herbal space program Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, shdwlrd said: Most parts in KSP1 will be in KSP2. As far as we know, the DLC parts won't be in KSP2. No propellers after all the begging for them here and then finally getting them?? Anyway, like many I'll buy it no matter what. I just hope they don't pollute it with obnoxious greedy microtransactions. Edited November 13, 2019 by herbal space program Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbal space program Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 (edited) On 8/31/2019 at 1:06 PM, Snark said: "Who's gone beyond the Mun to visit other planets?" -> one single hand out of ~20 people Wow, that's an eye-opener. I guess it makes sense though when I think about how many hours of gameplay it took me to get to that point. It makes me wonder how many percent of players have ever successfully built a SSTO space plane, because I sure found that a lot harder than getting to Duna after I'd been to the Mun! On 9/16/2019 at 12:52 PM, tseitsei89 said: IMHO KER or some other dv/twr display tool is completely undeniably necessary in the stock game. If that is not included, it is absolutely horrible game design choice. Dv and twr are such an important information when trying design a rocket that a game meant for designing and flying rockets simply has to have this tool available. I have to say for my part that I found having to figure those things out on my own to be one of the most captivating features of the game. I learned all about rocketry, aerodynamics, and orbital mechanics playing the game because I had to in order to do the next thing. And there's also a certain element of suspense in not knowing if your rocket has enough fuel to make it or not. I would be very cautious if I were them in offering up all those tools right off the bat. Where is the learning curve then? Edited November 13, 2019 by herbal space program Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 2 hours ago, herbal space program said: I have to say for my part that I found having to figure those things out on my own to be one of the most captivating features of the game. I learned all about rocketry, aerodynamics, and orbital mechanics playing the game because I had to in order to do the next thing. And there's also a certain element of suspense in not knowing if your rocket has enough fuel to make it or not. I would be very cautious if I were them in offering up all those tools right off the bat. Where is the learning curve then? You still get the learning curve of how to read them, how to optimize them, what they mean, etc. Just because your rocket has a TWR of 1.2 and a dV of 3,800 on Kerbin doesn't mean you're going to make it to space today... (Just that in theory it should be able to.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneck Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 This is pretty much a useless thread. We dont even know what the game is going to be like yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiscelanousItem Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, Redneck said: This is pretty much a useless thread. We dont even know what the game is going to be like yet. In that case 90% of threads in this forum section are useless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razark Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 16 minutes ago, Redneck said: This is pretty much a useless thread. We dont even know what the game is going to be like yet. Like that's ever stopped us before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Peabody Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 8 minutes ago, razark said: Like that's ever stopped us before. Indeed! Consider for a moment the suggestions and development thread. Has it ever resulted in any significant features being added to the game? In some ways it is very much like Dres... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adjie Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 Have a way to turn realistic life support on or off, preferably in the Settings > Difficulty menu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneck Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 On 11/13/2019 at 8:00 AM, MiscelanousItem said: In that case 90% of threads in this forum section are useless... I guess it works if trying to get your post count up lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 Right now, the only thing that would prevent me to play KSP2 is it being delayed. I can't wait for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleperli Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 I think that the possibilities for me to play KSP 2 greatly depends on my computer's capability to cooperate. The blocker feature (or lack of feature) for me would be bad optimization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Problemless Mods Wanter Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 I was reading through and gathering my own thoughts, but already even at page 4 On 9/10/2019 at 7:22 PM, Snark said: They've said that pretty much all of the KSP1 stock parts will be in KSP2. They've also indicated that the DLC parts will generally not be in there. They didn't get too specific, but their answers indicated that the Breaking Ground robotic stuff will basically not be there, and that the Making History parts will mostly not be there but that they'll likely keep some of the most "vital" parts (my read on this, from stuff they've said, is this most likely means the engine plates). ^^THIS^^, right here, made me feel estranged... I was hoping that they would have included all they have already achieved with KSP, in KSP 2... But it seems that they want to keep older DLC's as newer DLC's... Instead of inventing, creating new and other stuff to sell separately... Which is such a shame... and it gives the negative vibes of creative laziness, as if they're either afraid or unable to be creative or come up with new and interesting stuff... Which I doubt. The only reasoning I can take on this is that the companies are now different and they wouldn't want to ruin KSP 1's DLC sellings with KSP 2, if they included robotics in vanilla... But honestly, who