Discord AMA 2 - Design Director Shana Markham Answers

[Dakota]

Quote

Hi I'm Shana Markham, the Design Director for Kerbal Space Program 2. Previous worked for Treyarch, Gas Powered Games, and Wargaming. Joined Intercept 3 years ago, and really excited to join y'all today and answer some questions!

What is a design director? (enjoyer, Discord)

Quote

A design director is someone who is responsible for standards and practices and excellence of a particular discipline. I oversee all of the designers over here at Intercept Games. I also make sure the designers here can learn and grow and become better designers every day.

What has been your favorite thing to work on so far? (Epic, Discord)

Quote

The VAB. There's a lot of cool moments that help new players learn how to build and fly. Exploring that design space allows more expert players to learn shortcuts to make things faster. It's a win-win on both sides of players.

What is the planet you are most proud of that we have not seen yet? (ThatOneGuy, Discord)

Quote

Glumo!

What is your favourite celestial body in the Kerbolar system? (Little908, Forums)

Quote

Easy - Eve. It's beautiful and haunting. Also once you're there, you're never going back.

What has been the process of bringing a solid gameplay foundation to player progression in KSP2? (StarHawk, Forums)

Quote

We have to answer how does progression give implicit and explicit goals. If you look at something like science, that's implicit. No one is directly telling you to go do experiments. Implicit goals are a better space for Kerbal since we're based on exploration. Explicit goals though are way better for newer players, because it helps them learn what the game is about and what they can do. It also helps some players explore different areas of the game they may not have explored before.

What's the teams approach to converging on a design choice? I'm sure not everybody on the team agrees on how every system / mechanic is supposed to work. How does the team eventually reach a point that everyone is happy with?  (KCreate, Discord)

Quote

This is basically "how does designer design????" When I mentor, this is a really common topic. Really when it comes to design, the differences are all subjective. Designers often develop an agreement over the basics "who are we making the game for? what do we want the game to be?"I'm a big fan of improv, and I like using "yes and" methodology. Building on top of others work continuously. Also just making others look good. Encouraging others and working together on solutions. What is the best path for the game and the players?

How do you and the Team learn about and imitate real world rocket and spacecraft systems, to ensure the realism of the game? (LeroyJenkins, Forums)

Quote

There's a lot to this. We have a handful of subject matter experts including professors and other outside sources. Internally we read whitepapers and dive deep into all different types of topics.

When I initially came into the project, I first knew Nate as "that guy who has a whitepaper about metallic hydrogen taped to his wall."

With this game, we're not always working just with game designers - we're working with people who are passionate about aerospace which is fantastic.

What was the most difficult decision thus far with designing the game? Alternatively, what was the easiest? (bradtaniguichi, Discord)

Quote

Most difficult: establishing the roadmap. We started from an endpoint "here's the game as a whole", but when you go into early access, it's not 50% of each feature, it's milestone on milestone - each building on top of each other. It took us months to sort out. There's still moments where we think about moving things around, but yeah trying to take this absolute behemoth of a game and parse it out into a bunch of different phases.

Easiest: sorting parts by types as a default in the VAB. when we started, we just sorted by size - but it caused difficulty with finding parts. once we added sorting by types, it made sense to make it the default.

What is the most important change in design of KSP 2 from KSP 1 that you feel is overlooked by the community? (viccie211, Discord)

Quote

Approachability. All of the little things that lead to more people coming to the game and moving away from opaqueness. Moving away from "hope you remembered this!!"
We want players to come in, learn, try, fail, and want to try again. That doesn't happen if the game doesn't provide players the information and guidance needed to make those decisions. WHICH IS COMPLICATED when you're dealing with a game that includes rocketry and orbital mechanics. We can't simplify that stuff, so we have to guide players carefully.

