KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Vl3d]

5 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

I mean we've gone from being the most welcoming community ever here and on Reddit to thAt's nOt thE tExtUAL qUOtE when trying to deflect yet another criticism. We're way past ignoring the literal lie that the game was ready to release as a full product. A clear lie that they repeated 3 times.

Like there's not even an argument anymore, the only thing is "wahh spam argument", when it's always the same types inciting the reply by trying to pass misinformation or their own hopes and dreams as reality.

And what can we do, eh? Can we make the game by ourselved? No. So we just have to wait and hope for the best. And believe me, no one had bigger hopes and dreams for this game than me. But I'll never give up on it.

[PDCWolf]

3 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

And what can we do, eh? Can we make the game by ourselved? No. So we just have to wait and hope for the best. And believe me, no one had bigger hopes and dreams for this game than me. But I'll never give up on it.

There's a clear divide between having hopes and dreams for the game, and telling people to trust marketing statements when they've been clearly proven to be untrustable and then getting mad at people for bringing the examples up.  It feels like what some people want is for certain stuff to be ignored, or plainly not brought up at all, and when someone does, they're the one "spamming every thread with the same argument in bad faith".  How is literally quoting marketing statements that haven't been fulfilled bad faith? Or, even better, how is telling people to believe those same statements when the majority of them aren't true not bad faith?

The best example is the recent Microtransactions thing. Yeah, the text is very clear, "no microtransactions", but that text comes from the same people that told us a collection of "borderline" (as some like to grade them) lies before. It's no wonder a group of people is no longer up to take any past or future statement entirely at face value.

[Stephensan]

9 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

There are a few threads and some discussions popping up in general discussions as well. If you feel like having something to say/discuss, feel free to open one. Science has been very vaguely descripted, and I am hoping for something mode substantial soon. 

tbh this is one of the larger discussions besides the same ranting of the same thing.. they said it be better compared to ksp 1, but by what, how, when... we will know when it is close..

 

so if its wrong the players are gone.

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

51 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

The best example is the recent Microtransactions thing. Yeah, the text is very clear, "no microtransactions", but that text comes from the same people that told us a collection of "borderline" (as some like to grade them) lies before. It's no wonder a group of people is no longer up to take any past or future statement entirely at face value.

Even if they go through with it, then their only hope for microtransactions to be profitable is if they simplify mechanics compared to KSP1 and target much more casual players, and sadly the way things move, that's not out of the question.

But overall, you can't slap microtransactions on this one and make it profitable until you regain the current userbase trust (by delivering promises), unless, again, they also change the target audience to ones that don't care about past promises of surpassing KSP1 in gameplay depth. And I think we all know what's easier of the two.

[RocketRockington]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

There's a clear divide between having hopes and dreams for the game, and telling people to trust marketing statements when they've been clearly proven to be untrustable and then getting mad at people for bringing the examples up.

Fortunately, while people still seem to (very) occasionally ask reddit if KSP2 is worth buy/playing, noone comes to this forum expecting a serious answer, and when they do there wre people like you to tell them the truth.  

Edited August 27, 2023 by RocketRockington

[Stoup]

Honestly, I think the hard part about trying to stay positive about the future of the game is that many of the things, that would normally be sources of hype, have been proven to be unreliable for people to be putting their hopes in.

So of course we can't change that. It's weird feeling like their has to be a dichotomy, between positivity about the game and negativity.

I want to be want to complain about the things wrong with the game, but like many others I would also like to see this forum, if not full, at least largely so, of people engaging with the game and enjoying themselves.

It's frustrating when the core problem is that people feel that they can't get engaged with the game enough due to all the bugs and whatnot. It's a valid feeling, full stop.

I just wish the game was in a state where it was more interesting to talk about what we're able to do in it, than to talk about how difficult it is for us to GET to that point of engagement.

[Royalswissarmyknife]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

And what can we do, eh? Can we make the game by ourselved?

Maybe.

but probably not.

[gluckez]

Just now, Royalswissarmyknife said:

And what can we do, eh? Can we make the game by ourselved?

we can be patient. When the ksp1 alpha came out, the sun was simply a directional light. kerbin didn't rotate, there was no SAS, there wasn't even a mun, or any other celestial body. People have just become really impatient and entitled, sure, you paid full price for an early access, but you knew while you were paying for it that it wasn't gonna be done in 3 weeks. ksp1 took years to go from alpha to fully built out, and even then it couldn't slay the kraken. it seems that a really toxic part of the community is behaving like management, and just demanding things that aren't built or tested properly be pushed to production. 
Sure, go ahead, make the game yourself. and then when you ultimately do run into the issue that there's no one left to continue development and the codebase is riddled with junior level mistakes, then point the finger back to the original creators I guess. Either way, you let them do it properly, or you take over and do the same thing terribly, it'll take a time and money.

[Alexoff]

20 minutes ago, gluckez said:

When the ksp1 alpha came out, the sun was simply a directional light. kerbin didn't rotate, there was no SAS, there wasn't even a mun, or any other celestial body.

And it was free and it was in development less than year!

[RocketRockington]

2 hours ago, Alexoff said:

And it was free and it was in development less than year!

It also has a very open and honest developer who didn't lie about the state of the game to try to get you to make an overpriced purchase, who genuinely interacted with the community and took suggestions and feedback that made it into the game rather than ignoring it while working on thier own 5 year roadmap of features while BSing with fluff AMAs, and most importantly, despite low resources - things improved fast enough to keep the players interested and hopeful.

This constant comparison between KSP1 and KSP2 early days (though it's not like it's genuinely early for KSP2) just makes KSP2 seem so much sadder.

Edited August 28, 2023 by RocketRockington

[Royalswissarmyknife]

13 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

And it was free and it was in development less than year!

