KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Periple]

8 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

True. I don't mean it as an exact state, that would take way to much time from the team. Just some sort of general overview of how much the team thinks it's done. There are always bugs that derail you from the schedule, because they ran deeper than initially thought. But it would give us guesstimate on roughly when we can expect roadmap steps to be completed. 

It would be awfully misleading. It’s no joke that the first 90% take 90% of the time and the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time. The problem is that until you’re actually done there’s always going to be something left to do that you didn’t think of.

Progress could stay at 70% fora long time although a lot of work is done, simply because new things keep coming up.

This is especially true for a team’s first project, even if the team members individually have a lot of experience.

[cocoscacao]

1 hour ago, Periple said:

Progress could stay at 70% fora long time although a lot of work is done, simply because new things keep coming up.

Again, true, but you can communicate those things easily. Whether or not such comm style would please everyone (here), is another story altogether...

[MechBFP]

2 hours ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

The only good outcome is they finally somehow admitted it may have been a tall order and said they are going to think twice about the future of Multiplayer

Eh? Where you see that?

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

5 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Eh? Where you see that?

I read this as they are now prioritizing other features like the Science Update before Multiplayer.

[LoSBoL]

18 hours ago, Alexoff said:

It is strange that the main defenders of the developers of KSP2 sit on the forum, and not in the game

Assumptions are the mother of, well, you know the rest. The world isn't black or white.

[MechBFP]

28 minutes ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

I read this as they are now prioritizing other features like the Science Update before Multiplayer.

That has always been the plan. That is why multiplayer is completely at the end of the EA roadmap. 

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

1 hour ago, MechBFP said:

That has always been the plan. That is why multiplayer is completely at the end of the EA roadmap. 

Ok. I heard this argument a lot of time but I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that.

Multiplayer is not something you simply decide if you want to add at the end.

It impacts the development time significantly to build with multiplayer in mind, it also impacts how deep you can realistically go with new features, and if you just decide too late you aren’t doing multiplayer, you delivered updates much slower and features that are too simple. 

[Alexoff]

Interestingly, the modders showed the video of the multiplayer a few days after the release of the game. But the developers limited themselves to a couple of screenshots.

 

[Periple]

1 hour ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

Ok. I heard this argument a lot of time but I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that.

Multiplayer is not something you simply decide if you want to add at the end.

It impacts the development time significantly to build with multiplayer in mind, it also impacts how deep you can realistically go with new features, and if you just decide too late you aren’t doing multiplayer, you delivered updates much slower and features that are too simple. 

That's why they've got the system in place already. Remember those screenshots and Dakota's latest short comment on its state? I also suspect it may be a reason why things are going slower than otherwise. They have to verify that it works in MP from start to finish. 

What can be safely deferred in MP are all the supporting systems around it. Lobbies, UIs for direct connections, crossplay, drop-in invitations, starting and finishing sessions, multiplayer-specific UI, kicking out players etc etc. All that is a lot of work and it's much easier not to have to maintain that while you're developing the rest of the game. 

It also means that MP won't look like much if you try to show it off. Maybe you'll have to start it by invoking the command line with the IP address of the host and all you'll see on the screen is "Player 1" overlaid on the craft player 1 is controlling. 

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

Ok. I heard this argument a lot of time but I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that.

Multiplayer is not something you simply decide if you want to add at the end.

It impacts the development time significantly to build with multiplayer in mind, it also impacts how deep you can realistically go with new features, and if you just decide too late you aren’t doing multiplayer, you delivered updates much slower and features that are too simple. 

 Huh? Prioritizing other features doesn’t mean they aren’t working on or considering multiplayer. Why would you assume that?

Edited August 14, 2023 by MechBFP

[regex]

11 hours ago, Periple said:

The trouble is that from their PoV it’s a lose-lose proposition.

Let me tell you, one thing I absolutely hate as a developer is when some dumb PM accepts or sets a frickin' deadline, because that ultimately can lead to crunch time and slip-ups in code which create more bugs.

9 hours ago, Infinite Aerospace said:

'we're fully expecting science and progression to be finalised and rolling out in Q3 of 2023 but as always this is subject to change depending on the feedback from testers'.

The bolded part will always, without exception, be ignored by the community and become a sore spot. Always.

[VlonaldKerman]

1 hour ago, regex said:

The bolded part will always, without exception, be ignored by the community and become a sore spot. Always.