and which new customer will want to buy KSP anymore when KSP 2 is around, anyway?!? Only the rookies who wants a space simulation and haven't seen the KSP 2 store page yet... Let's be honest, who else? Anyways if this the way it's going to be, I will be expecting much MUCH more advanced robotic parts and features, and not just a hinge, a rotor and a piston from that DLC... Or the price should be really really cheap or may be even free for early buyers. I truly believe that, this DLC will have to earn it's price waaaay waay harder than KSP 2 itself... And if there's any intentional and internal (coding) blockage on the liberty of creating mods like "infernal robotics", I will boycott the main game and won't buy. The only 2 reasons I bought BG DLC are, 1 to support the game, 2 the new and unique programming interface which was relatively better / easier than IR's sequencer... But I still use both IR and it's sequencer! I am certain that I'm not alone in this whole subject. ----- Other than this, I have my other thoughts on this topic and I will try to get back to here later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: I was reading through and gathering my own thoughts, but already even at page 4 ^^THIS^^, right here, made me feel estranged... I was hoping that they would have included all they have already achieved with KSP, in KSP 2... But it seems that they want to keep older DLC's as newer DLC's... Instead of inventing, creating new and other stuff to sell separately... Which is such a shame... and it gives the negative vibes of creative laziness, as if they're either afraid or unable to be creative or come up with new and interesting stuff... Which I doubt. The only reasoning I can take on this is that the companies are now different and they wouldn't want to ruin KSP 1's DLC sellings with KSP 2, if they included robotics in vanilla... But honestly, who and which new customer will want to buy KSP anymore when KSP 2 is around, anyway?!? Only the rookies who wants a space simulation and haven't seen the KSP 2 store page yet... Let's be honest, who else? Anyways if this the way it's going to be, I will be expecting much MUCH more advanced robotic parts and features, and not just a hinge, a rotor and a piston from that DLC... Or the price should be really really cheap or may be even free for early buyers. I truly believe that, this DLC will have to earn it's price waaaay waay harder than KSP 2 itself... And if there's any intentional and internal (coding) blockage on the liberty of creating mods like "infernal robotics", I will boycott the main game and won't buy. The only 2 reasons I bought BG DLC are, 1 to support the game, 2 the new and unique programming interface which was relatively better / easier than IR's sequencer... But I still use both IR and it's sequencer! I am certain that I'm not alone in this whole subject. ----- Other than this, I have my other thoughts on this topic and I will try to get back to here later. I suspect that's a matter of development time, the DLC parts came after the work on KSP2 was already started and presumably when all the planning of the game and the devs resources utilisation was already done. We now know that the game was supposed to launch before the end of March (FY2020) but that presumably the devs already asked for more time (in the reveal they said a generic 2020, sign that a delay was already accounted for). Also except the robotics parts it's possible that what they already have planned for KSP2 will overtake all the DLCs content for example they could have planned a 1.8 part set from the beginning but not bringing the Making History parts 1:1 like the old stock ones or having a KIS/KAS analogue with ground science that makes Breaking Ground obsolete for the most part. Honestly it's not a case that only robotics are discussed when talking about DLC content not being ported over. Edited November 17, 2019 by Guest Better formatting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Problemless Mods Wanter Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 @Master39 On 9/10/2019 at 7:22 PM, Snark said: ...their answers indicated that the Breaking Ground robotic stuff will basically not be there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: @Master39 I specified "except robotic parts", my point stands, the DLC was planned and released when work on KSP2 was already ongoing. This is a organised professional studio, not a indie dev that changes the planned game content on a whim, it's just natural that additional content will have to wait that the already planned work is finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
έķ νίĻĻάίή Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 spyware. that's the only possible thing I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazvan Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 As blocker "features" I would mention two: Poor performance. I almost stopped playing because of the constant stuttering. A big thank you for the MemGraph mod. Unreliable physics: Having a hole space station wobbling until destruction because you undock a tiny probe... A big thank you for the Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. Because of these 2 mods I can still KSP. I do have high hopes we can create large structures as seen in the trailer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snark Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 On 11/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, Problemless Mods Wanter said: I was hoping that they would have included all they have already achieved with KSP, in KSP 2... Why is that? After all, it's a new game, with new content. Anything from KSP 1 that's "carried across" has to be re-implemented from scratch, not just "copied over"-- it's just as much work to do that as it would be to implement some new, original thing. So, spending more time porting KSP content across means less time providing us with new features. So, for example, consider the robotics from Breaking Ground-- that's a huge, expensive feature, with lots of code in it. And it's something that not every KSP player wants (as evidenced by the fact that not everyone bought Breaking Ground). So... it's not