I won't pay a 50€ price tag on this game unless the single parent limitation is lifted

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Marcus Aseth said:

no matter how many update they are going to make, this will always be flawed to me, because my designs will always be limited by something they can't fix.

And that's why they opted for a sequel instead of "just fixing KSP".

KSP code base was never meant for the scope the game has reached of the years and the growth and constant changes in the development team didn't help either.

That "polish" thing you're feeling is the difference between a new indie studio that wasn't a game studio before and which developers were at their very first game, like Squad was at the start, and an actual professional game studio with experienced game developers, like Star.theory.

[Guest]

Except that we're looking at a major architectural decision that is extremely unlikely to have changed. The tree structure is only suitable to simple designs, and is highly restricting, especially if you're starting to consider robotics and the like. KSP2 is improving in some areas, but in others it's making the same mistakes as KSP1.

1 hour ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

I don't see the point of announcing "I'm not going to pay X for Y."  Just don't make the purchase.

Silence is not a form of communication, despite what some people think. They are not going to notice a few people not paying for the game. Talking about it where other people can see it, on the other hand, might discourage the others from buying and shows why somebody has not bough the game. This can provide an incentive to solve the problem. 

[KerbolExplorer]

Even after KSP 2 gets released the 1st game will still be updated

 

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

And that's why they opted for a sequel instead of "just fixing KSP".

KSP code base was never meant for the scope the game has reached of the years and the growth and constant changes in the development team didn't help either.

That "polish" thing you're feeling is the difference between a new indie studio that wasn't a game studio before and which developers were at their very first game, like Squad was at the start, and an actual professional game studio with experienced game developers, like Star.theory.

This, also games has started running into limits. 
We who are 40 years or older has seen insane changes in games, remember wolfenstein being amazing and how Doom became an legend, at my school one computer lab got mobbed by people wanting to play doom as it was to demanding for most computers. However as graphic become better and better cost skyrocketed while improvements started to fade out simply because they was good enough. 
Mass media news has used video game streams as real combat scenes after all, yes they make old bread look smart but they would not been fooled by PS2 streams. 

However this is major productions. Next level might be AI not only npc but also stuff like quest and level design and voice. 
And the K fight, 4K is nice on an large PC monitor, 8K is kind of pointless unless its an curved computer monitor 2x1 meter you sit 70 cm away from. 
We are fast moving into the HIFI asylum there $1000 digital audio cables is an thing. 
 

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

50 Dollars?

I guess I’ll have to wait for a steam sale or something 

 

[SpaceFace545]

13 hours ago, Marcus Aseth said:

After yesterday my hype for KSP 2 almost dropped to 0, this is the reason why I won't pay a 50€ price tag on  this game, and also why I think this title doesn't deserve me hyped about it:

I was playing KSP 1, got 2 radial decouplers vertically lined up, attach a booster to them (thinking it would have enough stability with 2 anchor points) but because of ksp system of a single "parent" object, the booster was held only by 1 decoupler... after all this years, still this limitations...

People might try to work around this using a strut (which is ugly imo) but is even worse with the dlc that adds hinges: if you want 2 hinges to push out an element from 2 points (again, the example of a booster, pushed out for arbitrary reasons), you can't, only one hinge does the push because of the single parent system.

Another example would be a folding hinge holding a leg (with 4 around your vessel) which would be so unstable the vehicle will shake like if it had parkinson and occasionally build up so much "woobliness" it will start jumping and doing backflips on it's own for no reason... if you want two folding hinges holding this leg for stability reasons, you can't, same reason as before, single parent system.

 

Something that show the lack of polish: try to place radially 4 hinges with a structural element at the end, then 4 radial struts from the hinge's parent to the structural element. Now if you fold the hinge in the editor, the strut cable will only be folded for the one you manually placed, and not for the 3 copies made by radial symmetry. This might look like a small thing, but is the kind of thing where you can measure how much a developer care about quality and polish of his product.

 

And they move forward to KSP 2... after seeying the painstaking dedication from Factorio team to improve and polish their game to perfection and beyond, I can't give a sliver of trust anymore to a developer that simply moves on to the next title leaving things half assed in the current one, this behaviour for me is on par with Egosoft (X-Rebirth and X-Foundations, one backstab to the fans after the other)

 

And they even bragged about keeping all the same physics dynamics from KSP 1 (and I fear this imply they won't actually change a thing regarding the single parent system) in an interview with Scott Manley... which to me seems a very convenient way to be lazy about it simply because many players loved how KSP 1 is... the reason "it worked well enough" is still no reason to not try to do better than that, so my trust in them has fallen even lower after hearing that.

