Week One Adventures

[Periple]

Just now, BmB said:

As we've already discussed, Early Access is not an excuse, it's still a release that is not exempt from quality standards.

True, but the quality standards for an EA game are lower than for a full release.

I do agree that Intercept ought to have communicated the state of v0.1 better than they did!

[Nuggzy]

12 minutes ago, Periple said:

The key word here is "on release." HL 2 Ep 2 was a full release, based on a mature and stable game engine, and the third instalment in a series built on the same gameplay, UI, and even assets. If I'm not missing any, Episode Two was the fifteenth game Valve released. If they hadn't gotten their process and pipelines ticking away like clockwork by then they would have been doing something pretty wrong!

KSP2 on the other hand is Intercept's first game, it is built from scratch, and it is in EA. 

I'm sorry BmB but comparing the two is just unrealistic! You have to learn to walk before you can fly, and while it is totally fair to have expected the EA v0.1 to be in better shape out of the gate, it's unreasonable to expect that Intercept has its pipelines and process as stable and well-sorted on their first game entering EA as Valve had on their 15th game at full release!

KSP 2 was not built from scratch. It was rewrote but not from scratch. One of the reasons they stuck with Unity was because they had KSP 1 to copy from. And they did a very poor job at that.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Nuggzy

[Periple]

1 minute ago, Nuggzy said:

KSP 2 was not built from scratch. It was rewrote but not from scratch. One of the reasons they stuck with Unity was because they had KSP 1 to copy from. And they did a very poor job at that.

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about this! 

[BmB]

They ought to have not released it like this. I understand that it is ultimately the publisher that sets release dates and prices, but that does not absolve the developers, as we know of multiple public delays, which probably cover several more internal delays. So what we can get from that is intercept failing multiple times to meet milestones and take 2 forcing them to release to recoup some costs, at the end of the day consumers are the ones getting shafted with an overpriced and underdeveloped release, and you get nothing good out of defending this or making excuses. The least they can do is not keep us waiting any longer than we have to by releasing critical fixes for the current version as soon as possible.

"Weeks" is not an acceptable answer here, never was and never will be.

Edited March 7, 2023 by BmB

[Periple]

Just now, BmB said:

The least they can do is not keep us waiting any longer than we have to by releasing critical fixes for the current version as soon as possible.

I'm quite sure that they want to push out the patch ASAP as much as you want to get your hands on it!

[MechBFP]

Patches aren’t going to magically be ready for release just because you want them to be. 
They aren’t going to up end their entire development process because a random forum user wants them to. 

[Periple]

I know, they should hire Klingon programmers!

Quote

All Klingons who develop code for the glory of the empire follow this "Code of Honour" for software "code warriors".

• Specifications are for the weak and timid.
• State-of-the-art hardware is a prerequisite to do battle with code.
• Indentation is for enemy skulls, not code.
• Klingons do not "release" software. Klingon software escapes, leaving a bloody trail of design engineers and quality assurance people in its path.
• Klingon function calls have no parameters. They have arguments! And they always win them.
• Klingons do not debug. Our software does not coddle the weak.
• Quality Assurance issues are best solved with a Batleth.
• A true Klingon warrior does not comment his code.
• Our users shall know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!

 

[Nuggzy]

6 minutes ago, Periple said:

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about this! 

I am pretty sure I am not. Being an Unreal developer I was curious myself so paid a lot of attention. When they first started this project, they were asked why they stuck with unity instead of switching to a much better engine. Their reply was because they had KSP 1 to build from instead of starting from complete scratch.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Nuggzy

[BmB]

KSP is a game that demands custom systems that aren't well supported by any engine, except perhaps I think unigine had a version for large scale simulations

[LameLefty]

4 minutes ago, BmB said:

KSP is a game that demands custom systems that aren't well supported by any engine, except perhaps I think unigine had a version for large scale simulations

What does that even mean? 

[Nuggzy]

Most games designed any engine require custom systems, unless it's the game the engine was designed around to start with.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Nuggzy

[BmB]

It means solar system sized simulations are not supported in any engine and you'll need to make modifications to any engine you choose, unity is if anything more friendly to this kind of modification than most engines.

Another major problem is game engine physics are not meant for large stacks and complex constraint systems like KSP rockets, they are optimized for performance over stability, things like a few props you can pick up and throw around in HL2. I would say many of the problems with KSP (the "kraken") are due to the instability of the physics engine, If I had a say I would make it a goal to create a custom internal solver for rocket stacks, and let physx worry about only the entire assembly and loose debris.

Looking at the most recent unity docs I can see they have actually added a constraint system like that already, for robotics, very handy.