Most players don't know how do reentry and land precisely. How will you teach players to land precisely near colony to deliver resources there, or will we get instruments to predict landing site for delivery paths? (Vortygont, Discord)

Quote

The tutorial suite currently in the game is the beginning. For every milestone, we ask ourselves "what else can we add?" So yes, more tutorials to teach more advanced topics. Certainly when colonies comes out, advanced landings will be extremely useful. One of our writers (Jim Peck) did a knowledge-share internally about precision landings, and that taught us a lot about how in-depth that topic can be - and we have to figure out how to distill that down to make it approachable for new players.

How long does it take to design a real world technology for Kerbal technology and still be realistic? I love all that you do the game looks amazing. (the_tunnel, Forums)

Quote

Depends! Depends on the part and so many other aspects. For some parts we're working on right now, it's a pretty quick turn around. But for a lot of the parts, we think about "what's the reality of this part" and then we go through the "what's the gameplay elements that this part could add?" From there we move into "okay we understand what the user story will be when a player uses this part." We'll then do whiteboxes and think about how the parts will impact other parts in the game. Really ultimately it depends.

What are your goals with regards to balance for these new technologies? Is the intent for late-game parts to essentially replace early parts, or for lower-tech solutions to still be viable and necessary in the late-game? (I don't know how to forum, Forums)

Quote

Excellent question. When you're looking at raw power and numbers, cars beat out horses - you see new technology just beat out old tech. But for things like exploration, older technologies can be relevant as well because maybe the resources are more prevalent where you're exploring.

Hi Shana, I was wondering how the KSP team balances the stats of parts. As KSP has many parts that arent exact recreations of real rocket parts, or are future technologies that dont exist yet, determining what stats like thrust and specific impulse should be sounds a lot more involved than just looking it up on google. Could you give an overview of the process the team uses to determine the stats for, say, a metallic hydrogen engine? (pschlik, Discord)

Quote

Whenever we look at introducing new parts, we group parts into certain stories and goals. That helps us understand certain behaviors and gameplay elements. For example, we command parts. All of the individual types of part have stories that help players reach particular goals. Once you understand that, you figure out what the variable are that we can tweak. Like "okay maybe command pods have a better heat tolerance than landers." You derive formulas from the guidelines and then compare the parts together and look into real life data, and ultimately we see how the parts build on top of each other. It's a crazy number of variables.

Are new planets scale more scientifically accurate or have you kept the 1/6th size for gameplay reasons? (Spicat, Discord)

Quote

We kept it to 1/6 size for gameplay reasons. There's not more really on this. Basically if we brought the size up, it would directly impact the game negatively when compared to KSP1.

Will there be any additional things to do or challenges on planets? Like wildlife, exploring cave systems, weather, etc?  (/u/thehomelessman0, Reddit)

Quote

All of those examples are things that we've talked about. For wildlife, if we even mentioned it, Paul Zimmer would barge into the room and be like "you need to listen to me!!"
For science mode, it's the first time we get to turn the "toy" into a "game" and go through the tech tree, and finish missions, and develop a gameplay loop. We want to build missions to be able to highlight the cool things about the Kerbolar system.

Will there be more incentive to going to other planets in the future? Like special resources or things like the mun arch? (iwantbread, Discord)

Quote

This expands on the last question basically. Science and resources will lead to more players exploring the Kerbolar system, and experiments/missions. For the Mun Arch, we'll surely do something with it someday ;)

 

Will previous science parts from KSP1 be in KSP2? (Krzysztof, Discord)

Quote

Parts will be different between the two games. In this case, the design team really wants to hit on their own building and flying usage challenges. You'll see less "let me put a thermometer on my command pod" and more "i've got this weird bulbous thing that performs an experiment and I need to build a rocket around it."

 

How will the resources be distributed across so many planets in order to give the player a reason to explore every world?  If resources aren't the catalyst for exploration, how else do plan on motivating exploration? (Astr0Guy5, Forums)

Quote

We could put a different resource on each planets, but it kinda gates players into "you must do X or you will not proceed." We don't want to force players to go to every single place if they don't want to. Also that's not really true to reality either.

Instead we want to look at the various resources on a planet and how it plays into your space program. Especially with colonies and exploration, you may want to build a mining colony - but perhaps it's really far away and it's annoying to get to. So instead you go somewhere else and build an additional orbital colony to help build resource pathways.

