Rooting for JUICE

[darthgently]

30 minutes ago, Dantheollie said:

Twenty years from now, we will look back at these posts and share a hearty laugh at our internet-arguments over our little Space-frog Rocket Simulator game

By then KSP2 will be out of development and it will have become whatever it must become. Will our words here be perfect representations of gamer impatience? Perhaps they'll age well?

Our legacies preserved in digital amber, here in our little corner of the internet, as petty arguments over an early access game 

 

I feel like this has been said before. Maybe we all need to chill, lest we loose the spirit that made these forums such a lovely place to be 

At the same time, it is through a process like this that a game morphs to find its players and players find a game worth playing.  Life has rough edges smoothed down by friction if at all

[Wheehaw Kerman]

5 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

Thier past slow development to date, as I spoke of in my post.  What proof do you have that they are making good progress? 

The extreme unlikeliness that TT would let IG drop the ball to the extent that the [polite euphemism for the our day is ruined and their disappointment is immeasurable folks] would have it.

The timelines for the game.  The [polite euphemism]s see August 2019 to the present, plus occasional unverifiable hypotheses for the game having been under development for years previously,  as being a long timeline for the EA build.  They’re omitting and forgetting whatever work that’s still in development for the rest of the roadmap, and minimizing the complete rebuilding and updating of a game that’s much more complex than your average shooter.

The post from Nate, who is a much more credible source than the polite euphemisms, and which is sober, and dovetails credibly with observable reality.

I’m not going to venture a timeline, but I’ve set a reminder to revisit this thread in two years, and see whether I was right.

 

[pandaman]

I am a little disappointed at the prospect of less frequent patches, as I do feel there are some issues that need addressing sooner rather than later, however that wouldn't in itself guarantee that my pet peeves would be addressed in them.  Some issues are just harder to fix so take longer, or may be affected by 'future  stuff' so why waste time on a non critical fix that will need changing again anyway before too long.

Overall I would much rather fewer, but better, patches than more frequent ones that do very little or break stuff.

Reducing, patch/update frequency does not in itself  indicate slower development, and may even speed it up a little...  If you are traveling from A to B and you need to keep stopping to tell your Mum where you are every few minutes your journey will likely take longer than if you just call every hour.

 

[AtomicTech]

Thank you @Nate Simpson for the update; I think we all needed to hear this.

You've definitely put some more coal into the hype train!

[regex]

4 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I’ve set a reminder to revisit this thread in two years, and see whether I was right.

Two years is far too long, that would mean KSP2 has been in development for, what, seven eight years by their count? People simply can't balk at a price, say "not for me", and walk away peacefully, someone MUST be held "accountable".

[Alexoff]

Somehow sparsely new will be in patch 3. No heating? Changing the scale of the ENTIRE interface looks strange, since part of it is quite acceptable in size, and the navball for example is too large. In general, the game will be a journey of 10 years, unless of course it is closed.

2 hours ago, regex said:

Two years is far too long, that would mean KSP2 has been in development for, what, seven eight years by their count?

And once games were made in a year or two, in some 1997 ...

[Angelo Kerman]

Personally, I still think that KSP 2 has a lot of potential, but it also has a long way to go. I remain cautiously optimistic.

[regex]

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

And once games were made in a year or two, in some 1997 ...

When they were much simpler? Yeah, that makes sense.

[Alexoff]

46 minutes ago, regex said:

When they were much simpler? Yeah, that makes sense.

Graphically simpler, gameplay-no. Halflife is not an easy game. But this is certainly one of the best games of those years.

[cocoscacao]

21 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Graphically simpler, gameplay-no

You're twisting the point again. 

[Alexoff]

14 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

You're twisting the point again.

The point is that a lot of ready-made engines, libraries and other features have already been created for game development. On the one hand, only a handful of people can create a good game in a short time in their garage, and on the other hand, mega-corporations are apparently ready to develop KSP2 for 10+  years.

[cocoscacao]

8 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

The point is that a lot of ready-made engines, libraries and other features have already been created for game development

If you say so.

[RaBDawG]

8 hours ago, AtomicTech said:

Thank you @Nate Simpson for the update; I think we all needed to hear this.