at all obvious to me that making the gargantuan investment of resources to provide that in KSP 2 is money well spent. I could easily see a case being made that the resources would be much better spent in implementing important new features of the game. So, is there some particular reason that you'd like to see them spending their time re-creating the various DLCs from KSP 1 (which not every player chose to buy), rather than spending that time on snazzy new features and content for KSP 2? On 11/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, Problemless Mods Wanter said: But it seems that they want to keep older DLC's as newer DLC's... Citation please? Where do you get the impression that they intend to do this? I certainly haven't heard that anywhere, myself. Got a link? On 11/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, Problemless Mods Wanter said: it gives the negative vibes of creative laziness, as if they're either afraid or unable to be creative or come up with new and interesting stuff... Which I doubt. Okay, now I'm scratching my head. You just said that you wish they'd just copy everything from KSP 1, and complained that they're not doing that. So... they've made the choice to spend their time inventing and building new stuff, instead of slavishly copying everything from the original game. That seems to me to be the precise opposite of "creative laziness". Can you explain to us how choosing to make new things instead of just copying all the old things is somehow being "creatively lazy"? On 11/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, Problemless Mods Wanter said: The only reasoning I can take on this is that the companies are now different and they wouldn't want to ruin KSP 1's DLC sellings with KSP 2, if they included robotics in vanilla... Or, much more likely, that instead of including it-- which would likely delay the launch by many months and require them to jack up the price, for all users whether they want to use robotics or not-- they chose, rather, to spend that time developing cool new mechanics and content to appeal to players. Makes sense to me. On 11/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, Problemless Mods Wanter said: Anyways if this the way it's going to be, I will be expecting much MUCH more advanced robotic parts and features, and not just a hinge, a rotor and a piston from that DLC... Why would you expect that? This is a space exploration game, not a robotics simulator. People buy KSP, for the most part, because they wanna fly rocket ships, not because they want to build robots. And the "just a hinge, a rotor, and a piston" stuff from Breaking Ground, which you're referring to rather dismissively as if it's no big deal, is something that took Squad many months of work to provide even that level of functionality. Robotics stuff is hard, and super expensive (in terms of time and money) to implement. It's a gigantic feature. You do want KSP 2 in 2020, yes? Or are you saying you'd rather force all KSP players to wait an extra year and pay a higher sticker price because you want fancier robots? Even if you personally would prefer that, how would that be to the benefit of the player base as a whole? On 11/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, Problemless Mods Wanter said: Or the price should be really really cheap or may be even free for early buyers. Why is that? If they're spending all the money to develop a game title, and if their market research tells them that a certain price point is the one that will give good profits-- which, after all, is the entire purpose of any company, and perfectly natural-- what would be the reason for them to do that? You're saying that they should lose money in order to give away free or underpriced stuff? That's... not how companies work. It's a business, not a charity. They offer a product for sale, and they pick a price for it. Nobody's forced to buy it. Individual customers can choose for themselves. Either you think it's worth $60 and plunk down the doubloons, or else you think it isn't and you take your business elsewhere. What's the issue? (Personally, at the $60 price point, I'll be firmly in the "shut up and take my money!" contingent, myself-- KSP is by far the best investment in terms of fun-per-dollar of any entertainment product I've ever bought. But you'll make your own choice about that, of course.) On 11/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, Problemless Mods Wanter said: I truly believe that, this DLC will have to earn it's price waaaay waay harder than KSP 2 itself... "This" DLC? What DLC? They haven't even shipped the game yet, and haven't even announced all the features it will have, and you're making assertions about what DLCs they're supposedly going to have, and what price it may be? Citation please? Where are you getting this information? On 11/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, Problemless Mods Wanter said: And if there's any intentional and internal (coding) blockage on the liberty of creating mods like "infernal robotics", I will boycott the main game and won't buy. This seems like a straw-man to the point of being a total non sequitur. They're bending over backwards and making considerable effort to make KSP 2 as moddable as possible. It's the sensible thing to do, they've stated explicitly that they're doing this, the guy in charge of designing it is a total raving KSP fanboi since 2012 and totally wants the game to be as moddable as heck, and they've demonstrated some of the moddability to those of us who were fortunate enough to visit their studios back in August. And nobody ever tried to stop any aspect of moddability in KSP 1, either-- DLC or no DLC. As far as I know, there is, absolutely zero evidence to indicate that there's any intention whatsoever to artificially limit moddability in any way, and lots of evidence that they're working on making it as moddable as possible-- at least as moddable as KSP 1, and likely more moddable in some ways. (This has been written about extensively in various threads in this subforum.) So, it seems to me, this aspect is something that KSP players who like mods ought to be turning handsprings over. So... what exactly is your