A Taste of Science

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

Wow, a development that starts with ideas, goes through many prototypes until it sets on a certain design, finetunes it and then makes it ready for release? What a novelty!

I don't think anyone is discussing their process, what's being discussed is the timing. So, there's 2 ways to look at this:

1. What they said about having been working already on all features is true, thus you can't justify that we're being showed an editor render of a part for a system without a firm release date.
2. They started making this part and science after release, thus statement 1 was a lie.

1 hour ago, cocoscacao said:

Check one of the earlies dev videos on youtube (forgot which one exactly). You'll see that new rover cockpit in it. That part has been in game for 3 years now, yet it still isn't completed (missing interior). I don't think they're making them just now from scratch. 

3 years and counting to complete a single part suggests, that they've been juggling their artists around many fronts... or utter incompetence.

[regex]

2 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

Time will tell if this professional game making studio can create anything even close to the game that KSP1 currently is. 

After ten years of development KSP1 still looks (and plays) like a twenty year old game with poorly thought-out gameplay made without a coherent plan. It's so bad at standing on its own that people post pictures of it modded to try showing up KSP2. I'm pretty sure Intercept can make a game that surpasses KSP1, in spades.

[cocoscacao]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

3 years and counting to complete a single part suggests, that they've been juggling their artists around many fronts... or utter incompetence

Or that they've left those cosmetics for last, since it isn't vital for gameplay? The part is otherwise fully functional.

We can flip these args in both ways, however it suits us. I see no point, again, in this discussion. 

Edited May 13, 2023 by cocoscacao

[Cryonixx]

Looks like magnometer boom and the slime experiment from the first game

[PDCWolf]

11 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Or that they've left those cosmetics for last, since it isn't vital for gameplay? The part is otherwise fully functional.

We can flip these args in both ways, however it suits us. I see no point, again, in this discussion. 

We know interactable IVAs will be a thing, promised by Nate on his AMA. I'd say IVAs are pretty vital for interactable IVAs. Guess what you need for Interactable IVAs? interiors. They're not cosmetics. Stop grasping at straws.

[Alexoff]

37 minutes ago, regex said:

After ten years of development KSP1 still looks (and plays) like a twenty year old game with poorly thought-out gameplay made without a coherent plan. It's so bad at standing on its own that people post pictures of it modded to try showing up KSP2. I'm pretty sure Intercept can make a game that surpasses KSP1, in spades.

It's pretty weird that we're comparing a game that came out 8 years ago from an unknown indie studio with a game that comes out sometime after 2024. Shouldn't it look better by definition? You know, Portal looks, to put it mildly, much better than Halflife. I have not noticed a serious gameplay difference yet, it's all in store in the roadmap, apparently.

[Bej Kerman]

19 hours ago, regex said:

That's a much more interesting part than what I was expecting; I think Squad really scarred me with crap like the barn and the dumb "junkyard" aesthetic. You all are doing a great job and clearly I should be realigning my thoughts on the future of this game.

Hear hear

People have been scared that you'll still need a zillion parts on your rocket for science (and in fact I've seen people arguing that if this doesn't matter, then neither would specialized EVA suits). Clearly they've been imagining the worst case scenario, that you do need loads of parts for basic science collection, just to put the devs down.

55 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Stop grasping at straws.

The irony.

IVAs are not required to use your rocket. The fact people have made entire space stations with the game as it is right now without IVAs makes that fact evident enough. To reiterate the bit they said that you ignored, IVAs are not vital for gameplay.

Edited May 13, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[PDCWolf]

10 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

IVAs are not required to use your rocket. The fact people have made entire space stations with the game as it is right now without IVAs makes that fact evident enough. To reiterate the bit they said that you ignored, IVAs are not vital for gameplay.

And who cares what people are doing now? People are playing without science, career, multi-port docking, IVAs, re-entry heating, colonies, interstellar flight, projected maneuvers, and so much more. Does that make all of those mechanics "cosmetic" or "not vital for gameplay"? I thought so.

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

And who cares what people are doing now? People are playing without science, career, multi-port docking, IVAs, re-entry heating, colonies, interstellar flight, projected maneuvers, and so much more. Does that make all of those mechanics "cosmetic" or "not vital for gameplay"? I thought so.

Please stop grasping at straws. You can't do interstellar without interstellar. You can do interstellar without IVAs. In fact, you'll be able to do everything at the end of the roadmap without IVAs.

[Alexoff]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Please stop grasping at straws. You can't do interstellar without interstellar. You can do interstellar without IVAs. In fact, you'll be able to do everything at the end of the roadmap without IVAs.

Perhaps at the end of the roadmap, we won't be able to do anything. Not everyone will live to see 2077

[cocoscacao]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

They're not cosmetics. Stop grasping at straws

Im not. Let's say IVA is required for colonies. Everything required up to colonies have been done. They didn't just start it from scartch now. 

[Alexoff]

When was the last time we SAW something about the colonies?

[Meecrob]

2 hours ago, regex said:

After ten years of development KSP1 still looks (and plays) like a twenty year old game with poorly thought-out gameplay made without a coherent plan. It's so bad at standing on its own that people post pictures of it modded to try showing up KSP2. I'm pretty sure Intercept can make a game that surpasses KSP1, in spades.

There are orders of magnitudes of players that prefer KSP1 over KSP2. Why do people who want to support KSP2 think a sound tactic is to say KSP1 sucks?

[Bej Kerman]

10 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

There are orders of magnitudes of players that prefer KSP1 over KSP2. Why do people who want to support KSP2 think a sound tactic is to say KSP1 sucks?

This is literally bandwagon mentality. "Other people play KSP 1 therefor it's better".