 

They will do an ok job, I don't doubt that, but not near to my previous expectations for KSP 2, and thus this is the reason I won't fall for this hype train.

 

This message is in the hope the developer will happen to read it and re-consider things on the light of it, maybe as far as going back to KSP1 and improving the 2 things mentioned.

Anyway, let me know how you feel about this (though being the reader people that probabably usually frequent this forum, I suspect I'll be outnumbered 10:1 in this "non-mainstream" opinion, but I'm prepared for that)

Would you buy it for 49.99 instead?

[Marcus Aseth]

15 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Would you buy it for 49.99 instead?

if I'm getting ksp 1 but in a "nicer dress", I'll wait for a 7 - 15€ sale, depending on how good it is.

if this remove those limitations mentioned previously, and the "nice dress" (graphics) is the icing on the cake, then I'll pay around 25 - 30€

if the previous case but also mining, unlocking components and missions are so masterfully thought out and crafted that the player is costantly challenged and engaged to push forward, having a concrete purpose and never 100% sandbox (without clear goals), if it can reach that addictive gameplay level, then I would be willing to pay full price. (that would be a title getting 9/10 in most online reviews)

Edited January 15, 2020 by Marcus Aseth

[shdwlrd]

18 minutes ago, έķ νίĻĻάίή said:

50 Dollars?

I guess I’ll have to wait for a steam sale or something 

 

50 euro, ~55.50 US dollars. No harm with waiting for a sale, if you can wait that long.

[Karma Kerman]

You know, games don't like their base code being altered, if they changed the parent part system in KSP 1, it could break the entire game entirely, so that's why KSP 2's game code is being rebuilt to tend to all of the limitations of the original code

[mattinoz]

Why is everyone just taking on assumption that Parent build model will stay?

They've already said craft and save files will be incompatible and no convertor is possible. If craft files are using the same basic structuring in the parent model then a convertor should be possible. The thing that would make it damn near impossible would be a move away from the tree structure to something else.

So until we know I think it's a bad assumption to say it's one thing or another.

[mcwaffles2003]

4 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

Why is everyone just taking on assumption that Parent build model will stay?

They've already said craft and save files will be incompatible and no convertor is possible. If craft files are using the same basic structuring in the parent model then a convertor should be possible. The thing that would make it damn near impossible would be a move away from the tree structure to something else.

So until we know I think it's a bad assumption to say it's one thing or another.

So far in pre alpha game footage we've only seen the typical parent part system implemented. The craft files most likely won't transfer due to them being saved using a different coding schema, though if the same parts exist in KSP 2 then I bet a mod will be made to interpret code from KSP 1 to 2

[MaxwellsDemon]

4 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Silence is not a form of communication, despite what some people think. They are not going to notice a few people not paying for the game. Talking about it where other people can see it, on the other hand, might discourage the others from buying and shows why somebody has not bough the game. This can provide an incentive to solve the problem. 

Piffle.  Dollars (or Euros) (or, specifically, missed sales goals) speak more loudly than words do to marketing people.  If you don't buy, they will sweeten the offer to try to get you to do so, either by increasing what's offered or decreasing the asking price.  It's inevitable.  You just have to wait-- if you want it as soon as it comes out, sure, you'll be paying extra for that privilege.

[OHara]

When I compare to the methods used by mechanical design software costing 100× as much, I think KSP's tree with optional struts connecting branches was a genius approach.

Once players grasp that KSP parts are linked in a tree, then it is clear which parts with come with when we pick up one part, or move when we offset one part, and which parts decouple when you fire a decoupler.  We never have to think about whether our added struts will let go at the right time, because the rule they follow is so simple.

Mechanical design software lets you use subassemblies to make a tree, analogous to computer files and subdirectories, and I find that works rather well.  In KSP you don't need to define the subassembly; the parts alone form the tree.  
Mechanical design software provides other ways to link parts, through constraints, and that extra complication brings frustration (at least for me, who was frustrated last week checking optical clearances with the mechanical engineer who kept saying "oops, it's not assembled correctly; let's start again").

Maybe KSP could have considered any parts that touch, or come within 1cm of each other, to be connected---having the effect of an automatic mass-less cost-less strut between touching parts.  That might be more connections than needed, so maybe only auto-connect parts to decouplers that they touch.  That would require KSP to do some thinking upon decoupling, whether all the connections between two parts of a craft are released, but the kind of thinking computers can do correctly.