With resource management, are the resourses we gather raw materials that we need to convert into useable resources? Will we need to build a refinery system? (CVUSMO, Discord)

Quote

Yes, you will gather raw resources and then refine them into what you need. Chris Adderly had a lot of fun building a production chain graph which I hope we one day get to release since it's really helpful how to understand how it all flows together.

When it comes to the resource systems, how many resources did you eventually decide to settle on (or are still working on settling on)? Should we expect something like one unique resource per celestial body? (Tyco, Discord)

Quote

Answered this a bit before, but to give a specific number, I think we're looking at 14-15 specific resources throughout the universe. Focused on what you need for propulsion. Same resource may be present in multiple locations, but prevalence/proximity to your existing infrastructure are factors we're thinking about as well.

In the previous AMA it got said that colonies will be built using resources, but the resource gathering update comes after the colonies one, how will that work? (ArturShow, Discord)

Quote

Remember that question about the roadmap? This is one of the outcomes when everything is building on top of each other.. We wanted to make sure exploration is about exploration.

 

Will there still be an equivalent to the Mobile Processing Unit in Science Mode? Why or why not? (/u/Master_of_Rodentia, Reddit)

Quote

No, we want to focus on the core experience of science before considering adding parts that break that game flow.

 

At the moment in KSP2 (and KSP1), activating time warp halts all craft rotation. Was there any consideration given to making rotation persist through time warp? Is this something we'll see in a future update? (Colm, Discord)

Quote

Yes, and totally understand the current implementation makes long distance missions pretty hard to do. I can't say when a change might come, but I can say we're talking about it a lot.

Will we get more clues or backstory to the kerbals, the kraken, or the easter eggs around the kerbolar system? (Buyez, Discord)

Quote

Absolutely. Kerbal is a super interesting piece of world-building, almost like a FromSoft game. Things in the world are teaching you the lore, not just dialog. 

That will continue as we add new parts and celestial bodies, but also missions that might ask you to go visit some of those easter eggs....

 

Are there any plans to add the klaw and asteroids into KSP2? (link12313, Discord)

Quote

Yes absolutely, the question is when..

Will the Rover Cockpit get new modules? (spacenerd1235, Discord)

Quote

Nate Simpson...if you're listening....can we please get more of these? I want more cars and I want more rovers!!

 

Will there be just slightly more advanced tutorials, like going to other planets? Because I'm pretty new, and so far the tutorials for ksp2 are the easiest to understand. (NoKerbalSky08, Forums)

Quote

Glad to hear the tutorials are helping you get up and flying. We definitely want to do that. Some things we're working on: landing, interplanetary travel, basic troubleshooting, planes, and docking. Want each tutorial to build on top of the previous one.

Are variants of engines and tanks like ksp1 planned? (Spicat, Discord)

Quote

We've moved some variants out as their own parts, certainly a topic, but also would likely not appear in the same form as KSP1 

 

Will we get part size categories larger than the 5M parts, like 7.5M? And will the 1.875M parts from the making history DLC make a return? (/u/Combatpigeon96, Reddit)

Quote

Not fully sure on the 1.875 parts, but for the larger part categories you'll see this come with Interstellar because those engines are gigantic!

 

Are there plans to increase the complexity/fidelity/variety of volumetric clouds in future updates? (L, Discord)

Quote

Yes, alongside performance, is a pretty constant point of discussion for our team.

 

Will there be scaling, like the wings now, for other parts? (o0King_Martin0o, Discord)

Quote

Yes, we call these procedural parts. I believe the next one will be radiators which will come when heat returns. We add procedural parts when we feel like "wow there's a lot of parts that are kinda samey." Wings 100% were a priority for us for EA and now we want to build on top of that.

Alternate atmospheric engines. Referring back to Eve, will we have engines that can run on other atmospheric gasses without a need for oxygen? Will we be able to collect gasses from an atmosphere as part of the resource harvesting system? (jclovis3, Discord)

Quote

Not using oxygen is something we want to put through it's paces for authenticity and gameplay values, maybe it something we could do but also what do we and the player get out of this? Does it open it up too much? That's the beginning part of the conversation.
There's a lot of good things in the atmosphere, so expect in the future that the Kerbals will start to give them more attention.

