To the KSP 2 Dev Team

[dr.phees]

Forgetting the forums. Somehow a lot is going wrong, here. I had thought the current KSP 1 player base to be one huge chunk of an EA target group. Feedback from there should be basically the best that can happen. Discord on the other hand is reliably horrible for large groups. Why they did go there for EA?

I am, again, thinking, that KSP 2 might target a different player group. I could imagine KSP 2 to become a simplified KSP, nice graphics, tutorials, small craft doing easy things. I hope that's not true, but currently I don't think they are actually planning to run KSP 2 for a decade.

Also, the comment is 10 hours old. Why would you say nothing for days and then not change your communication style, but only say you were 'thinking about it'. That tells me, there is a group advocating to basically cut the forums out: "Get rid of the old geezers, take a lesson from Spore and make KSP 2 cuddly, beautiful, easy to access and quick to sell."

Hopefully I am wrong, but the current situation is so weird. KSP was always a project in which players and the game studio were well connected. This disconnect cannot be an accident.

Edited March 1, 2023 by dr.phees

[Fullmetal Analyst]

10 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Why is this feedback only on the freaking discord?!?

because they can run a 1940 regime on discord and randomly ban people

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 hours ago, Mutex said:

My guess is it's down to visibility / reach. Twitter is completely public so potentially millions of people are seeing any interactions. I don't know how the Discord compares with here in terms of user count though.

That would be fine if the game was actually in an EA state. 

Right now, any marketing efforts will have negative results. 

They should suspend marketing and keep things relatively quiet while the bug hunt is on - and step up the community interaction with a cheerful 'hey we value the feedback - look here are the changes you are asking for' theme. 

It's literally the only way to fix this. 

[RayneCloud]

12 minutes ago, Fullmetal Analyst said:

because they can run a 1940 regime on discord and randomly ban people

You say while partaking on forums that are moderated and controlled by the exact same studio.  

[Fullmetal Analyst]

4 minutes ago, RayneCloud said:

You say while partaking on forums that are moderated and controlled by the exact same studio.  

ikr 

[The Aziz]

2 hours ago, dr.phees said:

I could imagine KSP 2 to become a simplified KSP, nice graphics, tutorials, small craft doing easy things. I hope that's not true

Not sure if you played it or not but aside from tutorials both games bring the same rocket-science-ish experience. There's nothing simplified.

[Lisias]

38 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

They should suspend marketing and keep things relatively quiet while the bug hunt is on - and step up the community interaction with a cheerful 'hey we value the feedback - look here are the changes you are asking for' theme. 

It's literally the only way to fix this. 

Right now, one week after the KSP2 Launch, the concurrent KSP players are almost twice of the KSP2 ones - while the total reviews on Steam shows about 49% of positive feedback (KSP has 94% for comparison).

Spoiler

https://steamcharts.com/cmp/220200,954850

https://store.steampowered.com/app/954850/Kerbal_Space_Program_2/

Whatever they are going to do, I suggest to bring an external mediator to handle the unavoidable conflicts and preserve all parts involved from unnecessary wear and tear.

The Dev Team, as the name of this thread is already suggesting (in good faith, I'm absolutely sure), are the one going to be on the receiving end without an impartial, 3rd party mediation. The genius is out of the bottle, there's no way to put him back - now someone will be called to scramble to salvage the situation at any costs - and we had already seen this movie before, so we know how it ends.
 

[RayneCloud]

12 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Right now, one week after the KSP2 Launch, the concurrent KSP players are almost twice of the KSP2 ones - while the total reviews on Steam shows about 49% of positive feedback (KSP has 94% for comparison).

  Reveal hidden contents

https://steamcharts.com/cmp/220200,954850

https://store.steampowered.com/app/954850/Kerbal_Space_Program_2/

Whatever they are going to do, I suggest to bring an external mediator to handle the unavoidable conflicts and preserve all parts involved from unnecessary wear and tear.