Edited March 7, 2023 by BmB

[Wyleg]

26 minutes ago, BmB said:

They ought to have not released it like this. I understand that it is ultimately the publisher that sets release dates and prices, but that does not absolve the developers, as we know of multiple public delays, which probably cover several more internal delays. So what we can get from that is intercept failing multiple times to meet milestones and take 2 forcing them to release to recoup some costs, at the end of the day consumers are the ones getting shafted with an overpriced and underdeveloped release, and you get nothing good out of defending this or making excuses. The least they can do is not keep us waiting any longer than we have to by releasing critical fixes for the current version as soon as possible.

"Weeks" is not an acceptable answer here, never was and never will be.

If we get nothing good out of defending the devs, then, once again, what good do you think you gonna make by simply blaming them?

"Weeks" is acceptable, because there is nothing left for you to do than to accept the fact and live on with it. If you think otherwise, go talk to the management, make them rehash their processes in the studio, maybe learn something and get employed to kill bugs and help the devs make patches faster. Whining on the forums doesn't help.

But something tells me, that gamedev professionals already know all the things you are going to tell them, and maybe some more. Like the inside kitchen of the project, that makes it that much harder to bring to life in reality, compared to perfect world you are imagining.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Wyleg

[Fluke]

36 minutes ago, Periple said:

I know, they should hire Klingon programmers!

 

Or the devs are ferengi and they're trying to steal our Latinum! After all the 239th rule of acquisition states "never be afraid to mislabel a product" 

[RaccoonRonin]

19 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

You don't make any of these assertions as a developer, you make them as an impatient consumer who paid into an incomplete product without looking at what they were getting into first.

To be perfectly fair here, I think it's important to note that to the public's knowledge before release due to the communication about the game we received at the time, it was unclear just how incomplete said product really was. Especially considering it's not really lack of content or features that we're missing here but a solid foundation of a game to actually be able to do the play part of the playtesting to do our part in early access. A lot of people I've read and heard from are saying they've been presented with bugs and straight up broken elements that prevent them from doing much more than making model rockets and planes, myself included. 

So while, yes, you should know what you're getting into with an EA game, I think it would have been far less of an outrage so to speak if the devs were (able to be) clear in their communication about the state of the game. You couple that with the asking price which is something like 80-90% the cost of a full release game, and people, in my opinion have a right to prod and complain about it. I don't think it's fair to call someone that's engaging in dialogue that's progressive, however critical, impatient for buying an early access game that many of us here, regardless of stance on the game also bought.

19 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Again, said by an impatient consumer with no understanding of the development process. Hell, rushing led to the "excrement" you are talking about. If you touch a candle and it hurts, you don't reach in again to see if it'll still hurt, do you? That is exactly what you are suggesting the developers do.

Again I feel compelled to ask you, why you think the devs are touching that candle in the first place? You seem to be somewhat suggesting the idea that the devs touched the "candle" and now don't want to do it again, but what or who might have made them do it to begin with? And since this is so common in the industry, why aren't more dev's "avoiding the candle"? 

Also I'd like to ask what about this launch, other than the state of it, suggests rushing to you? If I'm not wrong it was delayed 3 times, and I definitely could be wrong here, but wasn't it originally not planned for early access as well? To me that sounds like postponing, not rushing.

[RaccoonRonin]

17 hours ago, Kerbart said:

They'll probably quote Rule 6:

 

Of course, it comes down to what is playable? And they will conveniently leave out Rule 5, which implicitly states that, for instance, "game save" not working properly does not count as "unplayable."

 

But rule 5 doesn't state that. It states that if you have an issue such as that in your EA build, you need to communicate that clearly and concisely everywhere you talk about your game. So one could argue that since Intercept might have known that, and they certainly didn't communicate it anywhere that I'm aware of, it could be a consideration for counting as unplayable. Just not so sure where you got the idea that it implicitly stated that the game save issue isn't an unplayable qualifier, especially considering no one knew about it until release, though the devs might have.

[Nuggzy]

A couple sticks, a piece of cloth for a sail and a turd floating in the bathtub. You now have the makings for a sailboat on a high seas adventure, but who would want to jump in there and play with it. The term playable is a very broad definition wrapped in the normal CYA legal terms that is so easy to meet it's pointless for anything other then CYA legal BS.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, RaccoonRonin said:

I think it's important to note that to the public's knowledge before release due to the communication about the game we received at the time, it was unclear just how incomplete said product really was

What I bought is exactly what the roadmap made me expect.

1 hour ago, RaccoonRonin said:

21 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Again, said by an impatient consumer with no understanding of the development process. Hell, rushing led to the "excrement" you are talking about. If you touch a candle and it hurts, you don't reach in again to see if it'll still hurt, do you? That is exactly what you are suggesting the developers do.

Again I feel compelled to ask you, why you think the devs are touching that candle in the first place? You seem to be somewhat suggesting the idea that the devs touched the "candle" and now don't want to do it again, but what or who might have made them do it to begin with? And since this is so common in the industry, why aren't more dev's "avoiding the candle"? 