Do you plan on adding first person EVA so we can see the true scale of our kraken inducing heaps of metal? (ghil, Discord)

Quote

hmm.....not promising but definitely could be a thing. how does the community feel about this?

 

Will colonies feature automation gameplay(with-in the colony, so not the delivery route system)? It can look something like: 1) Resource extractor building mines a raw resource, 2) Resource refinery building makes a useable material out of it, 3) Assembly (Acid_Burn9, Discord)

Quote

There's a colony dev blog that I did a long long time ago, which still has things to keep in mind like "KSP is a game about designing cool rockets." Like if a player wants to launch the game and fly a mission to Duna, we don't want the player to have to do 30min of colony overhead to start working towards that goal. We want to make sure automation is implemented to make sure the part of the game that is really important to us, rockets, continues to stay the main gameplay loop.

With interstellar technologies and travel on the roadmap, is relativity a thing in KSP2? Will KSP2 handle time dilation effects when traveling at high velocities to the target star system? (Angelo Kerman, Forum)

Quote

Nate talks about this....and it's terrifying. No other comment....

 

What new fuel types will be available throughout early access, and will different biomes on planets yield different fuel types?  (PleySU, Discord)

Quote

One of the first big propulsion fuels that will come in is nuclear based. As it comes to resources and biomes, yeah for some reason Kerbin isn't a hotbed for uranium - so for all of you who choose to play Exploration, that will be the first time you need to look past Kerbin for things you need.

Considering recent events, will we be getting more parts based off Starship, such as gridfins? And what about telescopic landing legs like Falcon 9?  (NovaRaptor, Discord)

Quote

Incredibly relevant question...in more ways than one. So Tuesday our internal Slack channel lit up when someone shared some Gridfin whiteboxes, so we're coming together as a team to figure out how they can be implemented. Figuring out if we have enough sizes and types of Gridfins to make sure we can meet players expectations. Chris Adderly really wants this, so yeah....expect Gridfins.

Is there a possibility we will see the PAW (part action windows) returning? (CheetahGamer587, Discord)

Quote

Sure. Folks are familiar with the PAW from KSP1 (individual windows). In KSP2 we unified this to the PAM, the list of parts. The heart of that decision was based in accessibility - it can be really hard for some players to click on specific parts. This is a frequent conversation for our UI/UX group.

If you can tell us, will probe stuff be before crewed in the tech tree? So are the first missions in science mode more likely gonna be uncrewed or crewed? (Datau03, Discord)

Quote

So....Kerbals are not people. When we're hiring a writer, I ask them a similar question, like "hey if you look at the tech tree for KSP1, crewed pods come before probes, tell me narratively why that is" 

Very much looking forward to the prospect of colonies! Will adding to orbital colonies be similar to how we already make space stations etc. or how will that work differently?  (SamBretro, Discord)

Quote

Orbital colonies would follow a similar flow to terrestrial colonies and have the same toolset.

 

Will there be Procedural trusses? (chair, Discord)

Quote

Like the previous question on procedural parts, definitely a topic we could discuss.

 

Will there be dedicated parts for building boats and submarines? Underwater bases?  (KCreate, Discord)

Quote

Underwater bases definitely scare me a little, but we 100% want to support boats. KSP1 has some awesome boat content and we want to continue to allow that.

But also.....there are some celestial bodies that might have some challenges you might need a boat for.....

Is the team at IG/PD happy with the current state of the game? (Sunny54Games, Discord

Quote

Yes. We got something we're proud of out into the community. We get to have VERY clear conversations with the community, like we're having right now. For a massive sandbox like Kerbal, it can be hard for our team to hit all of the points players want - so having the community to help us along the way has been incredibly helpful. We've learned a lot and we're realigning on features, and we're in it for the long-haul to make sure that each release is fun, meaningful, and cohesive for our players.