The Dev Team, as the name of this thread is already suggesting (in good faith, I'm absolutely sure), are the one going to be on the receiving end without an impartial, 3rd party mediation. The genius is out of the bottle, there's no way to put him back - now someone will be called to scramble to salvage the situation at any costs - and we had already seen this movie before, so we know how it ends.
 

While I can't speak on what happened with my departure from KSP 1, I can say that the team was some of the best and brightest I've ever worked with and I believe in this team as well. Some of the older KSP 1 devs are with KSP 2  as well from what little I've gathered. This team does care, and they do listen. I'm not sure where the line is for most people, but remember dev's are human beings please.

Edited March 1, 2023 by RayneCloud

[Periple]

13 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Whatever they are going to do, I suggest to bring an external mediator to handle the unavoidable conflicts and preserve all parts involved from unnecessary wear and tear.

The Dev Team, as the name of this thread is already suggesting (in good faith, I'm absolutely sure), are the one going to be on the receiving end without an impartial, 3rd party mediation. The genius is out of the bottle, there's no way to put him back - now someone will be called to scramble to salvage the situation at any costs - and we had already seen this movie before, so we know how it ends.

I don't understand. A mediator to mediate between whom? 

[Lisias]

2 minutes ago, Periple said:

I don't understand. A mediator to mediate between whom? 

Between all parts involved on the launch. 

You see, the Launch wasn't exactly a success. Worst, the state of the game is blatantly under the minimal requirements to achieve a minimally acceptable result. The whole structure failed on delivering the needed results, what suggests that something is missing on the equation.

We usually get better results on this situation by having a trustable outsider, without his skin on the problem (but surely interested in the best outcome possible), mediating the unavoidable conflicts that most of the time, ends up blowing up in the face of the weakest stakeholders without such mediation.

The Aerospace Industry is full of examples about how to deal with such failures. I suggest to ask what NASA would do on a situation like this, and do something similar - these ones are pros on handling huge mistakes, they did they share in the past, and they successfully managed to get out of the problem bigger and stronger.

Spoiler

TL;DR: They need to shield the people that are really doing their work from people trying to save their face.

 

[MarcAbaddon]

Mediators work between two individuals and two organizations/companies, but I still don't see who the mediator is supposed to mediate with?

Between the disappointed players and Intercept? The players aren't really single voice. 

I don't think we need a mediator. What I think would help is some clear communication on a roadmap to get the most serious issues fixed.

[Periple]

21 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Between all parts involved on the launch. 

You see, the Launch wasn't exactly a success. Worst, the state of the game is blatantly under the minimal requirements to achieve a minimally acceptable result. The whole structure failed on delivering the needed results, what suggests that something is missing on the equation.

Oh OK, gotcha. 

Normally producers play the mediator role in this kind of situation (which is why everybody blames them first whenever something goes pear-shaped). I have no idea if things are so inflamed that they need outside mediators but I suspect not.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

25 minutes ago, Periple said:

o inflamed that they need outside mediators

They are not. 

All that is really needed is effective community managers - which @PD_Dakota and @Ghostii_Spaceare discovering is a bigger responsibility than they imagined.  I suspect they anticipated being able to coast along with a happy community and do fun and interesting things to bring more people in.

If they are still doing that - they're making a HUGE mistake. 

They need to put on the hat of 'hey guys this is beta!  There are a lot of bugs!  Here's when you can expect the first patch!  Guess what?  We really appreciate your efforts!  We are collecting info and passing on to the Devs - but here is the priority list for right now.  Expect the next update two days after the patch hits! 

Sadly I get the feeling that they are in the Discord and the socials still trying to figure out how to increase sales. 

[Periple]

12 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

effective community managers

The CMs are going to be SWAMPED. Not a fun role to have RN. They're also going to have to be super careful not to say anything that can be construed as a promise unless they have the greenlight from publishing, which means basically that they can either say nothing or platitudes. They will also be reporting back on what's going on in the community, what the narratives are, what the balance of narratives are, and doing what they can to minimize the hit on morale so the devs can dev. 