concern, here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tseitsei89 Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 On 11/13/2019 at 3:17 AM, herbal space program said: Wow, that's an eye-opener. I guess it makes sense though when I think about how many hours of gameplay it took me to get to that point. It makes me wonder how many percent of players have ever successfully built a SSTO space plane, because I sure found that a lot harder than getting to Duna after I'd been to the Mun! I have to say for my part that I found having to figure those things out on my own to be one of the most captivating features of the game. I learned all about rocketry, aerodynamics, and orbital mechanics playing the game because I had to in order to do the next thing. And there's also a certain element of suspense in not knowing if your rocket has enough fuel to make it or not. I would be very cautious if I were them in offering up all those tools right off the bat. Where is the learning curve then? Yeah I learned a lot about dv and orbital mechanics etc too but having to do the same calculations for millionth time is not that fun or educational anymore... The learning curve is hard enough in this game for new players already even with these tools. Plus seeing the figures doesnt help much if you have no idea what they mean so you kind ox have to learn that stuff anyway. It just takes out the extra grind needed to manually calculate those numbers for every single rocket you build... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Problemless Mods Wanter Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 47 minutes ago, Snark said: Why is that? Because squeals generally mean going forward and not bouncing where you were... 48 minutes ago, Snark said: So, spending more time porting KSP content across means less time providing us with new features. So as I understand you don't believe in the necessity of porting a very cool feature over but also will you be considering the version 2 of robotics DLC as "new feature" when they release it? That was exactly the point I was making... I was "hoping" that they would include the already made robotics parts as vanilla and further surprise us with newer, cooler more useful parts to come... 53 minutes ago, Snark said: And it's something that not every KSP player wants (as evidenced by the fact that not everyone bought Breaking Ground). I am sorry but this is a very vague assumption; may be people didn't have enough money, may be people didn't think it was worth it, may be people were just happy with infernal robotics mod and didn't need to buy the DLC since there were literally no functional NOR quality of physics based difference.... Or simply may be people don't play KSP anymore?!? But speaking of statistics, event just the successor of IR mod (next), have 361.576 downloads just on CKAN... So are we going to just simply disregard 350K people? Or wait, are we going to milk them? Seriously, who would design rockets and complex crafts, rovers etc. and wouldn't want robotics parts? Even the real ISS has robotics parts... Well anyways I'm sorry but, I think yours is a bad example and a bad excuse, so glad it didn't come out of officials... 1 hour ago, Snark said: ..spending their time re-creating the various DLCs from KSP 1 (which not every player chose to buy), rather than spending that time on snazzy new features and content for KSP 2? Am I missing something or aren't there only 2 DLCs? Which variety of various are we talking about? Also, it depends on what new features are we talking about and if they compensate leaving other features, which some of us consider "cool", leaving behind or worth disregarding complete..Perhaps... So, depends... 1 hour ago, Snark said: Citation please? Where do you get the impression that they intend to do this? I certainly haven't heard that anywhere, myself. Got a link? Your own words of; " ...their answers indicated that the Breaking Ground robotic stuff will basically not be there... " I apologize if I understood that statement incorrectly but then, does that mean those parts will never ever be there?! If that's the case, that is even worse... 1 hour ago, Snark said: Okay, now I'm scratching my head. You just said that you wish they'd just copy everything from KSP 1, and complained that they're not doing that. So... they've made the choice to spend their time inventing and building new stuff, instead of slavishly copying everything from the original game. That seems to me to be the precise opposite of "creative laziness". Can you explain to us how choosing to make new things instead of just copying all the old things is somehow being "creatively lazy"? Glad you asked because this is exactly the topic I want to underline and stay focused on. But before that let me state this real quick... I support KSP team... I love'm... and there would be nothing more saddening to see them weak. I would want to see the team I support, strong, sharp and robust! And I do believe they're working real hard on bringing us some quality stuff. Which is why I added "Which I doubt" at the end. Now let's separate the creativity in 2 simple categories; 1- Artistic creativity, 2 - Gameplay and mechanics creativity. Now let's think of a "new feature" they're bringing on the table here... For example they said that the landscapes and easter eggs, intractable features on planets will be much more breathtaking and worth exploring for... This is where the artists will shine that's for sure, so that's in the pocket and very excited about those... A second "Big" example can be the "Colonization" gameplay feature... That will literally be a game changer and I believe most of us are very VERY excited about this. I'm not get into who would want those, or if people like it or not... There weren't even a DLC for it to measure this, speaking with your standarts... And I'm not going to discuss the creativity aspect of this cause we all know the whole concept is an adaptation from Roverdude's mods and we are so glad he is in the KSP team. Heck even the robotics was an adaptation from IR, why do you think they decided to create a DLC for it? (Hint; remember those total downloads from IR?) But for now let us please be frank