Asking players to explicitly connect pairs of parts that we intend to be mechanically joined, is fine with me.  I suspect the designers thought that frugal placement of struts to make a rocket hold together would be part of the fun.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, OHara said:

Mechanical design software lets you use subassemblies to make a tree, analogous to computer files and subdirectories, and I find that works rather well.  In KSP you don't need to define the subassembly; the parts alone form the tree.  
Mechanical design software provides other ways to link parts, through constraints, and that extra complication brings frustration (at least for me, who was frustrated last week checking optical clearances with the mechanical engineer who kept saying "oops, it's not assembled correctly; let's start again").\

I believe subassemblies have been confirmed to help in the design process, the current meta of designing a rocket, saving it, then designing a new rocket and merging is alright but I think it can be done better.

I would love if we could have a list to open up that would order parts similar to CAD software and have multiple roots, 1 main one and 1 for each sub assembly and if those assemblies are joined with a link then when their link part is taken they become un-unionized and the sub assembly is no longer joined to the root assembly. This way I believe you can allow multiple links between assemblies and only affect the sub assembly once the last link is removed as opposed to the original joining link. Kinda talking out my butt at this point though.

[kerbiloid]

Struts? What struts? Do you see any struts?

Spoiler

 

They even don't use 32 wooden sticks for ignition.

Spoiler

 

[Kerbart]

17 hours ago, Marcus Aseth said:

1) was already mentioned above, also I've answered to it (though might not be visible since new user need aproval on posts)

2)and yet after all those years you can only have a booster supported by 1 decoupler rather than 2 for stability, to me seems I have plenty reason to complain about.

3)I've already said that in my first post: "People might try to work around this using a strut (which is ugly imo) " and the reason you have to work-around this is exactly my point - the product isn't polished

The ship design limitations don't bother me so much, it's the stiffling lack of creativity in the rest of the game that I find appalling.

After all these years we're still limited to elliptical orbits. You'd think that by now they would have introduced square orbits, triangular orbits... imagine an orbit in the shape of a pentagram, how cool would that be! But no, boring Squad insists "the only kind of orbit we offer is elliptical and you are going to like it!"

So boring. It seems that KSP2 is heading the same way. What's the point in buying it, I say.

[mcwaffles2003]

26 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

The ship design limitations don't bother me so much, it's the stiffling lack of creativity in the rest of the game that I find appalling.

After all these years we're still limited to elliptical orbits. You'd think that by now they would have introduced square orbits, triangular orbits... imagine an orbit in the shape of a pentagram, how cool would that be! But no, boring Squad insists "the only kind of orbit we offer is elliptical and you are going to like it!"

So boring. It seems that KSP2 is heading the same way. What's the point in buying it, I say.

 

YEAH! And where are the wooly mammoths?!

[Marcus Aseth]

49 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

So boring. It seems that KSP2 is heading the same way. What's the point in buying it, I say.

I get your sarcasm, but boring wasn't really what I was going for. My problem with it is frustration, imagine if multiple designs you create fail all in a row, and because of non-obvious reasons. That builds up a certain ammount of frustration.

For instance, in a game that let you build rockets, the logic assumption for a clueless player would be you can have your 2 vertical decouplers holding the rocket, until you try and find the limitation.

forgive my poor Paint drawing with the mouse, but a clueless player would assume that if one hinge is not enough to hold or operate under a certain weight, then adding 2 or 4 is the solution, except again, the game rejects your design.

A clueless player would think that this would either hold the weight or collapse under it, but would never imagine that your lander using 4-6-8 of these would start shaking as if it had parkinsons for then jump from still (?!) and do a 360° flip in the air. And again, if he thought "let's link more hinges for stability", this is not possible.

Then the only thought left in my head is: THEN WHY THE HELL DID YOU GAVE ME HINGES >_>

If the point is getting frustrated time after time at a game that rejects your designs for non-obvious limitations (from a player perspective), then yeah, as you put it "what's the point in buying it"

If it looks like you should be able to do it, then is the job of the developer to make it so you can do it. Betrayed expectations is not a player fault, is a game/developer fault for not explaning correctly to the player what is allowed and what is not from the get go.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Marcus Aseth

[mattinoz]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

The ship design limitations don't bother me so much, it's the stiffling lack of creativity in the rest of the game that I find appalling.

After all these years we're still limited to elliptical orbits. You'd think that by now they would have introduced square orbits, triangular orbits... imagine an orbit in the shape of a pentagram, how cool would that be! But no, boring Squad insists "the only kind of orbit we offer is elliptical and you are going to like it!"

So boring. It seems that KSP2 is heading the same way. What's the point in buying it, I say.

I think with kOS and Enough Fuel^tm you could get different orbits.

[Lisias]

14 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

I think with kOS and Enough Fuel^tm you could get different orbits.

There's not such a thing as "Enough Fuel" - except when your craft is on fire.

[RizzoTheRat]

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I believe subassemblies have been confirmed to help in the design process, the current meta of designing a rocket, saving it, then designing a new rocket and merging is alright but I think it can be done better.

