KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Alexoff]

To make Dakota's life easier, the leaders of the IG should not fight toxic members of the community, but do what we are all here for - KSP2! Then the voices of the dissatisfied will drown in the choir of the chanters of the game, which was able to rise from the ashes. In two weeks it will be six months since the release of early access. What did we get in six months? A few common parts and that's it. Performance went from very poor to mediocre, hundreds of bugs were fixed, but many hundreds more remain. There are no announcements, science is a few animations in the editor. Colonies, multiplayer and interstellar flights are just words. No specific dates. We are now being told about heating, but sorry - this is one of the features of KSP1, which was introduced into the game in 2015 without a standing ovation. Then, in 1.0, many engines were nerfed and it was forbidden to fly into the atmosphere at any speed without consequences. Some were a little upset, but we gathered our will into a fist and dealt with it! And there are quite a lot of such features that were in KSP1 for a very long time, but which are not in KSP2. Asteroids, destructible buildings, in-game wiki, mod support, buoyancy, kerbal professions, grabbing unit, IVA, kerbals hanging out in the hangar ets - all this will also take so long and tedious to add, as if this is some kind of incredible accomplishment and a real challenge for any developer? What exactly can developers expect here? A medal from fans of the franchise? And how fair is this to other developers who really try and make a quality product? If we always praise both good quality and bad quality equally, then this will demotivate good developers.

[Alexoff]

1 hour ago, TwoCalories said:

KSP1 with graphics mods looks a little off, when you have the cartoony Kerbals and spacecrafts and then the super-realistic oceans and clouds and rocks

There are many mods for spacecrafts that make them super-realistic.

[Royalswissarmyknife]

2 hours ago, TwoCalories said:

when you have the cartoony Kerbals and spacecrafts and then the super-realistic oceans and clouds and rocks, etc.

one of the most important mods for making Ksp-1 look good is Restock that fixes rockets looking ugly but the kerbals cant really be changed much.

if you do then you get Juno new Origins or...

Spoiler

 This Guide has almost the mods you should need.

Spoiler

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

Anyways I feel like this discussion deserves a thread of its own.

I'm also confident Ksp-2 will get MUCH better with time

Edited August 10, 2023 by Royalswissarmyknife

[PDCWolf]

6 hours ago, K33N said:

It's way, way beyond anything allowed here.

This blew up big on reddit today, there's actually some pretty incriminating images. I honestly can say I didn't expect it to be that bad.

[DunaManiac]

My thoughts on KSP2's art style is that they tried to have a more consistent art style but I think it suffers from the same problem as KSP1, and frankly, I don't like the new art style. I understand that this all this is 100% subjective, but I just find KSP2's visuals to look raw in certain conditions.

For instance, Eve's clouds have a certain, very fake and unconvincing quality to them, especially when combined with the totally brown surface. Jool has a similar problem. The saturation is simply way too high.

(Taken from Matt Lowne's video, "KSP 2: Sending a Rover to EVE...Despite the Kraken Attacks!" (27:57) Surfaces reflect too much light, reminding me of a comment I got when I dabbled in Kopernicus planet modding: wet mud. I would say just in general, reflection across everything is just way too much on both surfaces and planets, as if it was wacked up to distract from the overall "plasticity" of the parts.

On sunsets and sunrises too, what should be dirt reflects light as if its made out of glass, and combined with the red-orange skies, the stark black shadows, and the blindingly bright surface, "raw" comes to mind.

When it comes to the early previews, I hate to be the "corporate overlords stole my KSP2!" type person, but I think it is a fair question to ask why there is such a big difference between what was shown in show and tells and what was actually implemented. Where did it go? If this was first created in 2021, how come it was not implemented in the game 2 years later? Hypothetically, the whole "pandemic and star theory poaching" would not actually apply here, given that Intercept had already been handed the reins.