here, do you honestly believe that this colonization gameplay won't require robotics? I mean it's going to sound like I will be repeating myself but if I'm going to be totally honest; I was expecting those really simple hinges, rotors and pistons to be a part of basic rocket / payload building. And I totally don't believe it would add months to the pipeline to include them in the first realse... Then later, may be they would have come up with more complex robotics or mechanics stuff, just for DLC and for the ones who are really into it. Parts or objects like I don't know, like cranes, hooks and pulleys (Kudos to KAS content here)... I don't know like critter-crawler-like stuff or mini drones, to carry resources around on planets... etc. .. etc.. Sky is the limit. Have I ever met the team, I could speak to them all day long of what would be the NEXT fantastic thing to have in the game... After all this title is called "Kerbal SPACE PROGRAM" and not just "Kerbal Rocket Building" only.. So the title is open to all that, and there's no harm in thinking big... WHICH the modding community already accomplished over the years and we are truly glad to see that some of them already being implemented to the official game.. But when we are dreaming all this, for the future of this title, hearing that they're excluding even the world's simplest parts like hinges and rotors... I'm sorry but, that does give that negative vibe which I mentioned... I hope I was able to extend my thoughts properly on this. 2 hours ago, Snark said: Or, much more likely, that instead of including it-- which would likely delay the launch by many months and require them to jack up the price, for all users whether they want to use robotics or not-- they chose, rather, to spend that time developing cool new mechanics and content to appeal to players. Makes sense to me I highly doubt that those 3 robotics parts and their physics would add "many months" to the production. This is my opinion but I'm nowhere near involved with their development, but I also assume neither you are... 2 hours ago, Snark said: Why would you expect that? This is a space exploration game, not a robotics simulator. People buy KSP, for the most part, because they wanna fly rocket ships, not because they want to build robots. And the "just a hinge, a rotor, and a piston" stuff from Breaking Ground, which you're referring to rather dismissively as if it's no big deal, is something that took Squad many months of work to provide even that level of functionality. Robotics stuff is hard, and super expensive (in terms of time and money) to implement. It's a gigantic feature. You do want KSP 2 in 2020, yes? Or are you saying you'd rather force all KSP players to wait an extra year and pay a higher sticker price because you want fancier robots? Even if you personally would prefer that, how would that be to the benefit of the player base as a whole? I believe I explained some of this a few paragraphs before. But if I were to extend it even more. Let me ask this; "Why do you think, people build rockets for space in the first place?" Isn't to carry instruments over the solar system? Isn't it to have a payload capacity to carry ROVERS to mars.. Rover's which have hinges and rotors and pistons on it... If this is a rocket building game only, I would ask you, then why do we have parts like; " EAS-1 External Command Seat ", " Probodobodyne RoveMate ", " RoveMax Model S2 ", " RoveMax Model XL3 ", " Surface Scanning Module ", " 'Drill-O-Matic' Mining Excavator ", " Convert-O-Tron 250 " etc IN VANILLA GAME... The list can go on... So should they remove them as well? I don't know how you play the game or get your assumptions about "people" but personaly I play this game for the exploration aspect that you mentioned. I love this title not only because we can build and "fly rocket ships" but also we can "land" them on alien planets... I love the idea of having a "SPACE PROGRAM" simulation on my desktop... and not only a Simple Rockets game as there are dozens of alternatives in the market already... I feel proud playing KSP with all of it's complexity and differings from those so called 'simple' titles... As I said this is called "Kerbal SPACE PROGRAM" and not just "Kerbal Rocket Building" only. Don't you think "Canadarm" is part of the international space program? And by no means I meant underestimate the work put on those parts when I said "simple"... But we are nearly in 2020 as you said, KSP was released in 2011, I BELIEVE those should become standart parts for the gameplay like the parts mentioned above and they should build upon it, go forward from there..For DLC's and future stuff. This is my opinion and we may disagree. That's why I meant at the very begining when I said; " I was hoping that they would have included all they have already achieved with KSP, in KSP 2... " 2 hours ago, Snark said: Why is that? If they're spending all the money to develop a game title, and if their market research tells them that a certain price point is the one that will give good profits-- which, after all, is the entire purpose of any company, and perfectly natural-- what would be the reason for them to do that? You're saying that they should lose money in order to give away free or underpriced stuff? That's... not how companies work. It's a business, not a charity. They offer a product for sale, and they pick a price for it. Nobody's forced to buy it. Individual customers can choose for themselves. Either you think it's worth $60 and plunk down the doubloons, or else you think it isn't and you take your business elsewhere. What's the issue? (Personally, at the $60 price point, I'll be firmly in the "shut up and take my money!" contingent, myself-- KSP is by far the best investment in terms of fun-per-dollar of any entertainment product I've ever bought. But you'll make your own choice about that, of course.) "This" DLC? What DLC? They haven't even shipped the game yet, and haven't even announced all the features it will have, and you're making assertions about what DLCs they're supposedly going to have, and what price it may be? Citation please? Where are you getting this information? First of all the content of this quote is all another, very