Please, calm down!

[tstein]

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I got baulders gate 3 at launch, i know what im getting into

  Hide contents

 

 

That one was  too much risk for me.

[Kubas_inko]

17 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I'm not disputing that, but from what I can tell, the only real parts missing are the DLC parts that, from what I can tell, hardly anyone uses because mods do it so much better. So, can they really be called "Missing" if no one uses them? It's not just visuals right now. We have new parts, new UI, new mechanics.

Map view, objectively better in KSP 2.
UI, objectively better in KSP 2.
New parts, which offsets the missing parts, imo at least.
Better coding under the hood, 1000 times objectively better than KSP 1. KSP 1 was literally held together by broken code. The fact that it worked is a miracle. Ask any vet of the game, I'm 100% sure they will tell you the same thing. 

All these improvements and you're stuck on "Bad performance." and "Missing DLC parts" in an early access game. Yeah, I don't have tunnel vision. 

I am stuck on what makes KSP great and UI is definitely not at the top of my list. 
And by content I don't mean just parts. Look at the what we have vs what is in KSP 1 right now. Science is coming. Resource gathering is coming. New system and parts are coming. Once again. KSP 2 vs early KSP 1, KSP 2 wins hands down. But KSP 2 vs KSP 1 right now, you can do so much more in KSP 1.

Also unless you have some insider knowledge, nobody knows how good/bad the coding is. So far the physics seems to be really badly optimized (just look at swdennis video where he paused the time and game jumped  instantly to 60FPS).

17 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Yes, bugs are a thing. Game breaking bugs in a "Complete" game shouldn't be. No, KSP is not completely playable if I have to restart the game every 30 mins. It is a broken mess, because it crashes every 30 mins, you need mods to fix issues, there's literally an entire mod dedicated to trying to fix most if not all issues in KSP 1. That's the literal definition of "broken mess." 

You're just overexaggerating. I honestly can't remember when the game crashed on me when playing stock. But it does crash with mods. But that is usually cause the mods. But I am not saying that it didn't crash. But it is not as severe as you are making it to be.
Also you don't need a perfect code, you need a code that works. KSP 1 is that. It works (most of the time), but it does work.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Kubas_inko

[tstein]

2 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

True, but at the same time... people said they prefer Infernal Robotics. So, again, mods did it better. 

But infernal robotics leaked memory (at least it used to  until the DLC came and I  uninstalled the mod).  Mods are most of the time a LOW quality experience ( with a few exceptions)

[GoldForest]

1 minute ago, mystik said:

- No Campaign

- No Science

- No Colonies

- No Interstellar

- No new system

- No Multiplayer

- bad FPS goes here

- super buggy (Matt talks about the engine sounds disappearing and such)

- no tree collision (my dudes, the Parallax mod for KSP has collision with objects, and that mod is made by like 1 or a few guys, not a full payed game dev team, he did it for free, lol)

I'm sure I missed a lot of the issues. So no, GoldForrest, it's not just the FPS, you're the one focusing on that alone.

There was no campaign to begin with. 

Coming later.

Coming later.

Coming later.

Coming later.

Coming later.

Will improve throughout EA. That's what it's for. 

Early access, will improve throughout EA. 

Tree collisions are coming. They're working on it. 

Well, in almost every post so far, the only thing mentioned was "Poor performance." So, no, I wasn't focusing on one thing, I was replying to the thing you were focusing on. 

[K^2]

Just now, mystik said:

- No Campaign[...]

That's right there in the description of what it means for this game to be in the early access. Your complaint is that the unfinished game that's being advertised as unfinished is, in fact, unfinished. This is like if I bought an apartment in a building still under construction, went to the site, and said, "Holly crap, this place doesn't even have running water! I've been ripped off!"

If you have concerns that this game will get finished, the smart thing is to hold off on your purchase. But for crying out loud, that's obvious to everyone. When you're standing here telling people, "Are you mad giving $50 for a game that's not finished," to people who are pretty confident that it will get finished, well, it's not a good look from the outside. Just want you to be aware of that.