You've definitely put some more coal into the hype train!

What, lol?

[RocketRockington]

2 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

If you say so.

Your advice about making valid points and adequate counterarguments here was good.  

 

 

[cocoscacao]

@RocketRockington I absolutely have no intention to get into argument with this guy, because... well, it's obvious... 

[Alexoff]

45 minutes ago, RaBDawG said:

What, lol?

Here's an update - a new topic on the forum! And the developers are not discouraged at all by what we write, so we can continue!

Just now, cocoscacao said:

@RocketRockington I absolutely have no intention to get into argument with this guy, because... well, it's obvious... 

You tried to prove something to me, but quickly changed your mind. It was possible not to start.

[cocoscacao]

3 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

You tried to prove something to me, but quickly changed your mind.

If you say so.

[PDCWolf]

On 5/8/2023 at 3:51 AM, Wheehaw Kerman said:

The extreme unlikeliness that TT would let IG drop the ball to the extent that the [polite euphemism for the our day is ruined and their disappointment is immeasurable folks] would have it.

The timelines for the game.  The [polite euphemism]s see August 2019 to the present, plus occasional unverifiable hypotheses for the game having been under development for years previously,  as being a long timeline for the EA build.  They’re omitting and forgetting whatever work that’s still in development for the rest of the roadmap, and minimizing the complete rebuilding and updating of a game that’s much more complex than your average shooter.

The post from Nate, who is a much more credible source than the polite euphemisms, and which is sober, and dovetails credibly with observable reality.

I’m not going to venture a timeline, but I’ve set a reminder to revisit this thread in two years, and see whether I was right.

[snip]

It is not fair to tell people they're wrong without a proper argument, much less a source.

The game was slated to release as a full product in early 2020, it was also ready to release as a full product in 2021, and 2022, becoming an EA only on October 2022, 5 months before its real release. I take it your hypothesis is nothing existed before 2019 other than smoke and mirrors, and thus the game we have now has really been in development for only (and yes, it's a short time if it is true) 3, almost 4 years. However you also mention "rebuilding and updating" and that all other features are in development. And that's not to go into diminishing shooters as non-complex games, but hey, I'll assume that's just reply bait.

I was gonna ask for sources, in fact I searched then myself, but I end up in the same place as you: Nate is the only source.Now, if you'll allow me, I'm not gonna waste my time either in searching for a "polite euphemism for the Our lord Nate has spoken-people" and only quote "them" as polite euphemisms (shortened as [PE]), as you do, since that's clearly allowed:

Nate mentioned multiple times (at least 3 occasions, every single delay) that the game was a full release. He mentioned the work was being put it to present KSP2 as a performant product. On the contrary, he never mentioned KSP2 was gonna be based on a rebuilt or updated codebase, as this was merely wishful thinking from the community. Now, I'll ask, where do these [PE]s draw the line on what to believe from Nate and what to dismiss? Why is Nate a reputable source that dovetails with observable reality when he talks about everything being in progress, but not when he said the game was coming out as a full product or performant? Where would I learn these powers to vibe with Nate in the noosphere so that I know when I'm being told the truth and when I'm being fed PR speak I can safely ignore to still feel superior like I knew?

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Starhawk
Redacted by moderator

[Wheehaw Kerman]

22 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

[snip]

It is not fair to tell people they're wrong without a proper argument, much less a source.

The game was slated to release as a full product in early 2020, it was also ready to release as a full product in 2021, and 2022, becoming an EA only on October 2022, 5 months before its real release. I take it your hypothesis is nothing existed before 2019 other than smoke and mirrors, and thus the game we have now has really been in development for only (and yes, it's a short time if it is true) 3, almost 4 years. However you also mention "rebuilding and updating" and that all other features are in development. And that's not to go into diminishing shooters as non-complex games, but hey, I'll assume that's just reply bait.

