KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[cocoscacao]

8 minutes ago, Stoup said:

I think Dakota did state that 0.1.5 will have at least some features

I'm lazy to investigate atm, but Nate mentioned that the guy from parallax mod implemented scattering, but I have no idea if it's coming now or later. Visual goodies would be nice.

Or was it volumetric clouds...

Edited October 24, 2023 by cocoscacao

[AtomicTech]

Welp; can't say I was too excited to see another one of these videos...

[The Aziz]

On 9/25/2023 at 2:57 PM, Royalswissarmyknife said:

 

  Hide contents

Please dont be Cities: Skylines 2

 

Yes. Yes it is.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

18 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

No, we won't.  We will see one patch (0.1.5), and then 0.2.0.  If we get more than 1 patch in the next 8 weeks, I would highly suggest delaying FS due to bugs.

The fact that they’ve confirmed that 1.5 is the last patch before 2.0 is encouraging in that respect.  Let’s hope they’ll be able to pull it off.  The 1.5 patch will be telling. If they kill a lot of the big ugly bugs 2.0 may launch relatively smoothly.

5 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

I'm lazy to investigate atm, but Nate mentioned that the guy from parallax mod implemented scattering, but I have no idea if it's coming now or later. Visual goodies would be nice.

Or was it volumetric clouds...

I remember those innocent bygone days leading up to the EA launch when we were all yelling at the clouds…

[Kerbart]

2 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

The fact that they’ve confirmed that 1.5 is the last patch before 2.0 is encouraging in that respect.  Let’s hope they’ll be able to pull it off.  The 1.5 patch will be telling. If they kill a lot of the big ugly bugs 2.0 may launch relatively smoothly.

All I know is maybe we'll see 1.5 this week, and maybe we'll see 0.2 in December. With the glacial pace of patch updates, no one in their right mind would expect 1.6 in the first place; there simply isn't a window available for it.

[cocoscacao]

7 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I remember those innocent bygone days leading up to the EA launch when we were all yelling at the clouds…

Yup. Clouds in 0.1.5

[Wheehaw Kerman]

On 10/21/2023 at 4:09 PM, Kerbart said:

Because they were delaying it for years, and sugar daddy T2 basically said “enough is enough, just publish what you have.”

That I have less issues with than with the casual "Everything is great and we'll just pretend there are no bugs” attitude that followed for the half year following that release. At least now they're admitting that the product is bug-ridden, although they still seem to be not in a particular hurry to fix them. My fear is that they're now rushing to get Science in—they only have two months left for that after all—and bug fixing will once again be considered not worth the effort “because we need grid fins”. Science will then introduce it's own scala of bugs—the proud announcement that you can carry careers over milestone updates, which seems like a completely useless feature at this point—suggests that we'll be entering a whole new world of pain regarding loading and saving games for instance.

I’d disagree about the career carryover announcement.  It indicates that they’re aiming to have enough of the foundations for the rest of the roadmap done and under the hood with 1.5 and 2.0 that the other milestone updates are going to be smooth sailing.

I’ve been around long enough that I remember how updates messed with Brotoro’s Long Term Laythe series (not to mention starting new saves with every version).  It’ll be nice to not have to go through that again…

[Wheehaw Kerman]

5 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

All I know is maybe we'll see 1.5 this week, and maybe we'll see 0.2 in December. With the glacial pace of patch updates, no one in their right mind would expect 1.6 in the first place; there simply isn't a window available for it.

Although it’s unlikely, I’m kind of hoping that once the last milestone drops, we’ll see an interview with the devs explaining exactly what the [expletive deleted] went on in the leadup to and aftermath of the EA release.  I doubt we’ll ever learn why the EA dropped when it did, but what they’ve been doing since would be really interesting.  My bet would be the bulk of the team has been working on the milestone updates and under the hood systems like the new terrain rendering and their common foundations in parallel with a smaller team fixing bugs, with the bug fixing being constrained by the foundation and under the hood work.  A scenario where T2 forced IG to quickly rip the EA out of a parallel dev process in a partial and premature release resulting in slow updates to the EA as development continued on the rest of the game is more plausible than the “the entire team is cruelly lounging around laughing at the misery on the forum while mixing cocktails based on our tears” theory…

[Superfluous J]

8 hours ago, AtomicTech said:

Welp; can't say I was too excited to see another one of these videos...