deep discussion in itself and we can chat for days on it, so I won't get very deep with it but if I were to touch on it, just not to leave you without an answer; The have already progressed the research and develpement for it. AND they have already made revenue from it. This is what I mean by "already achieved". But none of us can speak truly or properly on this unless we have the real numbers in our hands, or learn the legalalities between companies, which is never gonna happen so it's pointless... But here's a friendly reminder; That we live in a global world. And a dollar may be A Dollar where you live, but not where I'm from. That's aside, I can also easily pay $120 dollars for a content if I fall in love with it. Of course companies should profit, pay their workers and compansate their R&D... But none of that hardwork matters if nobody buys the products... They shouldn't forget making customers happy...That's all I'm saying... And yes, you can't make everybody happy I know that, but I also know that I'm not alone in these thoughts... Would you imagine, there are even people out there who don't even attend these forums but lovingly play KSP... I can easily count 5 of my friends on the top of my head, who completely agree with me on these subjects when we speak... And they actualy see themselves as my protegés, when I tell them about my posts... So if we shall go back to the positive stuff... Multiplayer as a new feature, will be a great addition too!!! .. So kudos to @godarklight for creating it way back in 2014 and putting it on GitHub as opensource. I sincerely wonder if they have included him/her in "R&D" or paid any gestural royalties for his/her contribution to the community... I as said this topic is almost as deep as the space itself... 2 hours ago, Snark said: This seems like a straw-man to the point of being a total non sequitur. They're bending over backwards and making considerable effort to make KSP 2 as moddable as possible. It's the sensible thing to do, they've stated explicitly that they're doing this, the guy in charge of designing it is a total raving KSP fanboi since 2012 and totally wants the game to be as moddable as heck, and they've demonstrated some of the moddability to those of us who were fortunate enough to visit their studios back in August. And nobody ever tried to stop any aspect of moddability in KSP 1, either-- DLC or no DLC. As far as I know, there is, absolutely zero evidence to indicate that there's any intention whatsoever to artificially limit moddability in any way, and lots of evidence that they're working on making it as moddable as possible-- at least as moddable as KSP 1, and likely more moddable in some ways. (This has been written about extensively in various threads in this subforum.) So, it seems to me, this aspect is something that KSP players who like mods ought to be turning handsprings over. So... what exactly is your concern, here? Just saying... I'm juust saying... Underlining my redline for the purposes of this main topic. I see no harm on keeping the subject alive and getting multiple confirmations on it, for the record. Always glad to hear that is the continuing case... Anyways I hope I don't get another warning or a ticket from you again, due this post of mine, answering your questions. I truly tried my best to stay polite and professional as well as being open and sincere... Sorry about my English (not native) and I apologize if I offended anybody... We are all speaking and sharing ideas here, in order to have a great product for everyone. Collaborations are what forums are about and why I'm here for... Love you all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 The main thing with Robotics (and the rest of the DLCs) is that KSP2 started development at some time in the past, and has been developing based on the codebase and assets they got from KSP1 at that time. Meanwhile, KSP1 has been developing on their own in the same timeframe. Basically, we have two forks of the project: One focused on upgrading the main engine, enabling new features in that engine, and solving long-standing core issues. The other is focused on new high-level features and assets, while leaving the core engine and all it's issues alone. Given that model, the new high-level features are going to either be totally ignored by the core features fork, or they'll be integrated at some point in the future, depending on demand and resources. In the long term the core features fork (KSP2) is probably better situated for maintainability and growth, but in the short term it may miss recently-introduced features from the 'live' high-level features fork (KSP1). If they've done their job right that won't take to much time and effort when they get to it, but chasing feature-parity with the high-level feature fork is going to be a losing effort in the short term. (As any time they spend on integrating those high-level features is time the KSP1 team can use to build *new* high-level features.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snark Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: Because squeals generally mean going forward and not bouncing where you were... Yes, and this sequel is going forward. They're putting tons of new features in there, including multiple star systems, multiplayer, and colonies. So? 1 hour ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: So as I understand you don't believe in the necessity of porting a very cool feature over Not what I said. Porting any feature across comes at a cost. And that cost is taken out of the budget available for implementing other things, including snazzy new features like new star systems, multiplayer, colonies, etc. So, for any given feature, it's not a no-brainer to port it across. If the developer is behaving responsibly and running a professional shop, it means that everything is considered rationally, balancing costs versus benefits. So for a given feature, the question becomes: How much benefit does the feature provide? How expensive is it to implement? The "benefit" is going to be essentially the product of "how cool is it" versus "how much demand is it among the players". For example, if there's a feature that I think is the absolute