[tstein]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

Again, the studio that worked on the game that was announced in 2019 is defunct. That project effectively died. Some talent and assets have been moved over to the new version of KSP2, but trust me, this game was started almost from scratch in 2020. No project can be simply resumed after such a migration. It was an almost clean reboot of the development process. And we can see it in everything, from the state of the game to the people the team was hiring at the time.

I don't like the fact that Take Two / Private Division tried to mask that, and make it look like a series of delays, but they were simply trying to avoid spooking the investors. Nobody had any intention of releasing KSP2 before late 2022.

Thatis true, it would not be unrealistic to call this game KSP 3 and  deconsider KSP2 just like the highlander movies.

[K^2]

2 minutes ago, tstein said:

Thatis true, it would not be unrealistic to call this game KSP 3 and  deconsider KSP2 just like the highlander movies.

I actually liked Highlander 2. Back when I watched it as a kid. I probably shouldn't re-watch it, should I?

But I honestly don't know how to think of numbering in cases like this. I almost want to call Star Theory's project KSP 1.5. Especially, since the original pitch really did sound a lot more like taking KSP and giving it a face lift. There's obviously a lot taken wholesale from KSP in this new game as well, but it seems far more committed to starting from scratch.

[tstein]

Just now, K^2 said:

I actually liked Highlander 2. Back when I watched it as a kid. I probably shouldn't re-watch it, should I?

But I honestly don't know how to think of numbering in cases like this. I almost want to call Star Theory's project KSP 1.5. Especially, since the original pitch really did sound a lot more like taking KSP and giving it a face lift. There's obviously a lot taken wholesale from KSP in this new game as well, but it seems far more committed to starting from scratch.

If you want to keep your childhood intact.. no you should not. I was already adult when I watched and I swear I lost more neurons than  10 bottles of vodka  would cause.

[GoldForest]

2 minutes ago, Kubas_inko said:

I am stuck on what makes KSP great and UI is definitely not at the top of my list. 
And by content I don't mean just parts. Look at the what we have vs what is in KSP 1 right now. Science is coming. Resource gathering is coming. New system and parts are coming. Once again. KSP 2 vs early KSP 1, KSP 2 wins hands down. But KSP 2 vs KSP 1 right now, you can do so much more in KSP 1.

Also unless you have some insider knowledge, nobody knows how good/bad the coding is. So far the physics seems to be really badly optimized (just look at swdennis video where he paused the time and game jumped  instantly to 60FPS).

That's just overexaggerating. I honestly can't remember when the game crashed on me when playing stock. But it does crash with mods. But that is usually cause the mods. But I am not saying that it didn't crash. But it is not as severe as you are making it to be.
Also you don't need a perfect code, you need a code that works. KSP 1 is that. It works (most of the time), but it does work.

There's the thing. You can't compare KSP 2 to KSP 1. They are in essence, two totally different games that are just doing the same thing. It's like comparing a Ford Mustang 2022 to Ford Mustang 1969. You can point out similarities, but at the end of the day, they are two separate cars. 

I don't have insider knowledge, but it's common sense that professional gamers make better code than some accounting firm who made a game for fun that had no knowledge of how to make a game in the first place. So, yes, KSP 2 has way better code than KSP 1. The physics lagging out is just how physics-based games go. It needs optimization, which will come. Again, Early Access. 

Stock KSP crashes just as much as modded KSP. Look at any content creator who makes multiple 100 part stock craft. They complain all the time about how the game crashes. KSP 1 is fine if you keep the rockets simple, under 40 parts, but go above 50 and it starts to rear its ugly head. Heck, build a large station in orbit. Performance tanks. 

I'm not saying it needs perfect code, but it does need code that shouldn't have game breaking bugs. 

1 minute ago, tstein said:

But infernal robotics leaked memory (at least it used to  until the DLC came and I  uninstalled the mod).  Mods are most of the time a LOW quality experience ( with a few exceptions)

Wasn't aware of the memory leak, then again, KSP 1 memory leaks on it's own, so meh. IR is still better than stock robotics. It's the other way around, imo. Most are high quality with a few exceptions. (At least KSP modding today)

[mystik]

Just now, GoldForest said:

There was no campaign to begin with. 