Finally, I still feel like KSP2 doesn't have a well defined art style either (this is from March 24). From the game in general, there is still the problem of realistic (or attempts at realistic) terrain, in contrast to the plastic-looking rockets, and the very cartoonish kerbals. Everything is too saturated and bright in general. Typically, things look better when they are desaturated as opposed to heavily saturated. The only area where KSP2 really shines out - planets from space, also attempt hyperrealism, which again, does not mix with the cartoonish kerbals. Kerbals are cartoonish, and I believe it was a design choice - one I disagree with.

[Superfluous J]

1) Any Reddit community with more than 100 members is a cesspool and if you want to post information there and it gets downvoted that's on you.

2) Instead of linking Reddit posts on the forum, why not post on the forum and link to them on Reddit? If the link gets downvoted, then you can fix that by NOT CARING.

[Superfluous J]

On 8/3/2023 at 3:43 PM, regex said:

Good god Twitter is such garbage now...

While it's particularly worse now that dime-store Tony Stark bought it, it's been going downhill for over a decade now.

[PDCWolf]

Just now, Superfluous J said:

1) Any Reddit community with more than 100 members is a cesspool and if you want to post information there and it gets downvoted that's on you.

2) Instead of linking Reddit posts on the forum, why not post on the forum and link to them on Reddit? If the link gets downvoted, then you can fix that by NOT CARING.

Communities like Reddit work specially well when (and in the specific case of KSPs) they're not handled officially. People are happy here in the forums because most dissenting views are deleted and their 20 people hivemind is safe, and in the discord people are even allowed to insult and harass you if you have a dissenting view. That doesn't happen in KSP's subreddit unless there's real rule-breaking involved, so it's no wonder a lot of people get really apprehensive when Reddit is brought up. Stuff from the forums does get posted there too, and is most times well received, specially when it's crafts, mods, or other stuff that displays proper effort like well thought out suggestions.

In fact, Imma do you one better: Maxmaps, HarvesteR, BAC, Blackrack, and even some forum mods back then would actually go to 4chan, because believe me, the echo chamber gets suffocating. And whilst here was all praise and postcards from laythe, they actually got feedback that made it to the game from there.

[PDCWolf]

4 hours ago, TwoCalories said:

I've just checked and MSFS has lower CPU and GPU recommended specs than KSP2.

How does this make sense? How is it justifiable that a Unity game with the capabilities and state of KSP2 can have the stones to ask for more resources than a software that is able to livestream and render photgrammetry whilst also processing hundreds of aircraft systems and parametric physical simulation of aerodynamics all in real time?

 

[Pthigrivi]

I mean, don't folks think they know? It's not like the actual engineers and designers reading these posts had control over the release date. T2 made it for them. It kind a feels like when you've got an issue with a big company just screaming at the poor kid taking your call in customer service. You're a lot better off just patiently helping them help you. Definitely point out bugs, definitely share criticisms about mechanics and performance. But I don't exactly see the point in deliberately trying gin up repetitive complaints and spam every thread with negativity as a way of getting attention. They know. They seent it. At best you clog up more constructive feedback and at worst you might actually succeed in convincing T2 to cut their losses and cancel the game entirely. 

Anyway. On topic looks like we'll be getting a dev video soon. Hoping we hear a bit more about how they're thinking about the Science system. It's just such a key part of the game. 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[PDCWolf]

6 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I mean, don't folks think they know? It's not like the actual engineers and designers reading these posts had control over the release date. T2 made it for them. It kind a feels like when you've got an issue with a big company just screaming at the poor kid taking your call in customer service. You're a lot better off just patiently helping them help you. Definitely point out bugs, definitely share criticisms about mechanics and performance. But I don't exactly see the point in deliberately trying gin up repetitive complaints and spam every thread with negativity as a way of getting attention. They know. They seent it. At best you clog up more constructive feedback and at worst you might actually succeed in convincing T2 to cut their losses and cancel the game entirely. 

Anyway. On topic looks like we'll be getting a dev video soon. Hoping we hear a bit more about how they're thinking about the Science system. It's just such a key part of the game. 

You can't honestly keep blaming T2 after they gave them 3 delays and an EA for a product that was supposed to be released as a full game 3 years earlier. We need to stop with the scapegoats. If they know and they've seen it, then act like it.