KSP already has sub-assemblies, I use them all the time.  I agree being able to connect them in more than one place would be a big improvement, as others have said that would involve rewriting the whole way ship construction works and creating a whole new version of KSP, one you could maybe call version 2

Surely until KSP2 gets released it's pretty useless speculating.  Although personally I doubt I'll be buying it straight away.  It's the mods that make KSP IMO so, as with version updates in KSP1, I'll be waiting to see what happens with mods before I commit. 

[Khesperus]

4 hours ago, Marcus Aseth said:

 

Then the only thought left in my head is: THEN WHY THE HELL DID YOU GAVE ME HINGES >_>

If the point is getting frustrated time after time at a game that rejects your designs for non-obvious limitations (from a player perspective), then yeah, as you put it "what's the point in buying it"

If it looks like you should be able to do it, then is the job of the developer to make it so you can do it. Betrayed expectations is not a player fault, is a game/developer fault for not explaning correctly to the player what is allowed and what is not from the get go.

Hinges are really new. They were only just introduced in the last six months. There's a bit of shaking out to do.

Meanwhile, I think you might enjoy the Kraken drive:

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kraken_Drive

[MaxwellsDemon]

1 hour ago, RizzoTheRat said:

Surely until KSP2 gets released it's pretty useless speculating.  Although personally I doubt I'll be buying it straight away.  It's the mods that make KSP IMO so, as with version updates in KSP1, I'll be waiting to see what happens with mods before I commit. 

Truth and truth.  Making a decision on whether or not to buy a product that isn't really much more than a fancy trailer and a lot of hearsay isn't sensible.

I get from some of the developer statements that they are fully aware that mods are a big part of what drove KSP's success, and that they fully intend to recreate that with KSP2.  So, yes, the mods will affect my purchase timing as well... not to mention that, in the industry as a whole, there is a bit of a tendency to rush things to market in a state that once might have been called "beta."  Not saying that Star Theory in particular will do this (and their apparent delay perhaps says they won't), but it makes me very leery of buying "1.0" of anything.  (I bought KSP when it was 1.04.)

Worst case scenario:  I keep enjoying KSP.  

[Lisias]

5 hours ago, Marcus Aseth said:

I get your sarcasm, but boring wasn't really what I was going for. My problem with it is frustration, imagine if multiple designs you create fail all in a row, and because of non-obvious reasons. That builds up a certain ammount of frustration.

For instance, in a game that let you build rockets, the logic assumption for a clueless player would be you can have your 2 vertical decouplers holding the rocket, until you try and find the limitation.

forgive my poor Paint drawing with the mouse, but a clueless player would assume that if one hinge is not enough to hold or operate under a certain weight, then adding 2 or 4 is the solution, except again, the game rejects your design.

A clueless player would think that this would either hold the weight or collapse under it, but would never imagine that your lander using 4-6-8 of these would start shaking as if it had parkinsons for then jump from still (?!) and do a 360° flip in the air. And again, if he thought "let's link more hinges for stability", this is not possible.

Then the only thought left in my head is: THEN WHY THE HELL DID YOU GAVE ME HINGES >_>

If the point is getting frustrated time after time at a game that rejects your designs for non-obvious limitations (from a player perspective), then yeah, as you put it "what's the point in buying it"

If it looks like you should be able to do it, then is the job of the developer to make it so you can do it. Betrayed expectations is not a player fault, is a game/developer fault for not explaning correctly to the player what is allowed and what is not from the get go.

Need more information. I made this stunt, launch it on the runway, climb to about 10 meters, recovered the gears, redeploy them and then land it. As long as I'm not moving horizontally and don't hit the ground too hard, it stays on its feet.

And I didn't even trimmed the gears myself, used them on the automatic.

I think we need more information to understand what's happening. Can you share a craft with this problem? I put mine here for evaluation.

[Marcus Aseth]

13 minutes ago, Lisias said:

I think we need more information to understand what's happening. Can you share a craft with this problem?

I can't share right now because I got so frustrated I've uninstalled the other day, but I can re-install if you can't reproduce it.

Though first try this, it should reproduce it:

1) increase the weight. I had 2 "reliant" engines on the side and 3 "medium version" fuel storage of the same diameter of a reliant, one on the center and 2 symmetrical on the sides (the reliant too both on the sides. The leg mounted on the center piece.)

2) You should notice the crazy shaking as soon as you put this on the VAB launch platform, try increasing the spring strenght to make it jump even more (rather than less, as I had thought)

I think I also had a Science Jr., basically increase the weight until it starts dancing (rather than breaking the leg)

Edited January 16, 2020 by Marcus Aseth