Those are just clickbait to get viewers. People make them for everything and KSP is just getting its fair share.

[Royalswissarmyknife]

8 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Yes. Yes it is.

[Dakitess]

I really hope some depth and difficulty with the new For Science! game mode.

I've only played the original KSP1 science once at the very beginning, and it really did not hold me at all. I've then seen multiple stream / videos about it, and it was really not convincing either. Not interesting, obviously, but also WAY too easy. Being able to farm science around the launch pad makes no sense. At all. Because in this case, you're kinda forces to do it because it's frustrating to voluntarily ignore easy-points. And thoses easy points are not spread in more meaningful areas. Mun/Minmus as well, are enough to research the whole tech-tree : why ? how ?

It really needs to be a comprehensive overhaul of the system, to get some meaning in the experiments, some initiative from the player to "feel" what is supposed to be a valuable experiment, according to the IRL science, the physics basic. Nothing related to gate-keeping or elitism, I see you coming, just more meaning, more sense, to get a reward feeling when discovering something in the game that'll make you progress, unlock a new tech, a new knowledge.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Dakitess said:

I've only played the original KSP1 science once at the very beginning, and it really did not hold me at all. I've then seen multiple stream / videos about it, and it was really not convincing either. Not interesting, obviously, but also WAY too easy. Being able to farm science around the launch pad makes no sense. At all. Because in this case, you're kinda forces to do it because it's frustrating to voluntarily ignore easy-points. And thoses easy points are not spread in more meaningful areas. Mun/Minmus as well, are enough to research the whole tech-tree : why ? how ?

Balancing science is super important and I really hope they get it right this time! It can really kill the enjoyment that you can max out the tech tree just puttering around Minmus.

I think tech costs should have a much steeper, geometric progression, with matching science rewards scaled with how difficult/easy they are to reach. Something like this:

Tier 1: comparable to Level 1 Research building in KSP1

• Total cost to unlock: 1000
• Total science available from Kerbin/Mun/Minmus: 3000

Tier 2: comparable to Level 2 Research building in KSP1

• Total cost to unlock: 10,000
• Total science available from Duna/Ike/Vall/Laythe/Gilly/Kerbol + Eve and Tylo orbits: 30,000

Tier 3: comparable to fully upgraded Research building in KSP1

• Total cost to unlock: 100,000
• Total science available from Moho, Eve, Dres, Bop, Pol, Tylo, Eeloo: 300,000

Tier 4: Colony tech -- note: unlocks new science that increases rewards from already visited systems

• Total cost to unlock: 1,000,000
• Total science available by colonising Kerbolar system: 3,000,000

Tier 5: Interstellar tech: -- note: unlocks new science that increases rewards from already visited systems

• Total cost to unlock: 10,000,000
• Total science available from each system: 30,000,000

Tier 6: Endgame tech:  -- note: unlocks new science that increases rewards from already visited systems

• Total cost to unlock: 100,000,000
• Total science available from all interstellar systems: 300,000,000

This would mean that if you want the higher-tier tech, you would have to explore and colonise, you simply couldn't get there by grinding places you already know. Clever and ambitious players could also leapfrog e.g. by going straight to Moho or Eeloo using tier 1 tech. The real gateway techs would be colony tech and interstellar tech; you simply wouldn't be able to colonise or go to another star system without them.

(The exact numbers are pulled out of my hat, you'd need to playtest to see where they should actually land, but they give the idea -- each region should get you a part of the way into the next tier, but to get further you would need to keep exploring.)

Edited October 25, 2023 by Periple

[The Aziz]

36 minutes ago, Periple said:

This would mean that if you want the higher-tier tech, you would have to explore and colonise, you simply couldn't get there by grinding places you already know. Clever and ambitious players could also leapfrog e.g. by going straight to Moho or Eeloo using tier 1 tech

Soooo pretty much my idea, except in my case the rewards for exploration are something you can touch.

But also... Getting to Moho is easy, so is getting back (if you have a resource extractor on the surface).