Edited August 11, 2023 by PDCWolf

[Pthigrivi]

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

You can't honestly keep blaming T2 after they gave them 3 delays and an EA for a product that was supposed to be released as a full game 3 years earlier. We need to stop with the scapegoats. If they know and they've seen it, then act like it.

You can actually because they're the ones making the decision. You can also probably blame the ownership at Star Theory for setting unrealistic expectations. KSP is a really complicated game. They should have given it the time it takes to actually be ready. When they released it in the state that they did, just much too raw for EA and honestly still a bit raw for EA, you make the experience really frustrating for early adopters and then they don't all jump out and say to their friends "You gotta play this game!" and you get this big slump that's really hard to recover from. T2 is a 20b dollar company trying to make money selling games. By any metric this was not an optimal result and they should have known that. Bethesda pushed Starfield back. Games get pushed back all the time. No one actually cares if at the end of the day the game is good. 

[PDCWolf]

19 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

You can actually because they're the ones making the decision. You can also probably blame the ownership at Star Theory for setting unrealistic expectations. KSP is a really complicated game. They should have given it the time it takes to actually be ready. When they released it in the state that they did, just much too raw for EA and honestly still a bit raw for EA, you make the experience really frustrating for early adopters and then they don't all jump out and say to their friends "You gotta play this game!" and you get this big slump that's really hard to recover from. T2 is a 20b dollar company trying to make money selling games. By any metric this was not an optimal result and they should have known that. Bethesda pushed Starfield back. Games get pushed back all the time. No one actually cares if at the end of the day the game is good. 

• Do we know star theory set unrealistic expectations?
• Are we really down to accusing one of the most prolific and successful publishers in the history of gaming of being scammed by a 20 people studio?
• If we assume that's possible, do we also assume IG/PD didn't literally do the same to get us where we are?
• Bethesda pushed Starfield back, T2 pushed KSP2 back 3 times.

Edited August 11, 2023 by PDCWolf

[Pthigrivi]

19 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

• Do we know star theory set unrealistic expectations?

I mean they said it would be ready for release in 2020 and *gestures broadly* I just don't think it was a coincidence that they folded and most of the team followed the project. Im happy they did because they're clearly passionate about it. And then of course COVID hit, so they're rebuilding a whole team in a public health nightmare. I know everything I was working on back then got pushed back and back right through summer of 22' and here we are. I'm just not that surprised? It doesn't really matter though. Given where the game was this spring its pretty obvious they'd have been better off pushing it back a year and then making a good solid splash with a playable game, science mode, and more to follow. I think absent COVID and a studio rebuild that could have happened 18 to 24 months sooner, but life is the way it is. 

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[PDCWolf]

Just now, Pthigrivi said:

I mean they said it would be ready for release in 2020 and *gestures broadly* I just don't think it was a coincidence that they folded and most of the team followed the project. Im happy they did because they're clearly passionate about it. And then of course COVID hit, so they're rebuilding a whole team in a public health nightmare. I know everything I was working on back then got pushed back and back right through summer of 22' and here we are. I'm just not that surprised? It doesn't really matter though. Given where the game was this spring its pretty obvious they'd have been better off pushing it back a year and then making a good solid splash with a playable game, science mode, and more to follow.

Let's just say, the first delay was the studio change, the second was COVID, the third and the downgrade from full release in october 2022 to EA was ?????, yet here we are saying T2 rushed them. We should be thankful that T2 didn't kick them out like they did ST and call it quits.

[K33N]

3 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

This blew up big on reddit today, there's actually some pretty incriminating images. I honestly can say I didn't expect it to be that bad.

Yeah and I didn't expect to be badly harassed and then muted for literally nothing. Not a great experience. 

[Pthigrivi]

20 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Let's just say, the first delay was the studio change, the second was COVID, the third and the downgrade from full release in october 2022 to EA was ?????, yet here we are saying T2 rushed them. We should be thankful that T2 didn't kick them out like they did ST and call it quits.