I.e. p much the only thing they can say is "We hear you, we're working on it, please be patient." They have said that and there's only so many ways and times they can repeat it without starting to hate themselves. 

They won't give you a prio list because if they even make a peep in that direction, the community will go THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE NEXT PATCH AND IT'LL BE OUT IN APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES and when it won't, it'll be another fine mess.

Fans aren't reasonable and it's not reasonable to expect CMs to treat them like reasonable people.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Periple

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

8 minutes ago, Periple said:

The CMs are going to be SWAMPED. Not a fun role to have RN. They're also going to have to be super careful not to say anything that can be construed as a promise unless they have the greenlight from publishing, which means basically that they can either say nothing or platitudes. They will also be reporting back on what's going on in the community, what the narratives are, what the balance of narratives are, and doing what they can to minimize the hit on morale so the devs can dev. 

I.e. p much the only thing they can say is "We hear you, we're working on it, please be patient." They have said that and there's only so many ways and times they can repeat it without starting to hate themselves. 

They won't give you a prio list because if they even make a peep in that direction, the community will go THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE NEXT PATCH AND IT'LL BE OUT IN APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES and when it won't, it'll be another fine mess.

Fans aren't reasonable and it's not reasonable to expect CMs to treat them like reasonable people.

I'm asking them to do what I have seen done, successfully, in the several Betas, the one Alpha, and two EA communities I've been a part of. 

They are not. 

They are slinging hype and some platitudes on hype directed platforms, but they are not here and not going through the work you describe. 

I doubt they know what they are doing... But I suspect they are getting a real education on what they should be doing. 

[Periple]

4 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

They are slinging hype and some platitudes on hype directed platforms, but they are not here and not going through the work you describe. 

Most of the work they are doing won't be visible to us. CMs are the contact point between the community and the studio, most of what they do is inward-facing. Especially in this kind of situation. 

Without knowing which betas, alpha, and EAs you've participated in, I suspect they may have been better managed from the start. This one clearly went wrong, as the expectations and the reality did not match at all. There really isn't much CMs can do once the poop has RVed with the ventilator!

[danfarnsy]

15 hours ago, PD_Dakota said:

Just popping my head in here that we're rethinking our comms strategy to make sure any info shared through the Discord is mirrored here. We're around and listening and interacting on Discord and socials, but we definitely have not been giving the forums the time you all deserve. 

Not doing a lot to remedy the impression that nobody is actually planning things ahead or in charge at Private Division or Intercept.

[Pthigrivi]

My best advice to folks here is to have some patience. There's a lot to absorb after the launch and we're like 3 business days into a very long process. Im sure the devs hoped and wished things went smoother, that performance and bugs wouldn't have been as punishing as they are. Given how much so many of them have poured into every inch of this game Im sure it's very difficult for them personally. Im sure many of them have gotten few breaks and little sleep for weeks. Give them a couple days here to wrap their arms around this. Im sure they'll be chiming in about patches soon. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Monger]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

Between all parts involved on the launch. 

You see, the Launch wasn't exactly a success. 

  Reveal hidden contents

TL;DR: They need to shield the people that are really doing their work from people trying to save their face.

 

Imho you can't know whether the launch was a success unless you know the goal. If the goal was to generate sufficient feedback to prioritize development effort in an early stage, then it was successful. If its goal was to get favorable reviews, then it failed.

Honestly, if it is the former, and someone deliberately decided to weather the excrementsstorm until it gets better, then kudos, someone has balls of steel. 

[radimov]

Maybe the developers can't say more, but even the community managers are not active.

[TechDragon]

What's interesting is that we don't see "test builds"... given the raw state of things, I would have expected one tactic to be putting a dev familiar with the release process in charge of trying to ensure a build is in a shippable each day and releasing "nightly" builds to steam that require users to opt in via the beta mechanism, as both a show of good faith that work is indeed happening, and to get faster feedback on if the changes are having the desired effect on the huge variety of systems. The could even ration the betas as I believe this is a supported option in the Steam platform. 