Coming later.

Coming later.

Coming later.

Coming later.

Coming later.

Will improve throughout EA. That's what it's for. 

Early access, will improve throughout EA. 

Tree collisions are coming. They're working on it. 

Well, in almost every post so far, the only thing mentioned was "Poor performance." So, no, I wasn't focusing on one thing, I was replying to the thing you were focusing on. 

Campaign stands for tree progression. I though you would understand what a "campaign" is in KSP.

The rest of your post makes no sense if you actually read my complaints.

So, they ask for 50 bucks for:

Coming Later

Coming Later

Coming Later

Coming Later

Coming Later

Bad optimization (ahem, LAZY CODING)

No collisions (but you said it is better than the original KSP and I also noticed you didn't mention the fact that PARALLAX exists, so you're not paying attention or deliberately ignoring so that you don't have to actually deal with the facts)

If it was ok, 5 bucks for the garbage we have now, then extra 5 bucks when science is introduced, 5 when colonies are added, 5 for when a new solar system is added and so on. But it's not. It's all the money upfront and we'll see. We promise. And we will keep that promise like we did with all our promises. And yes, launch dates are promises, don't play smart with me.

I am going to totally trust a company that failed to deliver repeatedly before with any promise at this point.

And my posts were all about "Buyer Beware" I repeated this a few times. I care about the guy that will buy this hot mess way more than the company. I don't care about the company at all. I don't even care about the devs. They don't care about me. I think that's fair. Money for product. I don't see why I should go out of my way to be all empathetic and crap with people that want me to open my wallet to buy their product. Are they gonna give me a discount if I show sympathy? Are they gonna give me a good advice when I need one? Are they gonna help me carry the groceries? Are they gonna fix my car? "Constructive criticism", lol. This is ridiculous.

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

There's the thing. You can't compare KSP 2 to KSP 1.

You did. I got the receipts. Total "Bruh" moment.

[MarcAbaddon]

Not having a campaign at the start of early access is fair to the customer and I won't complain about fairness.

But I do think it's a bit of a strategic error to not have a very simple progression mechanic at release.  One of the things they want to focus on accessibility - you can see this focus by them actually having quite a few of the tutorials in already.  But it's fairly overwhelming to see all those parts from the start. You get overwhelmed by the number of choices.

I think what should have been optimal for EA is something very simple milestone based:

- First flight -> unlock couplers and a new engine/larger fuel tank

- Leave atmosphere -> unlock simple heat shield and vacuum stage engine

- Orbit - Unlock all small parts plus some medium parts

- Land on Mun - unlock all chemical rocket parts

- Get to Duna - Unlock advanced engines (nuclear and ion) 

They need the technology to detect the conditions being met anyway for the tutorials, so it probably would have been easy.

Just as an additional help to the player to show them what engines they need for what. And not have them choose between 20 engines.

Edited February 22, 2023 by MarcAbaddon

[modus]

23 minutes ago, mystik said:

super buggy (Matt talks about the engine sounds disappearing and such)

Pretty sure he was talking about ksp1 there. He was asking if it was caused by waterfall or something else.

[tstein]

I will quote the title "CALM DOWN"

 

The game is EA, and   a  CAPITAL EARLY one should. I know  quite a lot of people here expected a Not so Early access, but everal people here that played other  EA games warned that there was a very  likely chance that it woudl be  VERY early access.

You are not paying for the product as much as you are paying to satisfy your anxiety.  If you want a nearly complete game.. wait... there are other things to do in life while you wait.

I  will wait until later in the EA, until someone says it is running on a reasonable performance with a machine I can afford (and  for the good of the game they WIll have to tone down those requirements or it will be a FLOP as the average KSP player is NOT the same as an average FPS player).