I was gonna ask for sources, in fact I searched then myself, but I end up in the same place as you: Nate is the only source.Now, if you'll allow me, I'm not gonna waste my time either in searching for a "polite euphemism for the Our lord Nate has spoken-people" and only quote "them" as polite euphemisms (shortened as [PE]), as you do, since that's clearly allowed:

Nate mentioned multiple times (at least 3 occasions, every single delay) that the game was a full release. He mentioned the work was being put it to present KSP2 as a performant product. On the contrary, he never mentioned KSP2 was gonna be based on a rebuilt or updated codebase, as this was merely wishful thinking from the community. Now, I'll ask, where do these [PE]s draw the line on what to believe from Nate and what to dismiss? Why is Nate a reputable source that dovetails with observable reality when he talks about everything being in progress, but not when he said the game was coming out as a full product or performant? Where would I learn these powers to vibe with Nate in the noosphere so that I know when I'm being told the truth and when I'm being fed PR speak I can safely ignore to still feel superior like I knew?

 

You’re quite right: I didn’t “do my own research”.  Nate is the single best informed, authoritative and most reliable source as to the development and status of KSP2, and far more credible than the doomsayers.  And his first post, above, is consistent with observable reality.  Apply a little PR bias filtering, and his post aligns perfectly with what I’ve been saying since people started melting down over the EA requiring current hardware.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Wheehaw Kerman
Typo

[Mushylog]

It's much better for the long term if we have to wait for a bigger patch/update. Short but quick patches are not good, in my opinion. What you guys are going with is 100% correct in my estimation. 2 or 3 weeks more of waiting isn't that much, at all. For a game on which players are going to spend thousands of hours when it's officially out (1.0), it's worth it! Not even mentioning the fact that we're already playing the game a bunch in early access!

I think this is a sweet spot, we're in. The roadmap is promising, the transparency of the dev team is so appreciated and the weekly challenges bring us together, it's great!

Now personally the Ui doesn't bother me, I don't think I'll change it much since I use a standard monitor, but that's just me. I AM excited though for that re-entry heat (+ heat feature), now that is going to be spectacular. There's a lot of good promises ahead, it's difficult not to hold my breath!  

[Redneck]

18 hours ago, Mushylog said:

It's much better for the long term if we have to wait for a bigger patch/update. Short but quick patches are not good, in my opinion. What you guys are going with is 100% correct in my estimation. 2 or 3 weeks more of waiting isn't that much, at all. For a game on which players are going to spend thousands of hours when it's officially out (1.0), it's worth it! Not even mentioning the fact that we're already playing the game a bunch in early access!

I think this is a sweet spot, we're in. The roadmap is promising, the transparency of the dev team is so appreciated and the weekly challenges bring us together, it's great!

Now personally the Ui doesn't bother me, I don't think I'll change it much since I use a standard monitor, but that's just me. I AM excited though for that re-entry heat (+ heat feature), now that is going to be spectacular. There's a lot of good promises ahead, it's difficult not to hold my breath!  

OR.....they could of released the game without the obvious bugs that everybody on the team knew were there and were obvious but they chose to release anyways at top dollar prices i may add. We would prolly be further along in the development roadmap by now.  And all these complaints prolly wouldn't be as big an issue as they are now. But i know that just makes to much sense.........SMH

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

40 minutes ago, Redneck said:

OR.....they could have released the game without the obvious bugs that everybody on the team knew were there and were obvious but they chose to release anyways at top dollar prices i may add. We would prolly be further along in the development roadmap by now.  And all these complaints prolly wouldn't be as big an issue as they are now. But i know that just makes to much sense.........SMH

Why stop there? Here’s another crazy thought:

How about also pricing it according to state at launch?

20% of the roadmap, 20% of the price, increasing price together with progressing through the roadmap.

Crazy, I know. 

Edited May 11, 2023 by GGG-GoodGuyGreg

[Redneck]

8 hours ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

Why stop there? Here’s another crazy thought:

How about also pricing it according to state at launch?

20% of the roadmap, 20% of the price, increasing price together with progressing through the roadmap.

Crazy, I know. 

i know right? who would of thunk it? I mean who in their right mind would do that? Oh thats right KSP1 did that. i paid like $15 in 2011. It was basic but it worked at least oh and hey....It had modding from the get go! 

[Gargamel]

Thread temporarily locked for review. 

[Vanamonde]

A number of posts have been removed. If you want to fight amongst yourselves, please do it elsewhere. This forum is for discussing KSP, not each other.