I'm saying @BmB's idea of having the devs do exactly what led to a buggy game in the first place is ridiculous and akin to touching a candle right after learning that candles hurt.

[quaknocom]

58 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

What I bought is exactly what the roadmap made me expect.

I don't think it's unfair to say there's a disconnect between the way the game is presented in the (relatively) massive advertising campaign/Steam store page and what the game actually is right now.  You might have gotten exactly what you expected, but you're on the forums, probably listen to developer interviews and read news about the game. The vast majority of players do not. I think the reviews bear this out.

I know that most of this is publisher stuff, not developer stuff obviously. But it does make this list of known issues very, very funny, and in my opinion, a little dishonest. They clearly knew about so, so many more (and more important/gamebreaking!) issues than this. What an odd choice.

On 2/17/2023 at 10:32 AM, Intercept Games said:

Known Issues (currently being addressed)

• Some parts from the original KSP aren't available - a few parts won't carry over — for example, the increased flexibility of the new engine plate system has reduced the need for bespoke compound parts like the Twin Boar and Mammoth engines. Also, the old patchwork wing parts have been supplanted by procedural wings. Other parts (for example A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E.s) are still in development and will be added in future updates. And of course Science collection, future propulsion, and colony parts will be added alongside their respective feature updates.
• There are still a few gremlins in our serialization code, and very rarely (especially when building high-complexity vehicles) your vehicle may collapse into an unrecoverable pile of parts on the floor of the VAB. For now, it’s a good idea to save frequently.
• Trip planner – the trip planner occasionally displays inaccurate delta-v numbers for some destinations. All delta-v numbers in the VAB use vacuum specific impulse numbers, which affects their accuracy. This will be addressed in a future update. Delta-v numbers shown in the staging stack during flight dynamically reflect the current flight state.
• The center of lift indicator does not yet update dynamically when you adjust a wing in the editor - to see the effects of a wing modification, you must first exit the editor to update the center of lift.

[Nuggzy]

2 hours ago, quaknocom said:

I don't think it's unfair to say there's a disconnect between the way the game is presented in the (relatively) massive advertising campaign/Steam store page and what the game actually is right now.  You might have gotten exactly what you expected, but you're on the forums, probably listen to developer interviews and read news about the game. The vast majority of players do not. I think the reviews bear this out.

I know that most of this is publisher stuff, not developer stuff obviously. But it does make this list of known issues very, very funny, and in my opinion, a little dishonest. They clearly knew about so, so many more (and more important/gamebreaking!) issues than this. What an odd choice.

I am on the forums and watch all of the interviews. I saved most of my vacation days 11 months waiting for this to launch. I wouldn't have bothered if I knew it was going to be an unplayable POS that was just going to frustrate me way too much to be enjoyable. I expected a normal AAA early release, the lack of content slighty buggy but playable base game to build on as usual. This game is not playable in any consistent way.

[theonegalen]

On 3/3/2023 at 6:51 PM, Gyrobyte626 said:

i just need autostrut

i get that some people do like wobbly rockets but there needs to be an option for the rest of us

This worked for me, at least until autostruts are implemented.

[Sorcie]

On 3/3/2023 at 2:28 PM, Domonian said:

Any fix for decouplers getting stuck on stuff? I can't get a rover to the Mun because I'm not very good at building rockets and my "solutions" all end up having a decoupler get stuck on an engine bell or something and causing issues. 

Take off the engine fairing in the engine option.

[LightStrikeBoom]

I am not sure on this idea, but would it be possible to delay the first patch till these issues are fixed since I think they are critical?:
Camera not focusing on the current ship/thinking other parts are still attached.
Decouplers often not working.
Vessel Randomly Being Destroyed(I got a save where whenever my ship tries to land on eve the camera treats a few procedural wings from the first stage, that have been following the whole mission, as a part of the craft and tries to focus on all of them, but it appears that once the main craft gets too far away from the camera it just gets destroyed, or the game says it is).
I haven't built any crafts yet that risk running into this bug myself but I have seen a lot of people talking about or running into the fuel crossfeed bug.
I just think it would be nice to fix those before releasing the patch if that isn't planned already to make it easier for people to return to the game if they were having issues with the bugs from the first version.
Sorry if I just missed some stuff mentioning these issues or if it will be added to the patch notes already.

Edited March 8, 2023 by LightStrikeBoom

[The Aziz]

The list in the op contains things that are already done. Since the post was done few days ago you can assume that more are coming, possibly including the ones you mentioned.

[MarcAbaddon]

There are too many issues to have everything in one patch I think. Best thing is to write patch notes that clearly state what has been fixed and known issues that will be in the next patch.