[purpleivan]

20 hours ago, regex said:

That's a much more interesting part than what I was expecting; I think Squad really scarred me with crap like the barn and the dumb "junkyard" aesthetic. You all are doing a great job and clearly I should be realigning my thoughts on the future of this game.

A lot of players liked the  elements that you've referred to, especially the slighty (and it is only slightly) junk yard aesthetic of KSP 1, myself included. Being so overly dismissive and using the language you have to convey your opinion of them is a bad look. Additionally, for someone who's being "scarred" by it, you seem to have spent an awful lot of time playing it and discussing it on these forums.

[Bej Kerman]

If you do not like people saying KSP 1 sucks, you are free to pack your bags and move to the KSP 1 subforums.

Just now, purpleivan said:

A lot of players liked the  elements that you've referred to, especially the slighty (and it is only slightly) junk yard aesthetic of KSP 1, myself included. Being so overly dismissive and using the language you have to convey your opinion of them is a bad look.

"I think the KSP 1 look is crap"

"Stop sharing your opinion!"

You can call anything dismissive if you do not like their opinion.

[Lyneira]

@Nate SimpsonI'm glad to see you taking on board some recent feedback from the forums, the writing style of this post reads much more clearly to me. I'm equally glad to read that the team also shares the little frustrations when playing the game and are continuing to work on those as well as the big stuff. I emphasize little, because in the face of all the feature milestones still ahead of you, the little frustrations are most easily underappreciated for their impact on long term enjoyment of the game loop.

Regarding your intent to communicate the timing of patch 0.1.3.0 next week and taking into account the risk of communicating a patch date earlier and having to let it slip: I think a mention in your weekly update is an improvement over not knowing anything until a few days out, so thank you for that.

Keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing more improvements in the coming patches!

[Meecrob]

9 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

If you do not like people saying KSP 1 sucks, you are free to pack your bags and move to the KSP 1 subforums.

"I think the KSP 1 look is crap"

"Stop sharing your opinion!"

You can call anything dismissive if you do not like their opinion.

[snip] Why do people who like KSP2 try to say KSP1 is bad so therefore KSP2 must be good?

Edited May 14, 2023 by Vanamonde

[PDCWolf]

45 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Please stop grasping at straws. You can't do interstellar without interstellar. You can do interstellar without IVAs. In fact, you'll be able to do everything at the end of the roadmap without IVAs.

37 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Im not. Let's say IVA is required for colonies. Everything required up to colonies have been done. They didn't just start it from scartch now. 

So... now we casually sweep the "interactable" part under the rug? Again?

Interactable IVAs are a promised feature, you need IVAs done as you.. Can't do interactable IVAs without IVAs. Most pods already have them done, which means whatever bs "just cosmetic, leave them for last" excuse clearly doesn't align with reality.

They're not cosmetic, they're part of a gameplay feature.

[Bej Kerman]

9 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Can't do interactable IVAs without IVAs.

You can't have IVAs without IVAs, duh. But there is 0 impact on everything else in the game. It is not vital. It is not required for anything (except itself, but if you can argue that something is vital just because it needs itself to exist, that's a stupid argument and possibly the shortest straw you could possibly grasp at).

[snip]

Edited May 14, 2023 by Vanamonde

[Alexoff]

5 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Interactable IVAs are a promised feature

Is it true? I don't remember that we were promised something interactive.

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

But there is 0 impact on everything else in the game.

Yes, unlike the dV button! Because of its presence, KSP2 immediately became the game of the millennium that everyone was waiting for!

[PDCWolf]

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

You can't have IVAs without IVAs, duh. But there is 0 impact on everything else in the game. It is not vital. It is not required for anything (except itself, but if you can argue that something is vital just because it needs itself to exist, that's a stupid argument and possibly the shortest straw you could possibly grasp at).

0 Impact is the wrong metric. I'd say for all the people that are enjoying the game currently, the features not present have 0 impact on their enjoyment. It is an element that is required for a promised feature, you can say the same for a lot of elements of the game. Do colonies need orbital assembly? No, but it sure as hell is gonna be cool to assemble a craft/building in orbit and sending it down (if that's ever possible in the game, but that's another discussion).

[regex]

19 minutes ago, purpleivan said:

A lot of players liked the  elements that you've referred to, especially the slighty (and it is only slightly) junk yard aesthetic of KSP 1, myself included.

You're welcome to it.

19 minutes ago, purpleivan said:

Being so overly dismissive and using the language you have to convey your opinion of them is a bad look.

Good thing that really doesn't matter to me. If you don't like what I say this forum offers you an easy way to not see what I say. I suggest you take advantage of it.

35 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

There are orders of magnitudes of players that prefer KSP1 over KSP2.

Okay, and? Why should I care? Go play KSP1, have fun with it.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, PDCWolf said:

0 Impact is the wrong metric. I'd say for all the people that are enjoying the game currently, the features not present have 0 impact on their enjoyment. It is an element that is required for a promised feature, you can say the same for a lot of elements of the game. Do colonies need orbital assembly? No, but it sure as hell is gonna be cool to assemble a craft/building in orbit and sending it down (if that's ever possible in the game, but that's another discussion).

Doesn't matter. It's an inconsequential feature and the amount of people who regularly enjoy it as more than a novelty is greatly overstated.

[PDCWolf]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Doesn't matter. It's an inconsequential feature and the amount of people who regularly enjoy it as more than a novelty is greatly overstated.

Good, we've gotten to arguing opinions now, keep yours, I'll keep mine about the worth and enjoyment out of the feature.

4 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Is it true? I don't remember that we were promised something interactive.

Confirmed by Nate on his first AMA.