KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[PDCWolf]

18 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

How many of them will base their decision on the current or historical numbers of others playing?

That's taking the current players number as its own isolated little variable when it is not. If my friends got the game and refunded/are not playing, I'm not likely to get it.

14 hours ago, Spicat said:

Based on your previous message, 5 millions correspond to every estimation:

SteamSpy: between 2 and 5 millions

Playtracker: between 5.58 and 6.82 (10% interval mentionned on the website)

SteamDB: as you said between 4 and 10 million.

So between 2 and 10 millions,  where do you see that "every estimate is dead wrong"? Even 4 millions would be correct by considering 1 million on console.

 

The most important question remains, why would they lie by lowering the numbers?

Just remember all those numbers are for PC only, whilst KSP1 sold on consoles and other PC storefronts. Being a bit snarky, I'd say they're giving themselves an easier target to beat, at least in front of the press.

5 hours ago, TwoCalories said:

I just need to get all my thoughts about the KSP2 EA situation out, right here, right now.

I'll tell you that, at least for me, certain things are unjustifiable:

• KSP1 EA was bad, the devs at some point made it a hobby to go against their community, screwed up experimentals, were super slow, broke most of their game with each update, and their constant excuse of QA for slower updates was a clear lie. Why would I be ok with KSP2 being the exact same?
• You've got the modding thing completely wrong. Adding a feature when the code is yours is much simpler, as you've got a whole lot of leeway to play with, even to the point of calling to rewrite other features because they cause bugs in yours, which a team of people does versus one person. Making a mod means you can only work with what the developers give you, and can't go in and change their stuff if they made something wrong and it screws your code. You have to work around stuff, find clever alternatives, and of course convince the existing code to work with yours. To this day, there's no proper documentation or resources on how to make much stuff, and modders are stuck looking at each other's code and decompiling each others models to learn from whoever was the wizard that got a feature to work. I wouldn't really say making a mod is easier or harder, they play in very different contexts for what's allowed and what's not, and what tools are available. Again, Why would I be ok with experiencing the same suffering on the sequel?
• The KSP1 "BETA" was 0.90, most final features were already in. What you're listing is the state of pre-0.13, a version which was released 2 years after the first public build, but made by a single guy. Why should I justify the same progress when a team of professionals, fully funded, is behind the sequel?

2 hours ago, Sylvi Fisthaug said:

Ah yes, the glorious days of Squad, so much better than Intercept Games and those greedy people at TakeTwo and Private Division. Those were the times! Aaaah, the good old days, if we just could turn the time back a few years and only have KSP1 in this world. 

No need to go there, we all know EA under Squad was just as bad, however, there's no reason why a team of professionals with a big money publisher behind them should be so easily comparable to 4 guys in Mexico working on their extra time after a full hours workday.

[moeggz]

14 hours ago, TickleMyMary said:

because everyone is too concerned with their quippy one liners or trying to convince others that what they think or feel is wrong... Hence the checkout on my part to a great degree

Couldn’t agree more. I’m happy to debate with the other side of the aisle (as I’m critical the optimistic side) and have had some really engaging conversations with the different view. 
 

But it’s becoming more common on these forums for people (of both sides) to just attack the person and not the argument. Many times with rude or condescending remarks that don’t quite break the rules but definitely aren’t friendly or add anything to the discussion.

[cocoscacao]

2 hours ago, TickleMyMary said:

Probably an unpopular opinion but... I'd put that down to (for the most part) the level and quality of comms we are getting. They're vague and uninformative in my opinion, you rarely know if or when they're coming, what format they'll take and rarely show anything of substance that people can sink their teeth into or get excited over.

Comms are tricky business. Whenever I'm about to smash my PC because "it doesn't do, what I've told him to do", I remember why I got into it in the first place. There are no opinions. There are no N different ways it can interpret what I've written. If something doesn't work, it means that I'm an idiot who's missing something. Always. No persuasions needed, no hurt feelings, no twisted formulating of words to appease someone... Nope. It's always "You're an idiot, dig deeper". Occasionally frustrating, but still way better than most human interactions.

This was written before on the forum somewhere, but since I can't be bothered to dig it up... Giving technical estimations is really hard. If you miss the deadline you promised, the trust is eroded even more. It's common practice to overestimate everything, and if you can avoid giving an estimation completely, then avoid it like the plague. You can find plenty of examples on this forum. So I completely understand why they do this.

Something of substance, you say...? Well, that depends on how you look at things. In my opinion, they're giving away development plans and technical difficulties accompanying them. We won't get something "substantial" except roadmap updates. Maybe a few new parts here and there. I'm deliberately not including critical bug fixes in this, because, if those bug-fixes don't arrive at some point, there is no game. Hence, I'm focusing more on the scope they're trying to achieve. Some stuff looks promising, some are questionable, some are wrong, but can easily be fixed.. I'd rather use this forum to point and discuss those problems.