Again, that is only because of the lack of visibility into the status of the features of the game. There would be no need to announce or move dates if they updated us on development continuously, like many other EA games do when they are as undercooked and expensive as KSP 2. Think: supporter edition of an indie game.

At this point, KSP 2 is in full community-involvement early access mode, whether or not the devs want to admit it- that is the deal they bought when they released the EA like they did; they should acknowledge that by filling us in on the actual status of in-development features, rather than simply, “we’re working on it.” For instance they should say, “X, Y, and Z is working wrt. the science update, but A, B, and C are yet to come online; we expect that to take a few more months.” According to dev blogs from several YEARS ago, there are components of most of the roadmap features that are functional in some form- now is the time to peel back the curtain, in my view.

[regex]

5 minutes ago, VlonaldKerman said:

Again, that is only because of the lack of visibility into the status of the features of the game. There would be no need to announce or move dates if they updated us on development continuously, like many other EA games do when they are as undercooked and expensive as KSP 2. Think: supporter edition of an indie game.

How often do you expect them to update you on development? They put out an update every week which is more than other early access indie games I follow (Zero Sievert, Stoneshard, although admittedly I only follow through the Steam News). In fact, IIRC that cadence was about the same as Factorio, once per week, and much, much better than the cadence we got with KSP1 EA, which was largely radio silence with a big update every so often.

10 minutes ago, VlonaldKerman said:

they should acknowledge that by filling us in on the actual status of in-development features, rather than simply, “we’re working on it.” For instance they should say, “X, Y, and Z is working wrt. the science update, but A, B, and C are yet to come online; we expect that to take a few more months.”

We get "peeks behind the curtain" in the form of dev blogs fairly regularly, I don't see an issue there. I'd much rather have devs working on the game than being pestered with questions and creating blogs about what they're doing just so I can, what, stay updated? We get plenty of updates as-is.

[Infinite Aerospace]

8 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

I guess there's a fourth one as well. A simple table with general info.

70% of planned science stuff done
25 known (science related) bugs

Something like that. I'm also curious if there are any parts of the game which may receive a complete overhaul in the future (part manager, part manager, part manager... part manager )

Yeah that would at least be helpful, as long as it's truthful metrics. But herein lies the root of the issue, none of that exists, as it stands right now science could be 90% done, or it could be 10% done. There's nothing on the topic from any official source, so you have to treat it all as just conjecture.

 

I did ask the question in the upcoming Q&A, a quite extensive one regarding science, what it entails, how the mechanics of it work vs. KSP1, what sort of changes we should expect from progression. That said I fully expect it to not make it into the actual Q&A. Where as a bogus question like 'How are you today?' probably will. I'd be willing to bet there's a fair few people would love to know a bit more about the aforementioned question/s.

 

Mind you, I don't 'mind' the part manager, there's examples of times it's actually been beneficial for me vs. the old click specific part system. That said it does 'bog down' a bit and how it flows I think could do with a bit of a rethink but there's *something* there worth pursuing IMO.

[Alexoff]

2 hours ago, regex said:

one thing I absolutely hate as a developer is when some dumb PM accepts or sets a frickin' deadline, because that ultimately can lead to crunch time and slip-ups in code which create more bugs

But without a deadline, development can drag on forever. Deadlines can be set smartly. For example, my boss asks me how long a certain job will take me, and then sets a deadline twice that. Not always, of course, but usually he is interested in my estimates.

1 hour ago, regex said:

They put out an update every week which is more than other early access indie games I follow

KSP2 updates are very small. An announcement of a patch release date, an AMA, or a keybind picture doesn't say much about the state of the game's features. For example, I don’t understand at all what science will be like. If it is just a remake of KSP1, then it's pretty sad.

[VlonaldKerman]

2 hours ago, regex said:

They put out an update every week

Are you referring to their bug status posts or am I missing something? In my post, I was referring mainly to roadmap features, for instance science, colonies, interstellar, etc.

2 hours ago, regex said:

We get "peeks behind the curtain" in the form of dev blogs fairly regularly, I don't see an issue there. I'd much rather have devs working on the game than being pestered with questions and creating blogs about what they're doing just so I can, what, stay updated? We get plenty of updates as-is.

If I had to guess, much of the time that goes into “updating the community” is spent:

- Curating which information to reveal and which to keep hidden

- “Dressing up” the information; that is, carefully worded, lawyerly forum posts or sleek, well-edited videos.