[Guest]

1 minute ago, The Aziz said:

But also... Getting to Moho is easy, so is getting back (if you have a resource extractor on the surface).

Everything's easy if you know how!

If you don't know how, it's actually pretty tricky to get an intercept, and the dV requirements are quite high; doing a round trip to the surface without ISRU is a serious undertaking. 

3 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Soooo pretty much my idea, except in my case the rewards for exploration are something you can touch.

In my mind, setting up incentives by balancing numbers is quite different from setting up incentives by changing mechanics!

[Dakitess]

This indeed, but also some milestone, I don't know how to express it correctly. Like... Exploring Jool will let you know that there is interesting gaz out there, which should lead you to send a probe in the atmo and getting it back to Kerbin, so that you finally find out the exact composition of it, which... tells the Kerbalkind that there is a way to do nuclear engine using this gaz after some chemistry transformation, chemistry which is a basic tech tree progress.

So yeah, basic "points to progress" when it makes sense, let's say for 80% of the research, but also some specific meaningful milestones that relate to IRL discover / physic based comprehension.

Of course an "easy mode" would lead you to this kind of discover while a hard mode would let you find it by yourself, with only contextual popup saying "oh, looks like this newly discovered giant gaz planet is different from the other, the atmosphere looks... weird and interesting !"

[The Aziz]

It's weird how the ideas that agree with mine are everywhere but in my thread 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

It's weird how the ideas that agree with mine are everywhere but in my thread 

I think there's a pretty broad and deep agreement about the objectives: what the game should nudge the player to do, and what KSP1 pitfalls to avoid. 

However, there's a quite a bit of differences about the means: how exactly KSP2 should do that. 

This is a very good case in point -- we all agree that KSP1 faceplanted by letting you max out the tech tree without ever going interplanetary, and science mechanics should push you to explore. However, we disagree on how that should best be done: you're proposing a set of distinct science currencies tied to thematically matching tech trees, I'm proposing a single science currency with geometric progression in both costs and rewards, and @Jacke was proposing achievements as a means to unlock science tiers.

For what it's worth these are all valid approaches that have been used in a variety of games. I think any of them could work in KSP2, it's all about the execution. I do have a preference and I've made my case about why I have it, but I totally recognize that other preferences are also legitimate and there isn't a clear right or wrong answer to this as long as the problem itself is solved and the incentives align to promote exploration and creativity!

Edit: Jacke proposed achievements, not Dakitess. Corrected.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Periple

[LoSBoL]

0.1.5.0 launch imminent, 0.1.4.1 has already been archived and 0.1.5.0 has been in staging for 9 hours. Probably launch day today.

https://steamdb.info/app/954850/depots/

And like the last 3 patches, I'm eater on holiday or just about to go on holiday. So only reading patchnotes and experiences for a couple of days for me...

Edited October 25, 2023 by LoSBoL

[Kronenben]

Just gave 0.1.4.1 a try and... it is beyond catastrophic. I made a simple rocket with a SRB, a fairing and probe with ion engines, an antenna and 4 solar arrays.

- VAB is more fluid than before, but I even wont mention VAB controls and interface ...
- Rocket explode spontaneously upon loading
- Antenna considered as blocked, though on the edge of the craft
- Upon fairing deployment, rocket bends and probe spins like crazy, ending by an explosion. Time warping does not stop the disassembly, sometimes even leaving the craft torn and krakenized with parts misplaced
- Time warp stops acceleration of the craft (ion engines on)
- Game decided to consider that the craft could not be controlled anymore, batteries not charging, etc. (debris bug)

Messed around with planes too, and although being less unsuffurable, it is just stupidly not enjoyable (bugs, misbehaviors, etc.)

Not optimistic at all for the next update, and the whole development of the game... but too late for a refund.

[cocoscacao]

Dev branch updated 10mins ago. I hope patch is today...

branches

[Guest]

20 hours ago, AtomicTech said:

Wow what a collection of garbage takes.

Sure, modders should stay unemployed, only by working for free you demonstrate to have the passion to be worthy of such a work of art as KSP.

