans were already in place at the time and that KSP 2 development started shortly after, if not before that date.
With a release date of early 2020, that put the development at nearly 3 years, with a team of about 30 people currently according to the VGC interview.
KSP is a relatively large game in terms of code, but not so much in terms of assets (models, textures, sound...), so those numbers feels quite adequate to me.

Plus they obviously had access to the KSP1 source code instead of going into the lengthy process of prototyping everything from scratch. While it's likely large portions of the code are rewritten from the ground up, having access to working code (even if they do it differently) can speed up the early steps quite a bit.

[GoldForest]

4 minutes ago, Gotmachine said:

It seems very likely that the sole purpose of TakeTwo buying the rights to the KSP franchise in may 2017 was to allow the development of KSP 2 by another game studio. To quote the press release :

So it isn't too hazardous to assume that plans were already in place at the time and that KSP 2 development started shortly after, if not before that date.
With a release date of early 2020, that put the development at nearly 3 years, with a team of about 30 people currently according to the VGC interview.
KSP is a relatively large game in terms of code, but not so much in terms of assets (models, textures, sound...), so those numbers feels quite adequate to me.

Plus they obviously had access to the KSP1 source code instead of going into the lengthy process of prototyping everything from scratch. While it's likely large portions of the code are rewritten from the ground up, having access to working code (even if they do it differently) can speed up the early steps quite a bit.

They have stated that the whole game is built from the ground up. They aren't reusing old code, or rewriting the old code. They are coding it themselves. 
Of course that's not to say they won't use the same code in some minute areas, but they did state from the ground up quite clearly. 

Edited August 24, 2019 by GoldForest

[Gotmachine]

Just now, GoldForest said:

They aren't reusing old code, or rewriting the old code. They are coding it themselves. 

90% of the coding process is figuring the right way to do what you want, correcting mistakes and not obvious interactions. When you need to write a class/method that achieve a specific purpose, if you have access to some stable, well tested code (and yes, KSP 1 has that) that is doing exactly the same thing, you can save a lot of that time.

First, that will give you an insight of all the "traps" that you need need to take care of. And even if you are doing things differently because you want to get ride of some limitations that are present in KSP, looking at the code gives you an answer at how not to do it, which is usefull in itself.

And there are a lot of things of KSP (examples : orbit solver, delta-v solver...) were most of the work is understanding and figuring out the real-physics equations and turning that into an algorithm, which is obviously a lot easier if you have access to some code that is already doing it.

In the end, KSP2 is still an Unity game, it still is build upon the fundamental concept of building vessels out of parts, it still use them as rigidbodies, it still need to handle orbital mechanics and timewarp. It would be nonsense to just blindly start over without building upon the 8 years of work put in the KSP 1 code.

[GoldForest]

3 minutes ago, Gotmachine said:

90% of the coding process is figuring the right way to do what you want, correcting mistakes and not obvious interactions. When you need to write a class/method that achieve a specific purpose, if you have access to some stable, well tested code (and yes, KSP 1 has that) that is doing exactly the same thing, you can save a lot of that time.

First, that will give you an insight of all the "traps" that you need need to take care of. And even if you are doing things differently because you want to get ride of some limitations that are present in KSP, looking at the code gives you an answer at how not to do it, which is usefull in itself.

And there are a lot of things of KSP (examples : orbit solver, delta-v solver...) were most of the work is understanding and figuring out the real-physics equations and turning that into an algorithm, which is obviously a lot easier if you have access to some code that is already doing it.

In the end, KSP2 is still an Unity game, it still is build upon the fundamental concept of building vessels out of parts, it still use them as rigidbodies, it still need to handle orbital mechanics and timewarp. It would be nonsense to just blindly start over without building upon the 8 years of work put in the KSP 1 code.

Well, I understand that you can learn from the old code, and I did say they might use a minute portion of the old code, maybe update or rewrite, so it's more streamline, it even, but I imagine that at least 75% to 90%, somewhere closer to the 90%, of the code is written from scratch, since they want KSP 2 to do things that KSP 1 can't. Why else would they say "We're building KSP 2 from the ground up," if not to insinuate that they are rewriting the code almost entirely? 

[Gotmachine]

My point is : writing working code is typing a few lines of text, but the right ones.

That can take 1 hour if you exactly know what you need to do because you have a working and tested example of very similar intended code on your second monitor to look at, or several days if you have to figure everything.

This fact has a large impact on the total time needed to get from nothing to a ready to release game. The aren't writing KSP 2 from scratch, they are rewriting KSP,  this make a huge difference.

Edited August 24, 2019 by Gotmachine

[Harry Rhodan]

Fallout 76 still has old bugs from Fallout 3 and reuses assets from Skyrim and other old Bethesda games. And that's a AAA title.

[Frozen_Heart]

1 hour ago, Gotmachine said:

It seems very likely that the sole purpose of TakeTwo buying the rights to the KSP franchise in may 2017 was to allow the development of KSP 2 by another game studio. To quote the press release :

So it isn't too hazardous to assume that plans were already in place at the time and that KSP 2 development started shortly after, if not before that date.
With a release date of early 2020, that put the development at nearly 3 years, with a team of about 30 people currently according to the VGC interview.
KSP is a relatively large game in terms of code, but not so much in terms of assets (models, textures, sound...), so those numbers feels quite adequate to me.