Notably less time then 6 to 5 years (4 Years if they had no work done before the trailer)

Spoiler

if my 2 second math is correct Ksp-1 would be in 2017/16 with the assumed amount of time to develop ksp-2 to this point

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Royalswissarmyknife

[Stephensan]

also i updated my steam review as of 235 hours played.

[moeggz]

47 minutes ago, Stoup said:

I just wish the game was in a state where it was more interesting to talk about what we're able to do in it, than to talk about how difficult it is for us to GET to that point of engagement.

If the devs bring in science trust me most of the discussion will be on science. That’s more interesting for everyone to talk about. I’d like to talk about resources and asynchronous options for multiplayer but it’s hard to have those conversations not even knowing what science will be like.

 

25 minutes ago, gluckez said:

ksp1 took years to go from alpha to fully built out, and even then it couldn't slay

And, to keep this merry go round conversation going, KSP1 was much cheaper than KSP2, was a new idea combining Orbiter like mechanics into a sandbox game without any prior game to get ideas/solutions from, was made by far fewer people, and had more progress down its “roadmap” over any 3 month period than has KSP2 over its lifetime.

When your game is less playable with less features than the prior entry in the franchise, is more expensive, and is progressing substantially slower than the first game yeah people are going to get grumpy. If you then apologize and try and start off with a clean slate and return to overpromising and either under delivering or never delivering yeah people will get upset.

[moeggz]

[Snip]

If you want to discuss other things there are other threads you can join or make new ones, but there’s not much happening there because there’s not much to discuss until we have more info.

The pessimists here are way more polite and articulate then the flood of the worst comments on steam and Reddit. The constant dismissal of the, by all accounts, majority opinion across all platforms on this platform in particular isn’t going to make that opinion go away.

The Reddit poll had 2,000+ responses. Here less than 100. The forum numbers added to the reddit poll wouldn’t change the bell curve. I would guess that’s because most dissenting views are pushed away from this platform. For reference, more people on reddit responded that they feel that the game will be in 1.0 in 6 months (so optimistic that no one here selected it) than nearly all of the responses combined here. The bell curve in reddit is slightly more negative yes but way more wide. [Snip]

Edited August 29, 2023 by James Kerman
Redacted by a moderator

[Alexoff]

23 minutes ago, Royalswissarmyknife said:

Notably less time then 6 to 5 years (4 Years if they had no work done before the trailer)

It would be interesting to know the number of developers and hours spent on both games. I suspect that more man-hours have been spent on KSP2 to date than on all of KSP1.

[VlonaldKerman]

19 minutes ago, Stephensan said:

235 hours played

In KSP 2? My condolences.

[Stephensan]

1 minute ago, VlonaldKerman said:

In KSP 2? My condolences.

my steam update of my review reflects this well.

[moeggz]

1 minute ago, Stephensan said:

my steam update of my review reflects this well.

Genuine question, how often did you have to start new saves? I couldn’t keep a save going with more than a handful of vessels. It would be difficult for me to put that much time into a game where little I did persisted and I had to keep restarting.

[Royalswissarmyknife]

1 minute ago, Alexoff said:

It would be interesting to know the number of developers and hours spent on both games. I suspect that more man-hours have been spent on KSP2 to date than on all of KSP1.

I hope many of those man hours went into thinking about how they could change science to be more engaging during gameplay and not just be "slap a few science things on the side and biome hop until we need to come back".

and also how to make colonies a challenge to get them to self sustain instead of it just working without much thought .

Spoiler

Also would love to know how much colonies played a role in revamping the planet's.

 

[Stephensan]

2 minutes ago, moeggz said:

Genuine question, how often did you have to start new saves? I couldn’t keep a save going with more than a handful of vessels. It would be difficult for me to put that much time into a game where little I did persisted and I had to keep restarting.

i have made about 60 saves.

i get to many machines.

i start a new one..

now i got to many saves, i move all my old saves into a folder and now no issues with it

 

(I'm in unbearable pain)

just checked now each one has about 10-15 machines in it i have 67 saves, (generalized i looked at 20 of them and that's about avg) each one has about 4 machine in "the world" before to few fps...

so 670 machines i have built, i would say an easy 70 of these machines are Copy and Paste due to the fps limitations, and about 40 machines in total that are in the game that you can click on..

Edited August 27, 2023 by Stephensan

[RocketRockington]

6 minutes ago, Stephensan said:

i have made about 60 saves.

i get to many machines.

i start a new one..

now i got to many saves, i move all my old saves into a folder and now no issues with it

 

(I'm in unbearable pain)

Want to link your review so you can share the pain with others, might help

[moeggz]

@Stephensan I salute your passion and persistence. 

[RocketRockington]

8 minutes ago, Royalswissarmyknife said:

I hope many of those man hours went into thinking about how they could change science to be more engaging during gameplay and not just be "slap a few science things on the side and biome hop until we need to come back".

I think most of them went to writing and animating cartoon tutorials.  

[Stephensan]

Just now, RocketRockington said:

Want to link your review so you can share the pain with others, might help

oh that is easy no need read my fog-headed brain (sleepy meds)

less communications, longer updates month not weeks, still nothing for content so we are still talking about the same issues, and I feel there is a large disconnect growing from users and the team, communication feels jaded, and we don't get news like we were on the team seeing the game grow.... The hours i have played was serviceable as a tech demo but it still feels like we are in technical alpha/beta...

[Royalswissarmyknife]

Personally I feel like Ksp-2 at this point in time is so focused on the first time user experience that for anyone who has landed on the Mun/Duna in the first game is bored unless they find funny things to do

and then quit because there rocket isn't providing thrust and wobbled like madness.

Spoiler

It should be more fun to fly a rocket then a plane in a SPACE program.

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Royalswissarmyknife