 

If you have any feedback about the AMA, feel free to include it below or in Discord.

Here is the audio recording as well:

[Little 908]

Nice

[cocoscacao]

Goddammit, I missed it... Nice news overall though

[The Aziz]

15 resources

I hope the hardcore part of the colony management enjoyers are happy.

I'm not colony management enjoyer but I am also happy because it's not just basic fuels we know about.

[Pthigrivi]

2 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

15 resources

I hope the hardcore part of the colony management enjoyers are happy.

I'm not colony management enjoyer but I am also happy because it's not just basic fuels we know about.

Well at least 8 of those are fuels, right? Possibly as many as 11 counting O2, water and cesium. That could mean just 3-4 basic resources. Im just still reaaaallly hoping snacks sneak in there somehow. 
 

[Dakota]

7 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

colony management enjoyers

It's important to note how much the team is focused on staying true to "KSP = game about rockets." Shana mentioned this a few times, but new additions/features/parts will extend functionality and gameplay in that area - not replace it. As Shana said, if a player wants to get to Duna, they shouldn't have to do 30min of colony overhead before getting started, which is why automation will play a factor in the colonies/exploration milestones.

There's plenty of amazing colony management games out there (personally my favorite is Rimworld), but we want to stay true to KSP and focus on building some cool rockets.

[mindstalker]

43 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

15 resources

I hope the hardcore part of the colony management enjoyers are happy.

I'm not colony management enjoyer but I am also happy because it's not just basic fuels we know about.

I'm hoping this is more of a tree. Lets say there are 4 basic resources, A, B, C, D  you can  have 2 element resources that are made by combining resource AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD.  Thats 10 right there,  then a few trinary resources like ABC, ABD, ACD, BCD, then finally ABCD.  Thats exactly 15.

Edited April 20, 2023 by mindstalker
meh

[LeroyJenkins]

11 minutes ago, mindstalker said:

I'm hoping this is more of a tree

Listening to Shana's answer about resources and how it relates colony building and interstellar exploration, I took it as the 15 resources are base/raw materials, that when processed together will create new materials. Therefore with base 15 units to combine, if you make only 2 part combos, there's 105 options (unique non repeating). If you make 3 part combos, that's another 455 options, 4 part combos that's 1365 unique non repeating potential combinations. Thus, based on the base 15 elements, one could see (15+105+455+1365=) 1,940 possible combos. Now not all combos would be valid substances, but still that's of variability potential just off the 15 for the developers to work into the game. Shana did mention that one of the other developers (forgot name) who put together a material interaction combo tree diagram with all the combos possible and what they create, and Shana hoped that they could release that diagram to help players. So I think there will be lots to enjoy and explore, and create.

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by LeroyJenkins

[The Aziz]

4 minutes ago, mindstalker said:

I'm hoping this is more of a tree. Lets say there are 4 basic resources, A, B, C, D  you can  have 2 element resources that are made by combining resource AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD.  Thats 10 right there,  then a few trinary resources like ABC, ABD, ACD, BCD, then finally ABCD.  Thats exactly 15.

There's more than 4. Methane, oxygen, xenon, hydrogen, cesium, MH, Helium3... There's no "methalox" resource as such. For sure there's a few more basics like metals/composites for construction, some complex ones like maybe water, monoprop etc.

43 minutes ago, Dakota said:

It's important to note how much the team is focused on staying true to "KSP = game about rockets." Shana mentioned this a few times, but new additions/features/parts will extend functionality and gameplay in that area - not replace it. As Shana said, if a player wants to get to Duna, they shouldn't have to do 30min of colony overhead before getting started, which is why automation will play a factor in the colonies/exploration milestones.

There's plenty of amazing colony management games out there (personally my favorite is Rimworld), but we want to stay true to KSP and focus on building some cool rockets.

Of course, I'm all for that. It's still more than very basic thing KSP1 had, and definitely less than absolute bonkers thing we could find in eg. Extraplanetary launchpads, with 40 pages-long manual pdf. A fine middle ground.