Plus they obviously had access to the KSP1 source code instead of going into the lengthy process of prototyping everything from scratch. While it's likely large portions of the code are rewritten from the ground up, having access to working code (even if they do it differently) can speed up the early steps quite a bit.

They definitely have closely based it off existing KSP assets, and you are probably right they started developing it shortly after Take Two acquired it.

 

Interestingly they seem to have taken the KSP parts directly and updated them. This can be seen with the old poodle model which seems to be in game. Must have been taken from a version before the new one was introduced. Still wondering if the new poodle model will make it in.

[Technical Ben]

Not sure about that. I'd say this pre-alpha footage can't be more than 12 months old. The trailer, the business planning? 1-3 years yep... but the current KSP2 development of code? 12 months max. Probably 6.

[Technical Ben]

Hmmm... saying that though. The artwork could be more than 12 months old. Hmmmm... wonder when they did start.

[GoldForest]

4 minutes ago, Technical Ben said:

Hmmm... saying that though. The artwork could be more than 12 months old. Hmmmm... wonder when they did start.

Most speculation is after Take-Two got the rights to KSP. (Between 2016 to 2017)

The evidence we have is that it's been at least a year, as Steam page activity pre-dates to November 2018.

Edited August 24, 2019 by GoldForest

[Klapaucius]

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

They have stated that the whole game is built from the ground up. They aren't reusing old code, or rewriting the old code. They are coding it themselves. 
Of course that's not to say they won't use the same code in some minute areas, but they did state from the ground up quite clearly. 

I'm not a coder, but I did work in television and have made a documentary.  In that medium, the filming and editing take a lot of time, of course, but the basic idea development also takes a lot of time and effort. Hours are put in creating pitches or outlines before a frame of video is shot.

While the new game will of course be different and add a lot of content, they are already working off of an existing model that they know works in terms of gameplay. It is easier to revise and expand upon an already developed idea than to come up with a completely new concept from scratch.  So I reckon they do have a head start in those terms

[GoldForest]

2 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

I'm not a coder, but I did work in television and have made a documentary.  In that medium, the filming and editing take a lot of time, of course, but the basic idea development also takes a lot of time and effort. Hours are put in creating pitches or outlines before a frame of video is shot.

While the new game will of course be different and add a lot of content, they are already working off of an existing model that they know works in terms of gameplay. It is easier to revise and expand upon an already developed idea than to come up with a completely new concept from scratch.  So I reckon they do have a head start in those terms

We're not talking about redoing ideas or gameplay though, we're talking about the code itself. 

[Klapaucius]

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

We're not talking about redoing ideas or gameplay though, we're talking about the code itself. 

I realize that, but the over arching point was about development time, so I was simply thinking that this may be a factor in cutting the development time for the game.

Edited August 24, 2019 by Klapaucius

[GoldForest]

3 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

I realize that, but the over arching point was about development time, so I was simply thinking that this may be a factor in cutting the development time for the game.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I'm sure they took gameplay mechanics they wanted from KSP 1, as well as expanded them. It would save time, but not much. Still have to get those mechanics to work the way they intend. 

[GoldForest]

Just now, Lu K. said:

they began development mid 2017.

We don't know for sure. That's speculation. There's no confirmation or denial of when they started. 

[GoldForest]

Just now, Lu K. said:

august if you want to be precise.

Where did you find this information? 

[GoldForest]

Just now, Lu K. said:

i could tell u but i wouldnt want to get that person in trouble.

So someone at Squad or Star Theory told you when they started KSP? 

[Daniel Prates]

The main point made by @CyclonicTuna in the OP, regarding multiplayer (which I agree completelly) got sidelined by the silly discussion of wether it has been development for one year or not, or if people have the rigbt to speculate or not.

The OP is trying to say, which is what we should be discussing deeper, thar the new developers MIGHT take multiplayer as a main focus, one that could take away effort from other areas of the game (which is bad enough) or even make this a multiplayer-focused game (which would be a catastrophe). Elsewhere I read in this forum of people asking if there would be "lootboxes", then I though "jeeez, do these people know what ksp really is?"

Ksp 2 allowing two players would be fun in some respects. It being though a multiplayer focused game however would probably result a whole different beast, and I daresay, a commercially driven one made for an entirelly different audience than what we have today. And I will say something else: even if thousands of post around the forum say "can I haz multiplayer?", that doesn't mean "the community wants multiplayer". To be able to say that requires more profund knowledge and info. Who is asking? What is game experience? What does he mean exactly with multiplayer?

Things like that have to be pondered, lest we end up getting "minecraft in space". So yes, we have every right to go ahead and try to convey that opinion to the devs. 

 

[Noir]

2 minutes ago, Daniel Prates said:

even if thousands of post around the forum say "can I haz multiplayer?", that doesn't mean "the community wants multiplayer".

This.

I've seen maybe a few dozen comments asking for multiplayer over the past 7 or so years. About as many people have asked for multiplayer in KSP as they have for in Fallout. And pretty much your entire comment (along with many others I have seen) indirectly scream "Fallout 76"!

People have a right to be concerned...