Also, they need to keep the hype up, so I doubt they're gonna share much of the new stuff, until right before an update/patch

Edited August 1, 2023 by cocoscacao

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, TickleMyMary said:

You have to accept that your experience doesn't necessarily reflect others though, yes? As I have said previously, if somebody didn't catch that event then that certainly would not have been apparent.

While true, buying something without looking into its quality is a recipe for ... well the kind of anger we're seeing all over the forums these days.

[moeggz]

7 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

While true, buying something without looking into its quality is a recipe for ... well the kind of anger we're seeing all over the forums these days.

I agree, but I feel like most would agree selling a product in progress while making misleading (or at least inaccurate) statements about how long it will be until it’s finished is part of the blame.

I’m the dummy who broke my “no more EA games” rule for this. Granted, I watched all of the pre release videos and educated myself as much as I could. But I was suckered into the marketing that at least implied a quick development after the EA launch.
 

I agree that most of my frustration is at myself. But I think there’s still some blame on companies selling products with misleading marketing.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, moeggz said:

I agree that most of my frustration is at myself. But I think there’s still some blame on companies selling products with misleading marketing.

In my opinion PD ought to refund anyone asking. It’s clear their expectations management failed, and that is indeed on them.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Guest

[moeggz]

1 hour ago, Periple said:

In my opinion PD ought to refund anyone asking. It’s clear their expectations management failed, and that is indeed on them.

I got a request in right now. If they do refund me, and actually improve the game, I’ll happily buy back at $50 or higher. And they will basically win back all of my goodwill. 
They’re under no obligation, but it’s the type of thing that makes people remember companies in a good way or a bad way for a long time and that does usually come back to reward or hurt a company.

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

5 hours ago, Periple said:

In my opinion PD ought to refund anyone asking. It’s clear their expectations management failed, and that is indeed on them.

Definitely yes. This is not the kind of progress people will expect from an EA priced at 90% of the full price.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

Definitely yes. This is not the kind of progress people will expect from an EA priced at 90% of the full price.

It depends. I'm not going to ask for a refund. I enjoy watching a game take shape and even participating in it in a small way. I'm also professionally curious to get a little peek into how other studios handle this kind of thing.

I'm not even disappointed nor seriously worried -- while I did hope for somewhat faster progress, it is clear the game is headed in the right direction and I don't see any of the usual signs of development hell, imminent cancellation, or other big monsters. If it does eventually fail then I'll be sad of course!

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

33 minutes ago, Periple said:

...

I'm not even disappointed nor seriously worried -- while I did hope for somewhat faster progress, it is clear the game is headed in the right direction and I don't see any of the usual signs of development hell, imminent cancellation, or other big monsters. If it does eventually fail then I'll be sad of course!

So what exactly from the progress so far points you to the conclusion that the game is headed in the right direction?

There hasn't been a whole lot of chunky game updates to really say which direction the game actually taking, and if you're talking about the bugfixes I would argue bug fixes can't be an indicative of the game direction, as it's pretty clear the game needs fixing. 

Each to his own opinion but I as many others expect the Science update to be the first sign that tells us where the game is actually heading.

[Guest]

The science update will definitely be what tells us where this game is going. Bug fixes are welcome but right now it's essentially the KSP1 base gameplay without progression mechanics. If they cleave to the old science and career mode gameplay then. quite frankly, it's going to suck. Hard. KSP1 gameplay beyond the core loop isn't good at all. Hopefully they'll have a fresh new take and avoid trying to build on the past.

[cocoscacao]

42 minutes ago, regex said:

KSP1 gameplay beyond the core loop isn't good at all. Hopefully they'll have a fresh new take and avoid trying to build on the past

I'd say colonies will be the major thing. I'm also curious why resource extraction is a roadmap point. How much stuff can be in it? 

[The Aziz]

Resource scanning, extraction, refinement, synthesis, logistics...

[PDCWolf]

2 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

I'd say colonies will be the major thing. I'm also curious why resource extraction is a roadmap point. How much stuff can be in it? 

This is speculation based on the AMAs: I think resource extraction in KSP2 is more pointed towards "exploring", establishing a colony and digging for certain resources, and shipping them to KSC/Colony, unlike KSP2 where the focus is ISRU. Considering the confirmation of no life support, and the seemingly lacking depth of colonies, I'd say colonies are no more than a tool to host and boost the resource extraction equipment, which then is used to build rockets in situ or shipped to orbital shipyards, or back to the KSC.

Based on this, colonies don't require almost any (or any) sort of upkeep once established, and they're just infrastructure for the real "logistics game" that revolves around resources, which is why colonies need to come first on the roadmap. Another thing required by resource extraction is multiple stars/systems, as gathering stuff around Kerbin/Kerbol probably doesn't serve much of a purpose, unless you can use it to go to other star systems.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

I'd say colonies will be the major thing. I'm also curious why resource extraction is a roadmap point. How much stuff can be in it? 