[K^2]

7 minutes ago, modus said:

Pretty sure he was talking about ksp1 there. He was asking if it was caused by waterfall or something else.

Yeah, he specifically called out that the engine audio in KSP2 is great and doesn't have the problems he kept having in KSP1.

[GoldForest]

Just now, mystik said:

Campaign stands for tree progression. I though you would understand what a "campaign" is in KSP.

The rest of your post makes no sense if you actually read my complaints.

So, they ask for 50 bucks for:

[Snip]

Bad optimization (ahem, LAZY CODING)

No collisions (but you said it is better than the original KSP and I also noticed you didn't mention the fact that PARALLAX exists, so you're not paying attention or deliberately ignoring so that you don't have to actually deal with the facts)

If it was ok, 5 bucks for the garbage we have now, then extra 5 bucks when science is introduced, 5 when colonies are added, 5 for when a new solar system is added and so on. But it's not. It's all the money upfront and we'll see. We promise. And we will keep that promise like we did with all our promises. And yes, launch dates are promises, don't play smart with me.

I am going to totally trust a company that failed to deliver repeatedly before with any promise at this point.

And my posts were all about "Buyer Beware" I repeated this a few times. I care about the guy that will buy this hot mess way more than the company. I don't care about the company at all. I don't even care about the devs. They don't care about me. I think that's fair. Money for product. I don't see why I should go out of my way to be all empathetic and crap with people that want me to open my wallet to buy their product. Are they gonna give me a discount if I show sympathy? Are they gonna give me a good advice when I need one? Are they gonna help me carry the groceries? Are they gonna fix my car? "Constructive criticism", lol. This is ridiculous.

Campaign does not stand for tree progression. Tree progression stands for tree progression. A campaign in KSP 1 was completing contracts. A campaign in KSP 2 would be completing milestones, which they've said they are going to add in some form.

Lazy coding? You can't call it lazy when you haven't even seen under the hood. If the game releases and the code is full of shortcuts that are held together by rubber bands and paper clips, then and only then could you call it lazy coding. 

Parralax is a MOD. Mods do not count towards STOCK KSP 2. Comparing Modded KSP 1 to Stock KSP 2 is disingenuous and arguably deceptive and deceitful. So, yes, I'm ignoring that fact that you mention parallax for the sole fact it has no meaning to this discussion.

They have promised nothing, but to make KSP 2 better. That's the only promise they have made. They didn't promise a release date, they didn't promise to have features x,y,z in early access, nothing but "We will make the game better." and from what we've seen from the sneak peeks, they mean it. They went from showing a stuttering fps to at least smooth fps. No, release dates are NOT a promise. If they were, everyone would complain when every game got delayed. 

None of your posts are "Buyer beware." they are you complaining about problems with an unfinished game that says its unfinished. That's not buyer beware. @K^2 even said it. 

And no one has told you to be 'empathetic' just to be constructive. 

[mystik]

7 minutes ago, tstein said:

I  will wait until later in the EA, until someone says it is running on a reasonable performance with a machine I can afford (and  for the good of the game they WIll have to tone down those requirements or it will be a FLOP as the average KSP player is NOT the same as an average FPS player).

That's wise, but, even if they push one feature per year, multiplayer is 5 years from now. This means that they won't have to optimize performance, because 5 gpu generations from now it will make a 2060 look like an intel on board graphics card. This needs to be done now, not later when they "launch" (LOL) the game. To not optimize now would simply be dishonest. The graphics from KSP 2 are very similar, if not inferior to KSP plus mods, it doesn't justify the garbage FPS based on visual gains.

[tstein]

If I was not so overloaded with my own startup I was thinking on starting an  Open Space Program   open source project ( I have a basic framework without any graphics that I used in soem experiments with reinforcement learning  so that an AI could learn to make transfers )just to see  how in hell  things would develop with everyone trying to pull things  into their own desired directions without any  big picture view

[Gargamel]

Aight, seeing as there’s nothing really new in here beyond the first few posts, everything else has been discussed ad nauseum for years, we can direct those conversations to the appropriate threads.