Official ESRB rating: E (Everyone)

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Let us also not forget that integrating voice chat in the game takes Dev resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.  Like getting the game to 1.0.

1.0 is a long ways away and I'm in no rush to get there. Also, this reasoning is tired and just a way for people to say they don't care about a feature.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

22 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Same as the original. No surprise here. Nothing in the game that would make it higher. Move along.

What with those new spherical tanks I’d say it’s going to take about ten seconds for somebody to make a homage to Dr. Evil’s rocket from Austin Powers.  That aside…

14 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Morse code using rocket engines. Or play sherades with the new emoji system. 

Is there a character limit on flag plaques?

[GoldForest]

2 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

What with those new spherical tanks I’d say it’s going to take about ten seconds for somebody to make a homage to Dr. Evil’s rocket from Austin Powers.  That aside…

Is there a character limit on flag plaques?

I'm half tempted to post the video, but I'm afraid it might violate the rules. 

I don't know. 

[Scarecrow71]

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

1.0 is a long ways away and I'm in no rush to get there. Also, this reasoning is tired and just a way for people to say they don't care about a feature.

So you'd rather they give you what you want instead of fixing what is wrong?  That is pretty selfish.

Needing resources to get to 1.0 isn't a tired excuse; it's the truth.  I'd rather they work on core elements of the game as opposed to working on enhancements that the vast majority won't use.  As has been stated already, there are a host of alternatives to use.

[mcwaffles2003]

3 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

So you'd rather they give you what you want instead of fixing what is wrong? 

Wow, did I say that?

Oh wait... no I didn't >.>

3 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

That is pretty selfish.

I have a different opinion, I must be a bad person... You're so kind  

3 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Needing resources to get to 1.0 isn't a tired excuse; it's the truth. 

Using this argument to dismiss something others prioritize more than you is pretty tired by now. Should the devs be B-lining straight for a final arbitrary update and declare a game finished while adding only the base components they've mentioned or add features along the way if the community seems to want them and the devs feel it could fit the game while its still malleable?

3 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

 As has been stated already, there are a host of alternatives to use.

I don't even care about the feature, I barely use voice chat in any game

[snkiz]

14 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

while adding only the base components they've mentioned or add features along the way if the community seems to want them

It's a run on sentence, so sorry if this is out of context. When exactly did the devs promise any chat features other than emotes?

[mcwaffles2003]

4 hours ago, snkiz said:

It's a run on sentence, so sorry if this is out of context. 

All good, my apologies for my poor expression.

4 hours ago, snkiz said:

When exactly did the devs promise any chat features other than emotes?

They didn't to my knowledge.

 

Basically what I was trying to get at is this. Should the devs run straight for finalizing 1.0 only adding in the promised features? Or should they take their time, consider community suggestions along the way , and impliment them throughout the beta phase while everything is being put together. I understand development hell is found by constantly doing so, but I think ignoring all suggestions up to 1.0 could also lead to a less fulfilling state of the 1.0 mark and possibly make some features harder to implement than they would have been if prioritized earlier.

Basically, I just see the blanket "devs shouldnt waste time on X and focus on the base features" as a somewhat ingenuine and  roundabout way of simply saying "I don't care for this feature".

[The Aziz]

Well, then it's a matter of "is this suggested thing a feature that would enhance the gameplay and it's worth adding early, or is it just a gimmick that will appeal to few?"

Ykno, an area between all or nothing.

[snkiz]

21 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Basically, I just see the blanket "devs shouldnt waste time on X and focus on the base features" as a somewhat ingenuine and  roundabout way of simply saying "I don't care for this feature".

That's one way to look at it, I tend to view it as just a general frustration. They've really have been listening to our feedback since before anyone knew they were working on a sequel. IMO. The fact is, not all ideas are good, or well thought out. Then there is the issue of scope creep. They've already capitulated. At one point in time, EA was not an option, with ample justification. And here we are now. Most suggestions I think are coming from a narrow point of view, a particular pain point or wish. That's not exactly the goal here. The goal is to make the game more accessible and intuitive for everyone. If more people considered that, well the forums would be boring.

[Chilkoot]

On 2/12/2023 at 5:00 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Should they take their time, consider community suggestions along the way , and impliment them throughout the beta phase while everything is being put together

Tough call.  I've been on the Dev side of this one, and feature/scope change mid-cycle based on community feedback can be a slippery slope.  It's a balancing act b/w fixing things that surface and changing tack to an extent where necessary, but also sticking with funding-mandated deliverables and being careful not to pander to a vocal minority.  You can't design by committee (i.e.player input) - it's a never-ending development black hole.

In this case, it would be smarter for Intercept to stick with the plan, and take feedback on what's broken rather than try to insert features unless the Dev gauges they are missing something critical.  Probably a million people will buy this game during EA, and the roadmap is a promise the developer makes to them about what features are coming in a reasonable time frame.  Putting that on hold to accommodate new incoming requests breaks that trust and I would say makes it a bad decision.

[Kerbart]

On 2/12/2023 at 5:36 PM, snkiz said:

That's one way to look at it, I tend to view it as just a general frustration. They've really have been listening to our feedback since before anyone knew they were working on a sequel. IMO. The fact is, not all ideas are good, or well thought out

And also, users do not know what they want, which is usually an x/y problem. Consider the constant call for n-body physics. In most cases what they really want are Lagrange points.

The good news is that, AFAIK, Intercept games seems really good at thinking why before implementing features, and act on that.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

And also, users do not know what they want, which is usually an x/y problem. Consider the constant call for n-body physics. In most cases what they really want are Lagrange points.

And consider if they thought things through completely like the devs have been doing to make sure they aren't convoluting the experience, then they'd realise not being able to trust your vessels to stay in orbit isn't fun and that two-body rails just does whatever they expect auto-stationkeeping to do.

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

The good news is that, AFAIK, Intercept games seems really good at thinking why before implementing features, and act on that.

That's a massive reason why I trust KSP 2 to be way less of a pain than KSP 1, even in EA where it's 1/8th the game it will be on launch. KSP 1 devs added stuff on impulse, and just looking at the UI you can see how this has made the game into a jumbled mess. The VAB has been basically the same for years and the devs' final hurrah was a procedural particle generator that only becomes exciting by exploiting KAL overclocking.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

And consider if they thought things through completely like the devs have been doing to make sure they aren't convoluting the experience, then they'd realise not being able to trust your vessels to stay in orbit isn't fun and that two-body rails just does whatever they expect auto-stationkeeping to do.

honestly you could probably enable simulated station keeping if you wanted by just making a constant fuel drain for vehicles in low orbits

[tstein]

12 hours ago, Kerbart said:

And also, users do not know what they want, which is usually an x/y problem. Consider the constant call for n-body physics. In most cases what they really want are Lagrange points.

The good news is that, AFAIK, Intercept games seems really good at thinking why before implementing features, and act on that.

Well some do want the n body physics for the more interesting  cheaper  complex transfer you can get with them  not for the lagrange points.  That said it is somethign  that woudl be very focused in "advanced" players.