I agree that colonies will be _a_ major thing but if the progression gameplay is the same old crufty KSP1 fare colonies aren't going to save the game.

It's been hinted that resources will be the "cash" equivalent for gameplay.

[cocoscacao]

28 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

they're just infrastructure for the real "logistics game" that revolves around resources

Which is another weird thing, since resourves are coming later. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

So what exactly from the progress so far points you to the conclusion that the game is headed in the right direction?

It’s a lot stabler and more performant now than at release. They’ve figured out how to hotpatch. They’ve figured out how to bugfix the production branch while doing active development in the science update branch. They’ve gotten their communications together, more or less — no longer writing checks they can’t cover while being more open about the nuts and bolts of what they’re doing.

None of this is trivial and all of it is fundamental to maintaining and developing a product like this. And yes, I also expected that they had it figured out before going to production, but better later than never!

[PDCWolf]

12 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Which is another weird thing, since resourves are coming later. 

Colonies probably have their own subloop, to which they will add resources once that is established, rather than having resources hang on unusable until its parts are later added later.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

On 7/29/2023 at 5:07 PM, regex said:

Is it? To do what I want to do in the game I gotta wait for them to completely overhaul the planetary rendering and terrain chain, and even then that might not fix my gripes. I'm fixin' to wait for a _long_ time before I start playing again, probably next year. I got nothing _but_ patience for Intercept. I wonder how many others out there aren't bothering with the pedantic circular arguments around here and are instead just in waiting mode?

What's gonna happen when y'all's patience runs out? What are you gonna do?

What’s going to happen when my patience runs out?  Not much.  KSP is fun, but I have plenty of other. things to keep me occupied.  Worst-case, the game plotzes, I won’t throw any tantrums - I can always go back to KSP1 if nostalgia strikes.

[Snark]

Some content has been removed due to off-topic personal remarks.

Folks, you're welcome to argue with people, but please don't make it personal.  Personal remarks are not allowed.  Of course you have a personal opinion about other people's behavior, just as they have opinions about yours.  But this forum is not the place for them.  Naturally your own behavior is above reproach and it's always the other person who's being a jerk, but you're not allowed to say that.

If you think someone's behavior is so egregious that it's violating forum rules, then please file a report, and the moderator team will have a look as soon as we can.  If we decide that action is merited, we'll take action.  If not, then we won't.  Either way, you're not a moderator, so it's not your place to tell other people how they should be.

If you find yourself describing a fellow forum member's behavior rather than simply addressing the content of what they post, then you're out of bounds.  Please don't go there.

Thank you for your understanding.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 8/1/2023 at 10:53 AM, regex said:

The science update will definitely be what tells us where this game is going. Bug fixes are welcome but right now it's essentially the KSP1 base gameplay without progression mechanics. If they cleave to the old science and career mode gameplay then. quite frankly, it's going to suck. Hard. KSP1 gameplay beyond the core loop isn't good at all. Hopefully they'll have a fresh new take and avoid trying to build on the past.

I'm not so certain.  

There has been a major disconnect between those of us who expected KSP 2.0 with a focus on really cool current and near future science content and the direction KSP2 seems to be headed. 

Rather than a purpose of spaceflight and exploration, science in KSP2 looks to be a mini-game supporting the real core of KSP2 - namely Colonies and a Satisfactory-lite Resource Extraction meta (required to explore the various star systems). 

Thus, Science isn't the major update we might think. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm not so certain. 

My point isn't that Science will show us the end-all, be-all of KSP2, rather that it will show us where it's going. Is science mode fresh new gameplay with new challenges and new decisions? Or is it just KSP1 warmed over?

If it's just KSP1 warmed over then I have no hope for colonies; clearly no one at the studio has the imagination to think further.

[MechBFP]

10 minutes ago, regex said:

My point isn't that Science will show us the end-all, be-all of KSP2, rather that it will show us where it's going. Is science mode fresh new gameplay with new challenges and new decisions? Or is it just KSP1 warmed over?

If it's just KSP1 warmed over then I have no hope for colonies; clearly no one at the studio has the imagination to think further.

That is, sadly, probably accurate.

[Superfluous J]

16 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

28 minutes ago, regex said:

If it's just KSP1 warmed over then I have no hope for colonies; clearly no one at the studio has the imagination to think further.

That is, sadly, probably accurate.

It's very accurate, though it's not sad unless the if statement is true.

I'm hoping it's false. If it is, I'll be buying and finally playing the game. If it's true... well I won't then.

[MechBFP]

41 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

It's very accurate, though it's not sad unless the if statement is true.

I'm hoping it's false. If it is, I'll be buying and finally playing the game. If it's true... well I won't then.

Ya, that’s pretty much what I meant. Now I don’t think the chance is 0% that the rest of the game couldn’t be amazingly innovative if that happened, but I think the chance of that would probably approach 0 pretty closely given everything that has happened to date.