[Alexoff]

We asked so many questions on the forum, but only eight were answered. And short answers to most questions...

[regex]

Quote

We add procedural parts when we feel like "wow there's a lot of parts that are kinda samey."

And you guys didn't think "Boy, there sure are a lot of samey cylinders holding fuel!"

Edited April 20, 2023 by regex

[Alexoff]

2 hours ago, Dakota said:

Is the team at IG/PD happy with the current state of the game? (Sunny54Games, Discord

Quote

Yes. We got something we're proud of out into the community. We get to have VERY clear conversations with the community, like we're having right now. For a massive sandbox like Kerbal, it can be hard for our team to hit all of the points players want - so having the community to help us along the way has been incredibly helpful. We've learned a lot and we're realigning on features, and we're in it for the long-haul to make sure that each release is fun, meaningful, and cohesive for our players.

Seriously? Is this some kind of joke?

 

 

The examples included questions about colonies. I repeated them, and not only me. Devs decided not to answer these questions. Why then were they offered?

[Strawberry]

14 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

We asked so many questions on the forum, but only eight were answered. And short answers to most questions...

40 questions were asked here, according to dakota on discord around 600 questions total were asked. Ill let you do the math

[Alexoff]

3 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

40 questions were asked here

There were many more questions, there were 40 posts. Of course, questions like "what is your favorite planet" are the most interesting

[Strawberry]

8 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

There were many more questions, there were 40 posts. Of course, questions like "what is your favorite planet" are the most interesting

Since you dont want to do the math, Ill do it for you. 8/33 questions were from forums, that's around 25% of the questions answered that were from the forums. If we assume an average of 3 questions per post (more realistically itd probably be like 2.5 but eh thats harder math), that gets us to 120 questions, meaning only 20% of the total questions were from the forums. I dont think the forums are underrepresented here

Edited April 20, 2023 by Strawberry

[Scarecrow71]

A few thoughts based upon the AMA this morning.

1. Colonies sounds like they are going to turn KSP2 into a resource management game, similar to early versions of Railroad Tycoon or Civilization.  Each of those games starts off with you being small, then you explore and expand, find resources, then ship them somewhere else and micro manage them to the point of focusing solely on the supply chain instead of rockets.  I know Shana stated they want to focus the game on rockets, but it seems like, the more we get answers, the more they are adding stuff that takes away from rockets instead of enhancing them.
2. I am wondering who is really picking the questions to be answered.  There were a lot of really great questions that were asked that didn't get picked up, and even a couple where Shana said that it was a good question didn't seem to get a decent answer.  I get that she's a game designer and not a code monkey, and she probably doesn't have any advance knowledge of certain things.  But to avoid asking about bugs, or directed questions about when we can expect major features, or even expanding the parts list...I don't know.  Seems shaky to me.
3. I won't apologize for this next statement:  How on Kerbin can the team be proud of the game they've put out?  I have been pretty stout in my stance to this point about how the game will improve, and to give the team time, and to not get too wound up about the problems because they are working on them.  But that statement at the end made me phyiscally ill to hear.  Major bugs that still haven't been fixed, no roadmap features, performance is a joke.  Short list of parts, and Shana even admitted that the Parts Manager has its own problems that didn't do much for them taking away the part action window.  The game has a whole bunch of negative reviews, we are hovering at a peak of about 450ish players, and we are wandering into territory where we have more people having refunded the game than those who still own it.  I get that the company isn't going to be all negative about it, but at least show a bit of honesty and humility.  It does no good to talk about how great you want the game to be when the game you gave us is, quite frankly, not very good.

I know Dakota has an audio recording of the AMA, but I also have video on my channel on YouTube.  Linked here for posterity.

 

[Ferio]

44 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

We asked so many questions on the forum, but only eight were answered. And short answers to most questions...

Most questions answered are also from discord, majority even and so many excellent questions ignored. Who decides what to be asked?

  

8 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I won't apologize for this next statement:  How on Kerbin can the team be proud of the game they've put out?  