It takes 15 minutes to record a screen capture of someone doing science experiments or building a colony. When you are in transparency mode, so many sources of time drain go away! All you have to do is play the game, on camera.

The key is that this way the community would see development happen IN REAL TIME. Nobody would be blindsided by, say, the science update being delayed. It also eliminates the difficult job of balancing what information to release/not release or what message to convey, etc.

 

To be clear, I appreciate the difficulty of the situation that the devs and the communication liaisons are in. The situation is either largely or entirely outside of their control, and their trying to weigh different methods of communication while balancing the interests of the players, the dev team, and T2 corporate. I’ve found myself posting a lot here recently because I don’t have much else to do right now. I don’t try to pile on the devs, I just want to make clear exactly what it is that frustrates me about the game, because it seems like a lot of people still dismiss negativity as people who are just frustrated with bugs or whatever.

[regex]

7 minutes ago, VlonaldKerman said:

Are you referring to their bug status posts or am I missing something? In my post, I was referring mainly to roadmap features, for instance science, colonies, interstellar, etc. <snip>

The key is that this way the community would see development happen IN REAL TIME. Nobody would be blindsided by, say, the science update being delayed. It also eliminates the difficult job of balancing what information to release/not release or what message to convey, etc.

Every studio has their own way of releasing information about new features and I think Intercept may want to avoid giving a wrong impression on whether a feature is locked in before release, like maybe they're rethinking a currently implemented way of doing things and don't want to show the sausage being made because that would give the community a wrong impression about that being the final feature. As I've said, no matter how many disclaimers you add the community can and will ignore them, and for that matter have a takeaway that doesn't mesh with the experience that the staff has with the feature.

But, okay, I get it. I just have different expectations.

[Alexoff]

1 hour ago, regex said:

As I've said, no matter how many disclaimers you add the community can and will ignore them

Do we have a united community? We have those who do not like everything, including silence. There are those who love everything, even silence. There are those who gave up on the game and maybe tomorrow they will completely forget about it if devs don’t show them something new. Disclaimer - it is difficult to attract such players by the disappearance of some bugs.

[Lisias]

Since I like the cartoonish look & fell of KSP¹ (seriously - but I would like to see clouds and weather on it, matching the current look & fell), obviously my opinions about KSP2 should be taken with a grain of salt.

I kinda like it, but I would prefer it being more cartoonish in general - I don't want photorealistic green critters being blown up in terrible crashes in a photorealistic way. I want to screw up things without getting my subconscious peskying me with guilty because the consequences of my mistakes are too real from what I would get on Real Life© . 

Additionally, there's also the Uncanny Valley theory, that says "humans prefer anthropomorphic agents, but reject them if they become too human-like."

Things start to get realistic, our brain start to reject what we see because our brain stops to perceive it as something similar to people and instead perceives them as perverted version of a person.

Once the thing improves to be near perfect, our brain stops rejecting it.

Same happens to 'reality' - we go along pretty fine with simulacra that resembles a bit the reality, but if the thing gets too  near the reality (but without being perfect enough), the rejection kicks in until the thing reaches the next level of perfection.

All that impressive photorealistic mods for KSP¹are impressive per se, but as we stack them together the rest of the game, we start to fell unrest about - and I think this is what @K33Nwas meamin on this post:

So, in a sense, KSP2 "not so great" visuals are more adequate to the game - as long some excess are removed (as I said, I really enjoy the KSP¹ cartoonish look & fell).

[Periple]

5 hours ago, VlonaldKerman said:

It takes 15 minutes to record a screen capture of someone doing science experiments or building a colony. When you are in transparency mode, so many sources of time drain go away! All you have to do is play the game, on camera.

That can work if there’s sufficient trust between the developers and the community. If there isn’t, it will just make things worse. A lack of trust is a vicious circle. Any event or communication will be interpreted against that background which will only add fuel to the fire.

I think IG ought to have gone completely silent! Just release the patches with the patch notes. People would rage like they do now but they would be shouting into the void. And the patches would provide something positive to talk about.

When the first roadmap update is ready, make sure it’s as solid as you can make it, and only then reboot communications.

There are situations where “silence is golden” does apply and this I think would have been one of them. Putting developers in front of the community hoping that they’ll put the pitchforks down won’t work, it just drains time, effort, and morale that could be better spent on the game itself.