I mean sure, they could have just dumped the project and flushed all that money down to toilet. Or they could have been a bit more patient, had a much more successful release, and set the stage for a decade of solid profits from a fantastic game and brand. Honestly lots of huge companies make completely stupid decisions all the time because folks are looking at the next investor call and not at the long term for their employees or customers. When you've got a 2 year investment horizon what do you care? Most of the best companies I deal with get bought out by these vultures who trade on a good name, fire everyone who knows what they're doing, value engineer the product within an inch of its life, and squeeze the money out for 2 years. By the time everyone realizes its garbage they've moved on to the next short-term gouge. The investors get their returns but everyone including T2 and certainly including all of the people actually making these games get screwed by greed and short term thinking.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[moeggz]

To add my 2 cents, I was someone very excited for Metroid 4. It was delayed, and then a big announcement was made that it was not meeting expectations and they were restarting the entire game. 

It was upsetting but honest. It’s been years, and while I’ll still be excited for it when it comes out Nintendo’s clear communication made me happy to move on to other things. I wasn’t strung along this whole time or given a very WIP game that I would hope would become good. I was just released from having to worry about it.

I would much rather the announcement that KSP2 was coming out as an EA game was along those lines than what we got. I’m not saying I want it to have been canceled, but Take Two should’ve said “we have hit unexpected setbacks in development. We have no update on the release of KSP2 and there will be no new updates on development until the game is ready for release, whenever that may be.”

There absolutely would’ve been gripes for a week or so but the forums, subreddit and community at large could’ve just moved on and known we weren’t going to see it for a while. Way more honest and way less upsetting then the PR over promises we got. Reentry isn’t even on the timeline they thought it would be out so soon. But, as of now, it’s obvious they released too early to even accurately guess the timeline of development. And that is a common part of programming with underestimating the last 20%.

No one can change the past, and I’m happy they went to “under promise overdeliver” but that strategy doesn’t have community goodwill improvement until the “overdeliver” part. A lot is riding on science.

So since we are in this situation I just hope that they’d take 5 more months to get science right and a “soft” relaunch opportunity than rush it and deliver an underwhelming and buggy update as I feel that will end the majority of remaining goodwill. 

16 minutes ago, K33N said:

Yeah and I didn't expect to be badly harassed and then muted for literally nothing. Not a great experience. 

I would send a message to Dakota about that here, on the forums, or on Reddit. I’m half considering putting together some screenshots of some other rather biased and one sided moderation.
 

Your comments are never hateful and are constructive. There’s no reason for the way you were treated.

[PDCWolf]

18 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Or they could have been a bit more patient

Again, you can't blame them for being impatient, they gave 3 delays and the game is 6 months later nowhere near being worth a $50 EA release. Patience is the only thing they've shown. This blaming T2 argument is just entitlement but in the other direction, thinking investors and publishers owe you a perfect game to their financial detriment and years of having a team busy on a product without any return. It only happens to be socially acceptable to blame people with money even when they're clearly not at fault.

20 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

When you've got a 2 year investment horizon what do you care?

How many years do you think they waited for ST to announce the 2020 full release date? That's not 2 years investment horizon, we don't know how far ago they started development, but it could be as early as 2017 when they concreted the purchase (which fits nicely with a 2020 release), giving them 3 years of supposed way and only hitting another 3 year wait wall. Again, another case of it being socially acceptable to blame rich people.

23 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

The investors get their returns but everyone including T2 and certainly including all of the people actually making these games get screwed by greed and short term thinking.

How does the people with a stable development position and a salary get screwed over by people who made an investment they might not recover? again with the same.

19 minutes ago, moeggz said:

Your comments are never hateful and are constructive. There’s no reason for the way you were treated.

Please do, this needs to at least be as public as possible, let everybody know how they're running their stuff.

[Pthigrivi]

7 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Again, you can't blame them for being impatient, they gave 3 delays and the game is 6 months later nowhere near being worth a $50 EA release. Patience is the only thing they've shown. This blaming T2 argument is just entitlement but in the other direction, thinking investors and publishers owe you a perfect game to their financial detriment and years of having a team busy on a product without any return. It only happens to be socially acceptable to blame people with money even when they're clearly not at fault.