And then it goes to a NMS comparison, because obviously it goes there. Can we take a moment to remember that, despite ho much that game improved, Hello games literally claimed that NMS was Multiplayer, it was just improbable to meet other people given the size, and it took someone debunking them with a demonstration for them to admit the game was indeed a single player experience? And the first reply to that post was that it was a server problem.

[Scarecrow71]

22 hours ago, AtomicTech said:

Welp; can't say I was too excited to see another one of these videos...

So it should be common knowledge by now that I am one of the people who is a bit critical of where KSP2 is right now.  I've made my point on that clear, and I've given my reasons why.  I'm not going to dive into that; you can go find my bajillion other posts if you want to know my personal feelings on the game.  No, this post is to talk about this video.  That I did not watch all the way through; I got fed up after a few minutes.  Let me explain.

People are unhappy with KSP2.  We get it.  But these videos do absolutely no good; they don't further communication, but rather they just regurgitate the worst arguments against the game.  The 3 major points I want to bring up from what I did watch of the video (again, I only got a few minutes in and decided my eyeballs didn't need to hurt that much):

1. Again with the player count argument.  We've beaten this to death; there is really no need to bring up that the count is low per SteamDB other than to make yourself feel better and to keep saying "But see!  Nobody is playing!".
2. The creator of the video states at one point that he needs KSP2 to succeed, primarily because if it doesn't his channel - and his income - go away.  No, it seems that you are still garnering views by rehashing what we already know.  If the primary reason you have a channel dedicated to KSP/KSP2 is to make money, then you may need to reconsider your employment choices.  We can't all be Matt Lowne or Scott Manley.
3. The creator literally pointed out that it took 2 years to get Science into KSP1 (version 0.22, in October 2013).  I realize that, at the time, they had to come up with something brand new that hadn't been done before, whereas the devs on KSP2 have KSP1 to look at and (from what it looks like) at least partially copy.  Yes, it will have been nearly 10 months since launch to get the first roadmap update into KSP2.  But that's still more than a year less than what it took them to do KSP1 (and let's be honest here that it is quite a task to do modeling and texturing and animating, even if you are simply copying the mechanics of the original).  I'm not proficient in Blender or Unity or whatever other software package is used to create assets, but the one time I actually tried to follow a Blender tutorial to create a simple fuel tank it took me like 5 hours.  I'm a software jockey by day, so to take 5 hours to do something as simple (in my mind) of creating a cylindrical object with a very basic coat of paint/texture to me says that it will take far smarter people than I at least a little time to make all the assets necessary.

All told, we don't need videos like this.  We need people to sit down and take a good hard look at the game and get engaged with reporting bugs.  Find something that makes the game unplayable (and I don't mean lack of features)?  Go see if a report exists.  If one does, upvote it and put your own post in it.  If not, write a bug report.  I'm trying to take that road myself instead of simply bashing the game because I'm unhappy with it.  And even I need a reminder every now and then that I'm being a PITA about it and that I need to shut up for a few seconds.  I'm not perfect; I'm not infallible.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

All told, we don't need videos like this.  We need people to sit down and take a good hard look at the game and get engaged with reporting bugs.  Find something that makes the game unplayable (and I don't mean lack of features)?  Go see if a report exists.  If one does, upvote it and put your own post in it.  If not, write a bug report.  I'm trying to take that road myself instead of simply bashing the game because I'm unhappy with it.  And even I need a reminder every now and then that I'm being a PITA about it and that I need to shut up for a few seconds.  I'm not perfect; I'm not infallible.

Yes!

I would add that we could also take a chill pill. It’s nice that they pay attention to us but ultimately it’s their game. There are lots of opinions about things and if you get too attached to yours it’s likely you’ll get disappointed because they’ll do it differently. There’s no way to give everyone the KSP2 they want, even with the best team in the world and unlimited resources.

They’re doing the best they can and ultimately we’ll just have to wait and see, try it out, and say what we think. Getting too emotionally invested, especially into specific details or features, isn’t helpful, not healthy!

[cocoscacao]

No 0.1.5 today I guess 

[Scarecrow71]

35 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

No 0.1.5 today I guess 

What makes you say that?  It isn't even noon in Seattle yet, and the Discord doesn't mention it one way or the other.