What I'm wondering is if the decision to build and use their own Private Division launcher ^{Note 1}  has complicated this sort of tactic, by way of intermeshing the game itself with another system that may not be capable of such a high release cadence. 

 

Note 1: 

Spoiler

I'm really not a fan of it myself, I feel its pointless... I don't need any more game specific accounts, its tedious, its a security liability to have yet another account with a password with other info in it, generally i just don't want these extra accounts and I'll continue to click the anonymous option and not bother as long as possible. Also I expect "skip the launcher" patches/mods will be extremely popular among the dedicated player base, unless they are planning to tie multiplayer or mods to it, I really think it was a waste, and if they are, then I really hope they rethink things, because... yuck... no thanks.

 

[Periple]

10 minutes ago, TechDragon said:

What's interesting is that we don't see "test builds"... given the raw state of things, I would have expected one tactic to be putting a dev familiar with the release process in charge of trying to ensure a build is in a shippable each day and releasing "nightly" builds to steam that require users to opt in via the beta mechanism, as both a show of good faith that work is indeed happening, and to get faster feedback on if the changes are having the desired effect on the huge variety of systems.

That can only work if you have a rock solid DevOps pipeline including comprehensive unit/integration tests for everything. Otherwise you're just spitting out one catastrophically failing build after another.

If they had that, the build wouldn't be like it is. 

(The launcher won't complicate things, I'm sure they have beta/test channels in place, otherwise they wouldn't be pushing the builds to Steam in the first place.)

[Kerbart]

14 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Why is this feedback only on the freaking discord?!?

Apparently it isn't.

That doesn't take away that the lack of communication on this forum from IG is absolutely terrible.

 

[TechDragon]

3 minutes ago, Periple said:

That can only work if you have a rock solid DevOps pipeline including comprehensive unit/integration tests for everything. Otherwise you're just spitting out one catastrophically failing build after another.

If they had that, the build wouldn't be like it is. 

  While that's the ideal way to deliver it, the other way is making it someone's primary job to ensure your build pipeline is functional, and even with a team making constant changes, there's typically a series of punctuated spots along the way where the build is "good enough" to ship, and its these builds they would be putting into a "nightly" beta. As for "catastrophically failing build"... I don't want this to imply what they shipped was somehow a literal turd, because it looks pretty, and does play well enough for some people, particularly for aircraft, but based on my personal development experience (which I'll admit is limited for Unity games the size of KSP, but I am familiar with Unity builds and C# in general) I'm not really sure if nightly builds would be "worse" than the current release build... since its acknowledged that there are a significant amount of high priority game breaking bugs, many of which completely prevent people from playing.... For these people, any build with those bugs fixed is better than the current release build. I don't think that even with "manual" releases being built buy a release manager every day, they would be worse off than they currently are.

Its a bit of a catch 22, they are damned if they stay silent and work, and damned if they speak up about work is underway... nightly builds with lots of big in game "DAILY DEBUG BUILD" type test to make it clear to players they are playing a potentially unreliable build that may have new bugs or may have fixed old ones, or not, this is the current bleeding edge to show people that work is clearly happening even if its not being communicated daily because they are busy fixing stuff... and we can all see the daily build for proof.

[Periple]

Eh, it's always easy to give good advice from a safe distance. All that needs resourcing. And the dev who's supposed to make sure the build doesn't give you cancer might be needed to actually fix stuff. And they might not have somebody with the right skill set and project familiarity available.

Another problem is creating expectations, if they would start rolling out nightlies the fans would start to expect one every night, so if there's a bad one and they decide to hold it it would be THE SKY IS FALLING THE GAEM IS DOMED WHERES MY NIGHTLY BUILD WHAAA all over again.

I do know that if it was up to me I would nix public nightly builds until the DevOps/QA pipe is in much better shape than it is. Downside risk is just so much bigger than the upside. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Periple