How many years do you think they waited for ST to announce the 2020 full release date? That's not 2 years investment horizon, we don't know how far ago they started development, but it could be as early as 2017 when they concreted the purchase (which fits nicely with a 2020 release), giving them 3 years of supposed way and only hitting another 3 year wait wall. Again, another case of it being socially acceptable to blame rich people.

All I can say is you and I have a very different interpretation of what actually matters to players and artists and very different idea of who has their best interests at heart. I can't fix that for you.

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

Kerbals are cartoonish, and I believe it was a design choice - one I disagree with.

I don't believe there's a conceivable world where Kerbals, beings with heads twice the size of their torso, would work with realistic skin.

[Royalswissarmyknife]

3 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

My thoughts on KSP2's art style is that they tried to have a more consistent art style but I think it suffers from the same problem as KSP1, and frankly, I don't like the new art style. I understand that this all this is 100% subjective, but I just find KSP2's visuals to look raw in certain conditions.

For instance, Eve's clouds have a certain, very fake and unconvincing quality to them, especially when combined with the totally brown surface. Jool has a similar problem. The saturation is simply way too high.

(Taken from Matt Lowne's video, "KSP 2: Sending a Rover to EVE...Despite the Kraken Attacks!" (27:57) Surfaces reflect too much light, reminding me of a comment I got when I dabbled in Kopernicus planet modding: wet mud. I would say just in general, reflection across everything is just way too much on both surfaces and planets, as if it was wacked up to distract from the overall "plasticity" of the parts.

On sunsets and sunrises too, what should be dirt reflects light as if its made out of glass, and combined with the red-orange skies, the stark black shadows, and the blindingly bright surface, "raw" comes to mind.

When it comes to the early previews, I hate to be the "corporate overlords stole my KSP2!" type person, but I think it is a fair question to ask why there is such a big difference between what was shown in show and tells and what was actually implemented. Where did it go? If this was first created in 2021, how come it was not implemented in the game 2 years later? Hypothetically, the whole "pandemic and star theory poaching" would not actually apply here, given that Intercept had already been handed the reins.

Finally, I still feel like KSP2 doesn't have a well defined art style either (this is from March 24). From the game in general, there is still the problem of realistic (or attempts at realistic) terrain, in contrast to the plastic-looking rockets, and the very cartoonish kerbals. Everything is too saturated and bright in general. Typically, things look better when they are desaturated as opposed to heavily saturated. The only area where KSP2 really shines out - planets from space, also attempt hyperrealism, which again, does not mix with the cartoonish kerbals. Kerbals are cartoonish, and I believe it was a design choice - one I disagree with.

100% agree everything is just glass and plastic.

Have fun playing ksp-2 at night.

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

How does this make sense? How is it justifiable that a Unity game with the capabilities and state of KSP2 can have the stones to ask for more resources than a software that is able to livestream and render photgrammetry whilst also processing hundreds of aircraft systems and parametric physical simulation of aerodynamics all in real time?

One is a complete game with pre-made craft* made by the company that made the operating system the game is playing on, while the other is in EA, made by a (at least relatively speaking) small team, and allows its users to build anything the engine can render.

*I know people say you can add planes to it, but from what I see building them is more similar to coding a mod in KSP than building a ship. I've no firsthand experience with it as MSFS is as interesting to me as Paint Drying Observer 2023.

[PDCWolf]

30 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I can't fix that for you.

Let's do an exercise: I'll work the salaried position, you make an investment and call me when 6 years down the line you have nothing to show for it. I'll play the one telling you to be patient and that you don't have the best interest of me and those who matter at heart.

[Pthigrivi]

Dude games often take 6 or 8 years to complete. Starfield has been in production since 2015. If they’re good they make a bunch of money. Studios know what they’re in for. I don’t even understand what you’re talking about at this point. Are you more worried that investors meet their targets than the game is actually good? 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Pthigrivi