 

I asked a question what happened in the last couple of years, since I remember Nate saying they were "almost"done. I think back in 2021? but ofcourse such question will never be answered, but rather ignored.

I'm guessing there's pain there, they rather avoid than facing and giving truth. While I think most of us would love to hear the truth and appreciate the honesty rather than what's said every single time.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Ferio

[Acid_Burn9]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

colony management enjoyers are happy

Not so much colony management enjoyer per se, but rather a proud factorio (and automation games in general) enjoyer. I'm definitely happy to hear about automated production chains in the colonies! Now i just can't wait to learn MOAR about them.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Acid_Burn9

[Dantheollie]

I am a bit disappointed that we didn't get any clarification on the life-support for colonies stuff. 

I am aware that it has been said that life-support wouldn't be a feature, but I thought it was still a possibility that we'd get colony modules that would help boost a colony... like "snacks" or "greenhouses" or anything with a similitude to a life-support module.

Perhaps this is confirmation that you will be able to plop a Kerbal on any planet and have it grow from one kerbal to 100, without so much as a single module and a resource extraction tool

[Alexoff]

23 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

Since you dont want to do the math, Ill do it for you. 8/33 questions were from forums, that's around 25% of the questions answered that were from the forums. If we assume an average of 3 questions per post (more realistically itd probably be like 2.5 but eh thats harder math), that gets us to 120 questions, meaning only 20% of the total questions were from the forums. I dont think the forums are underrepresented here

Okay, okay, you win! I think many questions were repeated. In fact, I learned little about the game. There will be 15 types of resources, not all will be on the same planets, we will process them. Well, from the main it seems to be everything.

11 minutes ago, Acid_Burn9 said:

Not so much colony management enjoyer per se, but rather a proud factorio (and automation games in general) enjoyer. I'm definitely happy to hear about automated production chains in the colonies!

I am also a big fan of DSP, but something tells me that after a simulator perfectly made by five Chinese programmers, we are unlikely to get the same pleasure from KSP2 colonies.

24 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

How on Kerbin can the team be proud of the game they've put out?

But no one wrote that they are proud of the game. It says that the team is proud of their communication with the community. They answered a few questions, but they could ban all the dissatisfied!

[Scarecrow71]

36 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

But no one wrote that they are proud of the game. It says that the team is proud of their communication with the community. They answered a few questions, but they could ban all the dissatisfied

Wrong.  Shana stated it, and Dakota put it in the answers above:

Quote

We got something we're proud of out into the community.

And you can listen to the audio for verification.

[Alexoff]

35 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Wrong.  Shana stated it, and Dakota put it in the answers above

Well, then she says that they are happy to openly communicate with the community, which helps to do something. Not a word about the game. Though I think Nate would say he's proud of tutorials.
I'm wondering - is there at least one person who bought KSP2, but did not play KSP1 for at least 20 hours? Who are these tutorials for?

[TLTay]

I'm seeing the same kind of language as with the Nate AMA.

TONS of future tense for things that could already have been planned out by now. Lots of "want to" and little "going to" or "are." 

Feels like the same kind of thing I've seen from EA-launched indie games that get shadow-abandoned after sales slump to nothing.

 

[Scarecrow71]

34 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Well, then she says that they are happy to openly communicate with the community, which helps to do something. Not a word about the game. Though I think Nate would say he's proud of tutorials.
I'm wondering - is there at least one person who bought KSP2, but did not play KSP1 for at least 20 hours? Who are these tutorials for?

Dude, quit cherry picking interpretations.  I literally quoted what Shana said in answer to the question:

5 hours ago, Dakota said:

Is the team at IG/PD happy with the current state of the game? (Sunny54Games, Discord

It is right there in black and white.  It isn't up for debate.  When asked if they were happy about the state of the game, Shana said they were proud of what they put out.  That is what was asked and said.  Anything else you want to believe is simply false.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Scarecrow71

[Alexoff]

2 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Dude, quit cherry picking interpretations.  I literally quoted what Shana said in answer to the question

And I think this is a traditional official evasion of the answer. It reminded me of this guy: