KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[PDCWolf]

10 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

Squad had 1/4 of the QA team and 5x more working features to test however, with multiple combinations of installed DLC as well.  And they developed new systems for most 4 month update  vs Intercept that hasn't added a single new system to the game (and barely any content).

I don't think comparing the two even comes close.

I'm not ready to praise Squad at any point. I will however reiterate that a larger entity (and a professional one) should not be making their same mistakes and engaging in the same childish behavior of trying to make us believe the game takes weeks in QA when it takes literally 5 minutes after an update for bug reports to flood in and they're really basic stuff that you crash against 15 seconds after opening the game. Case in point: read the post above mine.

Squad is the culprit of many other things, like rushing to slap the 1.0 tag on it just to spite the community, or trying to rig community feedback by knowingly misrepresenting forum stats (the resources debacle), or teasing experimentals only to give them to a couple modders and youtubers and not the people actually interested. I can think of more, but they'll come up by themselves as and if PD keeps making the same rookie mistakes, I'm sure.

9 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

I don't get how some people are saying that KSP2 is completely unplayable.

I can't make any spaceplane, as the KSC is a performance mess, only rockets clear it fast enough for the game to not be a slog. Once in space, we can't still do multiport docking, so big vessels have to be launched as one (through the slog), or docked through a single overly flimsy "le fun wobble" docking port. Big missions have to be executed in one go because of savegames still being broken or on the verge of breaking, plus you can still run into the orbit bugs all over so your encounters and windows are all messed up.

Performance is only a single factor, other than that the game is barely playable without it breaking.

[Kerbart]

11 minutes ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

 IG doesn't test the functionality of the game using basic, simple, player-centric testing scenarios. I don't know what they ARE testing, but I now know what they're NOT testing. I realize we will never know the absolute truth about this, but I really wonder if they knew about this  undocked capsule thing before release. It doesn't really matter, as both "yes" and "no" lead to unpleasant enough conclusions.

I've brought this up earlier. I think that they have a very disciplined testing regime — for the bugs they're trying to fix. Likely a dozen or more scenarios per bug to make sure it doesn't occur. And to test all of that on time, each test will use preloaded scenarios or cheats to get into orbit.

As you pointed out, what they're not testing are full-play scenarios. Because yes, we discover dozens of things within 20 minutes that clearly would have been caught if they did. I hope they're incuding those kind of tests now. Dakota claims they're reading all forum posts, meaning that they must be aware of that deficiency by now.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Kerbart

[Alexoff]

Why do many people think that testing is not done? I'm sure the game is being tested. Then testers report that there are new bugs. But managers say that they promised a patch not on the last day of June, so they release what we have. What about a bug? Well, there are a thousand of them left, one more - one less ...

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

13 hours ago, RaBDawG said:

I have never been so disappointed in anything in my life.

I think it might be that you're not looking at the glass half full or something because everyone in the team appears to be super happy with the current state of the game, judging from AMAs, and they also say they're very skilled and they punch above their weight.

So maybe it's just you that feels the disappointment?

Ok so maybe just you and 1 out of 2 other players, but who cares about stats?

Edited July 10, 2023 by GGG-GoodGuyGreg

[Gargamel]

Overlapping threads have been merged. 

[shdwlrd]

5 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

You are making the assumption that if someone is a computer gamer that they must be a hardware specialist and know the ins and outs of how to overclock their PC to get the best performance, and if they don't know they are computer illiterate.  I'm a software developer by day and am far from computer illiterate.  But I don't know the first thing about fine tuning hardware to get the optimum performance out of it.  I took hardware classes in college, but I have neither the desire nor energy to figure it out.  Not my wheelhouse.  Doesn't make me computer illiterate.

It has nothing to do with hardware. It's knowing how to force your OS to run how you want it to and to run only what you want running. 

Hell, you don't even need to be an OS guru. Both Nvidia and AMD has software included with their drivers that will force the prioritization of games over other software. (Except for the kernal.) You just have to use them.

6 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Playability isn't just a function of performance.  I won't go into detail on the bugs still in force in the game, but two of them make the game unplayable from my perspective.

Fair enough. The game is unplayable for you because of bugs. But not completely unplayable as in the software doesn't run.

[Scarecrow71]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

Hell, you don't even need to be an OS guru. Both Nvidia and AMD has software included with their drivers that will force the prioritization of games over other software. (Except for the kernal.) You just have to use them.

Except that you still need to know what to do.  Which a lot of people don't.  And it's insulting to call them computer illiterate simply because they don't know what to do to get the most out of their machine.  It's the same as being told that you are vehicle illiterate simply because you haven't fine tuned your car to get the best gas mileage out of it.

[Alexoff]

2 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

The game is unplayable for you because of bugs. But not completely unplayable as in the software doesn't run.

Can you imagine, someone would tell us in the fall of 2019 that KSP2 will be released as early access only in February 2023 and in July 2023 fans will argue on the forum about degree of unplayability of the game turned out to be after three patches? A hundred years ago there were roaring twenties, in this century some grim dark twenties have turned out.

[razark]

Ah yes.  The Roaring Twenties, with their violence, bootlegging, and wild hedonistic response to WWI.

Nothing compared to the dark days of a video game that doesn't work the way I want it to.

[Alexoff]

12 minutes ago, razark said:

The Roaring Twenties, with their violence, bootlegging, and wild hedonistic response to WWI.

This is called - life was in full swing!

13 minutes ago, razark said:

the dark days of a video game that doesn't work the way I want it to

Computer games are escapism and help to escape into a beautiful imaginary world where you can conquer space with almost no restrictions. Escapism would not be needed if the lives of so many did not pass in boring jobs with not the highest pay and little free time in the evenings. But it turns out that this path of escapism can be completely broken.

[Vanamonde]

2 hours ago, Alexoff said:

A hundred years ago there were roaring twenties, in this century some grim dark twenties have turned out.

KSP2 ruined an entire decade? With 6 years to go? 

[Spicat]

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

Computer games are escapism and help to escape into a beautiful imaginary world where you can conquer space with almost no restrictions. Escapism would not be needed if the lives of so many did not pass in boring jobs with not the highest pay and little free time in the evenings. But it turns out that this path of escapism can be completely broken.

How can one game ruin your life? If you want some games "to escape" I can give you a ton of them. A lot of masterpieces out there. At least that will let you forget about ksp2.

[razark]

2 hours ago, Alexoff said:

Computer games are escapism... But it turns out that this path of escapism can be completely broken.

Only if you tie everything to a single game.

There's lots of games.  I find it highly unlikely that anyone's life would be substantially less escapismy if KSP2 never existed, even as a concept.  There's still plenty to escape into without it.

 

Or, go watch a movie or read a book.  There's many different ways to escape.

[Superfluous J]

On 7/9/2023 at 9:43 PM, RaBDawG said:

I have never been so disappointed in anything in my life.

I wish I could have the single biggest disappointment in my life be a release of a video game that didn't go to my expectations.

[Scarecrow71]

On 7/9/2023 at 6:43 PM, RaBDawG said:

I have never been so disappointed in anything in my life.

I am not happy with the state of the game.  But the biggest disappointment of your life?  I mean, do you even own the game yet?

I agree that the game isn't what it should be.  But if this is the biggest disappointment you have ever faced, your life to this point has been pretty damned charmed.

[The Aziz]

6 hours ago, Alexoff said:

This is called - life was in full swing!

Until the economy crashed.

Today we're in the screaming 20's, all things considered.

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

intro: I personally dropped the game weeks after Day 1 and waiting for the Science update and hoping it’s fleshed out enough to make it worthwhile for me. 
 

Now I’d like to potentially understand other points of view than my own.

Judging from Stats, there are at least 300 people playing this daily, and I’m happy for them because they got their money worth. 
 

So my question for you is if, Heaven Forbid, everyone was too optimistic with how profitable this franchise turns out to be, and again this is not what I hope, but if the plug would happen to be pulled before the game begins to progress into the roadmap , how happy would you be of with this purchase?

In short, for those 300 people, is the game already fun for you as it is now or is in your view the 100% certainty of what lies ahead in the roadmap that keeps you playing it?

[Spicat]

Even if I find the situation unlikely, I will be a bit disappointed but I will move on with my life.

There are a ton of games I want to play and ksp1 will always be there. Modders surprise us everyday.

With 160+ hours in the game, I won't be that mad to have spent 50€. I wouldn't force myself to play a game if it wasn't fun just for the sake of a promised future, that would be a weird thing to do.

[MechBFP]

Assuming there are only 300 people is a gross misunderstanding of that statistic. 

[DunaManiac]

14 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Assuming there are only 300 people is a gross misunderstanding of that statistic. 

I would agree with this, but the underlying trend behind the steam numbers isn't wrong.

Although only a fraction of people who play KSP2 play it through steam (I would argue a large fraction, but that's besides the point), through steam numbers we can still see the overall trend. What does that show us?

KSP2 is incapable of holding large numbers of players for a long period of time. Before the patch, player numbers were declining from 25000 in a decaying exponential pattern. The third patch was hugely successful proportion-wise, nearly quadrupling the number of people playing the game. Since the initial high, numbers have again, fallen by half from a high of 720 to roughly 350-400 relatively active players. Of course, recall the player numbers of the first few days - 20000-25000 players.

In short - stating there are only 300 players who play the game is a misunderstanding, but the real numbers aren't that much higher, very likely to be under 1000.

The question, I think still stands to why those 500-1000, at best 4% of the original numbers, are still playing.

[KUAR]

1 hour ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

intro: I personally dropped the game weeks after Day 1 and waiting for the Science update and hoping it’s fleshed out enough to make it worthwhile for me. 
 

Now I’d like to potentially understand other points of view than my own.

Judging from Stats, there are at least 300 people playing this daily, and I’m happy for them because they got their money worth. 
 

So my question for you is if, Heaven Forbid, everyone was too optimistic with how profitable this franchise turns out to be, and again this is not what I hope, but if the plug would happen to be pulled before the game begins to progress into the roadmap , how happy would you be of with this purchase?

In short, for those 300 people, is the game already fun for you as it is now or is in your view the 100% certainty of what lies ahead in the roadmap that keeps you playing it?

I'm one of those 300.

Right now, I've got weak-ish hardware, so am very slow anywhere near the surface, and am also suffering from bugs like everyone else.

I also regret the paucity of parts and the fact that the UI seems less capable than even vanilla KSP 1.12.5

I think I play it partly out of stubbornness, partly out of loyalty, partly out of curiosity, and partly because I'm not sure I could go back to having non-procedural wings (I know there's mods).

I only play an hour or so per day on average, possibly less. I certainly used to put far more time into KSP1.

I've got hope that it will continue to develop. I choose to believe the developers when they claim to be working on long-term improvements as well as the immediate bug-fixes, so perhaps the perceived rate of change will increase when the base engine is stabilised.

But there's no denying that to me it's a lot less fun than KSP1 at the moment. I'm just not very good at going backwards, that's all.

[Scarecrow71]

As one of the people who launch through Epic, I can say that the only reason I have launched the game recently was to:

• Check performance due to the latest patch.  Which has had ZERO effect on me.  I am still at 20ish FPS (AMD Ryzen 9, 32 GB of RAM, GeForce RTX Super 2060).  The performance updates may have had an impact on high-end gear, but for us low- to mid-range guys, nothing.  Still shoddy performance on the ground, and no noticeable increase in flight.
• Make sure my mod still works in 0.1.3.  Which it does.  And honestly, should be a core feature.  You can cycle through all the planets and moons in KSP1 core; why can you not do this in core in KSP2?  I'm not even a C coder, for pete's sake.
• Because I cannot go interplanetary without fighting the game, to attempt to craft a plane.  Which, thanks to procedural wings/control surfaces, failed miserably.  Sorry (not sorry), but I'm one of those people who, at least for wings, needs standard sizes already planned out for me.

All told, I'm feeling "meh" about the $50.  It's not like that $50 is going to break me (and if it would, I've got bigger problems than spending $50 on an EA game), so that's not the issue here.  I have landed on Mun, and Minmus, and Duna, and Dres.  So yes, I HAVE fought against the code and done stuff.  However, those bugs make the game too difficult to deal with, so I'm holding off on playing until things get better.  But if this title gets cancelled due to [insert whatever reason you wish], it will simply be a reminder to never again purchase an EA title.  This is only the second one I've ever bought, and it really is trending towards the reason why I decided never again after the first one.  And the slowed cadence of updates, coupled with the now lack of responses from the team (per Nate's last dev update, which appears to be the last one for who-knows-how-long), is not leaving me feeling good about the future of the title.  I'm seriously hoping they prove me wrong.

[Stephensan]

With optimization going on with each minor update I'm steadily waiting on the science mode for me to go in a new phase I'm keeping with my ultra compact builds that are useless right now.. there isn't much to do i want to suffer dealing with again.. i wish there was more tiny parts however.

if modders can improve some of the missing TLC like node builder helpers (like want to go to duna without needing 10-15 minutes of messing around) that is slightly more consistent i would play more.. i already use one when i really don't want to deal with the "funny ksp 2 bugs" but something that could do auto docking would be way more useful for the more complex builds remember i DID a 2000 part build already, the game didn't like it at all and that was my accomplishment.. The build will forever be there but you only have a few seconds before the explosion.

I mean heck look of all the builds i have done that i have screenshot alone..

Just some examples right here https://imgur.com/a/T8QXOR7

most of the more bigger builds the game doesn't like in fps AND in kraken attacks/wobblines, under full thrust of the 2000 part build it crumbled like a piece of paper due to the wobbliness of it. however with that in mind i wish there was two things they could add.

If KSP 2 is going to be interstellar, i hope that we can research in science mode these two things

• Automated Node Creation
• The Suggestion I Created For The Wobbly Rocket Issue

it makes still sense that we should be able to research at least the automated node creation stuff. it is more helpful for the more casual players that don't want to use there brain 24/7 and i would MUCH rather have a node creator that can just automate rather than using my brain every single failed launch or successful launch, the amount of launches are in the 20-30 times EACH build so doing about 60 different parts of ships or ships in general a safe amount of times i have launched is 1,200 and 80% of them was successful and about 70% of those was going to be out of kerbins sphere of influence, to only get about 90% of those to the target to then explode in some fancy fashion ksp 2 lined up..

so about 600 launches that has failed... its a mental toll to do the same thing over and over and over again and need consistently do the same boring and complex steps to get back to step 3 to get out of kerbin and go to X planet.. due to a bug that runs all the way down to the way it was built making any autosaves/reverts break in half or do something that isn't just enjoyable..

 

its a TLDR I'm burnt out on the stupid stuff.

things like wobblyness gets a "we are working on it" and them kinda not wanting to change it due to its the "ksp way".. i mean i literally made an idea on the spot and its still one of the best ideas i have seen that fits everyone's needs/wants while also not leaving any of the extra work to make it behind.

idk just burnt out as of now, the new engines want me to play but a lot of things pull me back out of it.. i am one of the "300" players but its getting more and more just looking at the hanger staring at what i can build/fix.

 

[cocoscacao]

2 hours ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

is the game already fun for you as it is now or is in your view the 100% certainty of what lies ahead in the roadmap that keeps you playing it?

Why would anyone keep playing the game becasue some feature is promised? You either have fun now, or you don't, and then act accordingly... 

[PDCWolf]

14 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

KSP2 ruined an entire decade? With 6 years to go? 

He's counting the years left in EA.

20 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

It has nothing to do with hardware. It's knowing how to force your OS to run how you want it to and to run only what you want running. 

Hell, you don't even need to be an OS guru. Both Nvidia and AMD has software included with their drivers that will force the prioritization of games over other software. (Except for the kernal.) You just have to use them.

Fair enough. The game is unplayable for you because of bugs. But not completely unplayable as in the software doesn't run.

18 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Except that you still need to know what to do.  Which a lot of people don't.  And it's insulting to call them computer illiterate simply because they don't know what to do to get the most out of their machine.  It's the same as being told that you are vehicle illiterate simply because you haven't fine tuned your car to get the best gas mileage out of it.

This is the same argument as "most people skip the launcher" when talking about stats. No they don't.

Most of us, here, who 10 years ago had the smidge of extra computer proficiency required to be able to find and register to a forgotten forum might be smart enough to turn off the antivirus (or maybe not have one at all) and a couple windows services before launching the game through the .exe file to squeeze that 5% extra performance. However, most of Steams 30 million concurrent users buy prebuilts with 1050/1650s on them, on a 60hz 1080p monitor, and still have the search bar and Cortana up on their windows 10 (or 11 if they're really unlucky), and are afraid of installing CKAN and breaking something and having to send their computer to the repair shop or calling geek squad.