coolest thing in the world ever, but it turns out that I'm the only one who likes it and the other millions of players just go "meh" and don't think they need it, then that would be a really poor choice for the devs to implement. To take another example, if there's a feature that's super easy and low-risk to implement, it may very well "make the cut" even if only a minority of players like it and will use it, as long as the minority's not too tiny. But, on the other hand, if a feature is super expensive and very high risk to implement, then the bar would necessarily be a lot higher-- you'd need a lot bigger percentage of the player base to be into it before you'd consider implementing. The robotics in Breaking Ground are a great, big, huge, enormous feature. It's a lot of code work, with a lot of risk (i.e. "attack surface" for bugs). Heck, Breaking Ground itself came out months ago, and still has a fair number of pretty bad bugs in it. That's not because Squad is incompetent-- they're not-- but just because it's a really hard, high-risk feature. Now, put yourself in the developer's shoes. We don't know the relative sales numbers for Breaking Ground versus KSP itself... but they do. I have no idea what percentage of players chose to buy Breaking Ground; and, among the ones who did, I have no idea what fraction of them really get into the robotics. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's a minority of players. I myself? I adore the robotics stuff, I love Breaking Ground, and I myself really, really want the robotics to be available in KSP 2. If I had a magic wand that I could wave and bring all the robotics into KSP 2, I'd do that. But the developers? They don't have a magic wand. All they have is, 1. a finite amount of time, 2. a finite amount of money, 3. a finite number of developers, and 4. a very long list of other features demanding their time. So even though I myself would really like to see the robotics go in... depending on what the "demographics" are of the KSP base, it may very well be that they simply looked at it and said "we don't have the bandwidth to do that, and/or there's not enough demand to justify the extremely large investment that would be required to include that feature." 1 hour ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: will you be considering the version 2 of robotics DLC as "new feature" when they release it? You keep referring to that as if it's a done deal that's going to happen. Why do you assume that? Citation please? Got a link? Did they announce something that I missed? 1 hour ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: I apologize if I understood that statement incorrectly but then, does that mean those parts will never ever be there?! It means that they have made no commitment that the parts would be implemented. (They also haven't definitively said that anything, robotics or anything else, would never ever under any circumstances be added.) I assume they'll do what any reasonable publisher would do, after the game comes out. First they'll watch the market to see how well it sells. If KSP 2 bombs, if it's a total flop, then I think it's safe to say that there will never be any DLC for it ever. On the other hand, if it succeeds well enough that they gauge that there would be a good market for DLC, then we likely will get DLC. As to which DLC we get, I assume that that would be based on perceived demand. They'd naturally build what they think they can sell the best. Would that be robotics? Maybe. Or maybe it will turn out that players will have a lot more demand for something else, and they'll do that, instead. I assume they'll go where most of the players want to spend their money. Since neither we nor they nor anyone else yet knows, 1. how well KSP 2 itself will succeed, or, 2. what types of DLC content may be in the most demand, I suspect that these questions simply haven't been answered yet. 1 hour ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: If that's the case, that is even worse... Why? I mean, suppose we assume-- just for the sake of argument-- that they're competent and have a reasonable idea of what players like and are willing to spend money on, and that they keep an eye on the forums, and so forth. (I realize that that's not a given, because obviously there are stupid companies out there that have done stupid things. But I have yet to observe anything that would indicate to me that Star Theory is heading in stupid directions-- quite the contrary. So it seems to me like a reasonable default assumption to make, until and unless we get evidence to the contrary.) If we assume that they basically know what they're doing and have a reasonable finger on the pulse of the community, then it would logically follow that whatever they sell afterwards will be something cool that players will like. So if that's what they're doing... well, I dunno about you, but that's what I really care about. I care that the developers have their hearts in the right places and understand the needs of the community. I care that they're going to sell me really cool stuff that I will like, more than I care about any one specific thing. So, for example, I'd love it if they came out with robotics. But if, instead, they came out with something else that I end up liking too, then I'm fine with that, too. 1 hour ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: And I'm not going to discuss the creativity aspect of this cause we all know the whole concept is an adaptation from Roverdude's mods Hm? How do "we all know" that? I don't know any such thing. I think colonies are a neat idea. So does RoverDude. So do a lot of other people. Any neat idea that lots of people like is going to have examples of people talking about that stuff. Doesn't mean that they're then "un-creative" if they happen to implement a feature like that. I mean, seriously, if the criterion is "you're not creative if you're implementing a thing that anyone has suggested or made a mod about ever", then essentially they should just quit now because nothing could ever be "creative". KSP added CommNet in 1.2. Guess what? RemoteTech existed before then. Doesn't mean 1.2 wasn't "creative", and it also doesn't mean that it was "based on" RemoteTech in any way. It's its own thing. 