Put another way, actions speak louder than words.

[Socraticat]

So, um... I don't really want to get into discussions or anything because I think my position is fairly clear, but if anyone else wants to "send off" version 0.1.3 with me this week I'll be in the daily trying to exploit the bugs I despise the most...

If anyone want to join me there instead of in here, um... yeah. That's where I'll be. I may still kick around in challenges.

But don't feel obligated. I understand if you don't want to or don't think I shouldn't be celebrating.

Anyway, as you all were.

[Dakitess]

On 8/11/2023 at 1:41 AM, DunaManiac said:

Snip

Gosh this game is so ugly  Sorry but... Well, it's really really not half way it should have been, aesthetically speaking. And people keep encouraging the team saying it looks "stellar" "spectacular" "awesome" and other superlative non-nuanced words. Please don't. You can like it, you definitely can, it's okay, but it's nothing like stellar, spectacular, awesome, aesthetically speaking. These are not artsy choices. It could have been but look at the screenshot, god, it's just bugs, artifacts, weird lightning, weird texture, lack of techniques, aliasing (... Really, 2023) and so many other things. Again, like it if you will, you can say it's "fine for a game like KSP, I don't care about graphics", but "stellar" and other superlatives ? Nah, come on.

Regarding the OP, KSP1 definitely tank the KSP2 fail. Which is a terrible shame but totally apply to me. 8000+ hours playing stock + graphics only (so not expecting much gameplay wise, just a continuity, technically up to date), KSP2 actually did not remove anything to KSP1 BUT I was expecting KSP2 so much that It does not feel any sense to play KSP1. Community is splitted, brand is damaged, and I really really really really wanted a KSP2 to succeed and be develop from scratch to get a proper KSP game able to last another decade without the flaws and juvenil (yet ok-ish and legit !) errors of its predecessor. It's all It had to do, being better, in performances, in aesthetic, in technical aspects to be worth a 2020+ game. It's not by FAR and it's so sad that it's damaging the original game. I don't even understand how it's possible to fail that much with a game that has such a loyal fan base, that is ready to conceed so much, to support the team, to kindly participate to what should have been an EA to, I quote the team, "build the game together, with feedback, advices, ideas", etc. Not exact quote but you got it. Instead we are... Well, everybody knows the state of the game.

Damaging KSP1. Wow. Such a pity.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Dakitess

[Bej Kerman]

8 hours ago, Dakitess said:

And people keep encouraging the team saying it looks "stellar" "spectacular" "awesome" and other superlative non-nuanced words. Please don't.

...don't have opinions differing to mine? No, pass. It looks stellar, spectacular and awesome.

[snip]

Edited August 15, 2023 by Vanamonde

[The Aziz]

On 8/11/2023 at 12:10 AM, Royalswissarmyknife said:

 

  Hide contents

Also what game has the better reentry effects and runs at more then 30 FPS.

Lol @ the comparison. Much higher res parts, terrain resolution and detail aaand clouds at lowest setting. Versus clouds that look good up close with the layers and stuff but from far look like a white mass  aaaand low res pointy mountain in the background.

And both games run at more than 30fps. Though it's funny really, because comparing framerate of something new and something that's a decade old... May as well say that wow, I can play Elite 2 at more than 30fps.

[VlonaldKerman]

1 hour ago, Dakitess said:

It's all It had to do, being better, in performances, in aesthetic, in technical aspects to be worth a 2020+ game.

Agreed. The X-factor difference between modded KSP 1 and what KSP 2 should be: stability and performance. That comes from core systems being build specifically with colonies, interstellar, etc, in mind, rather than things being scotch-taped together by modders.

Right now I wouldn’t expect top-tier optimization, but it’s disheartening to hear about the copy-paste physics, the rocket wobble, and the dubious nature of the other roadmap features/systems. The two places where they seemed to have really made a concrete stride forward are the music, and the maneuver system which can accommodate constant-thrust trajectories (and maybe the moving-origin coordinate system? Not sure if that’s in the main build yet).

46 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Though it's funny really, because comparing framerate of something new and something that's a decade old... May as well say that wow, I can play Elite 2 at more than 30fps

I don’t know much about Elite- does Elite 2 have more features and mods than the new one, to the point where you can essentially turn Elite 2 into the new one with better performance and fewer game-ending bugs? Because that would be essential for it to be analogous.