1 hour ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: Heck even the robotics was an adaptation from IR, why do you think they decided to create a DLC for it? (Hint; remember those total downloads from IR?) I assume they did so because KSP players have been asking for moving parts for a very long time. Where there is demand, there are going to be mods, so I'm not surprised that IR exists, but that doesn't mean that what they built was an "adaptation" from IR in any way. They just made their own thing, that's all. 1 hour ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: But for now let us please be frank here, do you honestly believe that this colonization gameplay won't require robotics? Correct. I believe it won't require robotics. This seems pretty obvious to me, because they've explicitly stated that, 1. colonization will be in, and 2. robotics won't be in. So, take those two definitive statements from them, and this seems pretty clear. So? 1 hour ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: I was expecting those really simple hinges, rotors and pistons to be a part of basic rocket / payload building. Why were you expecting that, given that their explicit statements demonstrate that it's not? 1 hour ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: If this is a rocket building game only, I would ask you, then why do we have parts like; " EAS-1 External Command Seat ", " Probodobodyne RoveMate ", " RoveMax Model S2 ", " RoveMax Model XL3 ", " Surface Scanning Module ", " 'Drill-O-Matic' Mining Excavator ", " Convert-O-Tron 250 " etc IN VANILLA GAME... The list can go on... So should they remove them as well? No, why would they? Those are very simple, easy parts to implement that don't require massive amounts of code to support. Those are low-cost, low-risk features to add, and KSP players are used to having them in stock. So it seems like a pretty clear win to me to include them. Robotics? Not so clear. I myself would love for robotics to be in, but honestly I have no idea how widespread the demand is for them; it may just be a small minority of players. (Anecdotal, unscientific data point: Go look at how many questions / tech support requests / general discussion happens about stuff in the stock KSP game in the forums, and then go over into the "Breaking Ground" sub-forum and see how much discussion is there about the robotics. The former is hugely more frequent than the latter. That right there gives a suggestion that the KSP community as a whole doesn't regard robotics as a must-have feature.) And robotics are a hugely expensive and risky feature to implement. Very complex, very rich source of bugs. 1 hour ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: I don't know how you play the game or get your assumptions about "people" but personaly I play this game for the exploration aspect that you mentioned. I love this title not only because we can build and "fly rocket ships" but also we can "land" them on alien planets... I love the idea of having a "SPACE PROGRAM" simulation on my desktop... and not only a Simple Rockets game as there are dozens of alternatives in the market already... I feel proud playing KSP with all of it's complexity and differings from those so called 'simple' titles... As I said this is called "Kerbal SPACE PROGRAM" and not just "Kerbal Rocket Building" only. Don't you think "Canadarm" is part of the international space program? Sure. I do all those things too. But it's also a game, and what is expensive in developing a game is not the same thing as what is expensive in building an IRL spacecraft. For example, if you look at a Canadarm-equipped space shuttle... what percentage of the spacecraft development and construction cost does the arm represent? I'd be astonished if it's as high as 1%. Probably far less than that, would be my guess. But if you put it in a game, it's the other way around. The development cost behind implementing all the physics and control systems and so on and so forth, in order to enable that arm, would be far bigger than the rest of the shuttle. Then think about: when players launch their craft, what percentage of their total "fun value" of launching orbiting, landing, and doing other stuff with the shuttle does that arm represent? It'll vary from player to player, I suppose, but I bet it's not the majority of the value. It's about cost versus benefit. I mean, suppose they came to you and said, "Okay, you can have robotics, but it means we'll have to cut multiplayer in order to make room for it." Would you want that trade? (Well, I would, because I really love the robotics and I have absolutely zero use for multiplayer. Personally I would love it if they cut multiplayer completely and spent that time and energy on something else that I'd actually use and enjoy. But it's about what the player base as a whole likes, and I suspect that a lot more people would be into multiplayer than would be into robotics; I suspect I'm in a minority there. So from the devs' perspective, I expect it makes a lot more sense to invest in multiplayer rather than robotics, even though that's not what I myself would want.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceFace545 Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 I probably wouldn't play it if it is just another ""Indie"" game that is abandoned after its release and never updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 41 minutes ago, Problemless Mods Wanter said: ... I love robotics, but I think that being able to do something useful with my bases and stations has an higher priority over being able to make them fold or walk. I think others will cover the "they're just copying modders" vibe of your reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leopard Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 #1 blocker for me is buying a game and discovering to actually do much more than some basic tutorials means spending "x" on multiple additional content packs don't mind DLC stuff for extra missions, parts etc, but the basic game in and of itself needs to be playable properly, not crippleware Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts