KSP2 Six-Month Anniversary

[Royalswissarmyknife]

13 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

I see very little true passion in this project.

Sums up how I feel about Ksp-2 in one sentence.

Spoiler

Well they do have a passion about getting little Timmy's attention to spend there parents money and then never touch it again

 

[AlexTheNotSoGreat]

On 8/25/2023 at 10:19 AM, Alexoff said:

I don’t really understand why fixing bugs could speed up development. I am sure that each innovation will be full of bugs, which will also take a long time to fix.

Because some bugs, like the orbits decaying or wobbly rockets or absurd GPU usage from the terrain, are at the foundation of the game and should've been addressed before more content was introduced.

[Alexoff]

10 hours ago, AlexTheNotSoGreat said:

Because some bugs, like the orbits decaying or wobbly rockets or absurd GPU usage from the terrain, are at the foundation of the game and should've been addressed before more content was introduced.

This would be the case if the rest of the features were in a high stage of readiness. However, there is no evidence for this. In addition, wobbling rockets are not so much a bug, but rather incorrectly set physics settings by the developers.

[Infinite Aerospace]

On 8/25/2023 at 4:48 PM, jacksawild said:

The morale of the community is pretty low right now and it doesn't look set to change any time soon. Hopefully things will change.

To be fair, some actual interaction rather than the token AMA. What is going on with science, how does it work, when should we expect it? I don't understand the reluctance to engage with the community to be honest, I know people are annoyed at the state of the game but not talking about it isn't going to make it any better.

22 hours ago, Alexoff said:

This would be the case if the rest of the features were in a high stage of readiness. However, there is no evidence for this. In addition, wobbling rockets are not so much a bug, but rather incorrectly set physics settings by the developers.

Wobbly rockets are pretty much a design choice at this point. Though I don't support Nate's opinions on wobbly rockets, it's not 'charming or quirky' it's just annoying.

[Alexoff]

2 hours ago, Infinite Aerospace said:

Wobbly rockets are pretty much a design choice at this point. Though I don't support Nate's opinions on wobbly rockets, it's not 'charming or quirky' it's just annoying.

I do not think that this was done on purpose, rather it is the result of copying the mechanics of KSP1 (in the form of code or appearance). And then this problem was declared a feature, since a normal solution requires effort.

[Infinite Aerospace]

3 hours ago, Alexoff said:

I do not think that this was done on purpose, rather it is the result of copying the mechanics of KSP1 (in the form of code or appearance). And then this problem was declared a feature, since a normal solution requires effort.

To be fair when Nate went on record talking about things being 'Kerbal' I kinda feel he suggested that it was a conscious choice. A point Matt Lowne did a great job at countering in one of his videos.

[Observe]

On 8/25/2023 at 8:48 AM, jacksawild said:

The morale of the community is pretty low right now and it doesn't look set to change any time soon. Hopefully things will change.

Yes, things will change. The morale will likely sink even lower than it already is. Those who still hold a glimmer of hope, may find it harder to keep that glimmer alive. I'm expecting this project will be officially dead within a year from now. Hopefully I'm wrong and this will emerge as a worthy successor to KSP-1. Personally, I've given up on KSP-2 pretty much altogether.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Observe

[Periple]

7 hours ago, Alexoff said:

I do not think that this was done on purpose, rather it is the result of copying the mechanics of KSP1 (in the form of code or appearance). And then this problem was declared a feature, since a normal solution requires effort.

This isn’t true! Rigid joints are easy, flexible joints are more work! They’re doing it like they’re doing it because that’s the way they want it. And it’s okay to disagree!

[Alexoff]

4 minutes ago, Periple said:

This isn’t true! Rigid joints are easy, flexible joints are more work! They’re doing it like they’re doing it because that’s the way they want it.

I mean they didn't set out to make the joints like sausages, I think they decided to do it the way it used to be in KSP1. Just because it's been that way for centuries, it's always been that way, and not because - let's make fun rocket sausages!

[Periple]

7 hours ago, Alexoff said:

I mean they didn't set out to make the joints like sausages, I think they decided to do it the way it used to be in KSP1. Just because it's been that way for centuries, it's always been that way, and not because - let's make fun rocket sausages!

I don’t think this isn’t entirely wrong, just a little wrong! A part of it is certainly that they feel that flexy joints are a part of the gameplay feel of KSP, Nate has said as much.

There are objectively valid gameplay reasons for them too though: they communicate the structural integrity of a craft in a highly intuitive way, and they make them feel more real than if they were completely rigid. Juno feels very different than KSP and IMO not in an entirely good way. It’s more “sterile” and less “meaty” if you get my drift.

Also EVERYBODY agrees that they’re currently much too flexy! 

[Siska]

When they patch the game so you can waste time only in engineering challenges, it will be playable.

Tweaking the rocket in a way that you avoid bugs isn't what's gameplay is supposed to be. Simple as that.

As it is now, it is frustrating and anyone praising the game saying that is "completely playable" or you're dumb, is plain wrong. Spending +2 hours just because of bugs is frustrating, but i beleive some people have more nervs than me.

KSP game is frustrating by itself, playing it buggy makes it just horrible. Over all engineering challenges, you have to overcome bug challenges. Not to mention that is still impossible to play more than one craft in universe. Unstable orbits are a thing still.

Also about "making your own decision by buying it", well, i could argue with that. Nobody said it is in a state like this... Also, other early acces games are playable, they do not have all thje features or so, but i can play every early acces game.

On my opinion, they had to start selling it or close down the project. I think team was very ambitious and very critical to kraken's in ksp1. But they had to start selling it, for they are a part of a big company and i suppose there is always pressure to start earning, finish the product to satisfy yearly profit goals.

Programmer's saying that they "are slaying the kraken" sound so silly now.

What i hope is that the foundation of the game is well made. If not, it will be patched like frankenstein and more bugs will arise.

 

 

[Voqk]

5 hours ago, Siska said:

Also about "making your own decision by buying it", well, i could argue with that. Nobody said it is in a state like this... Also, other early acces games are playable, they do not have all thje features or so, but i can play every early acces game.

I feel like this gets to the core of the issue - a deep feeling of false advertising. This debate has been going on since launch:  'this game is not worth $50 and should not be called early access' vs. 'early access means you can't complain if it's bad' - but I think both sides are talking past each other. The issue was in how the game was advertised vs. what was delivered.

The pre-launch hype and public messaging - especially for those not in the Forums or Reddit - was disingenuous as to the state of the game. So I don't know that it's fair to say 'well, it did say early access, so you get what you pay for'. That's true, but if a large majority of your clients feel you misled them it ultimately doesn't matter what your labeling and disclaimer says - you're abusing public trust and you're going to get backlash for it. 

If Dr. Oz heavily promotes a weight loss pill that will "make you lose 100 pounds", and 70% of the people that buy it attempt to return it because it didn't work and they felt he misled them, it doesn't really matter if the disclaimer says 'may not lead to weight loss'. They can still go after Dr. Oz for willfully misrepresenting the product to make sponsorship dollars (this was a specific case, btw. It settled out of court so no culpability was formally assigned - but Oz did pay out 5.25MM) .

If on the EA landing page they clearly outlined the current bug list (or top ten bugs), this launch would have gone wildly differently. "Well, they did say that the rockets were wobbly, frame rate was bad, orbits decayed, maneuver node planning didn't work, Kraken was still an issue, large builds would not work due to scaling issues and there was no heating system but I did choose to buy it anyway!"

So... 'it's early access and you get what you pay for' does need the addendum: 'as long as a reasonable person would say that the developer represented the current state of the game accurately'.

P.S.  The way this was handled in 2000-2010 was you'd get a free demo level. If KSP2 had launched a 'demo' build with only one set of parts and one planet (Mun) for people to try before they bought, the developers could get feedback to aid in development and people wouldn't feel like they'd been sold a bill of goods.

[Meecrob]

6 hours ago, Voqk said:

If on the EA landing page they clearly outlined the current bug list (or top ten bugs), this launch would have gone wildly differently. "Well, they did say that the rockets were wobbly, frame rate was bad, orbits decayed, maneuver node planning didn't work, Kraken was still an issue, large builds would not work due to scaling issues and there was no heating system but I did choose to buy it anyway!"

Agreed, its seems that honesty is a luxury that 50 USD cannot afford. And lets all remember this is supposed to be a niche game made by people who are into that niche...its not COD or Overwatch or something. Like just watch some youtube videos from Coffee Stain Studios on how development of Satisfactory is going. They make a point of saying "okay, okay...we kinda thought this was gonna go this way, but it didn't, so here is our mea culpa" and nobody gets upset at them...I mean aside from like 2 neckbeards (I'm joking, I'm joking), but they prove you can say negative things and turn it into a positive by showing the community you are emphasizing fixing certain things. Look I get the argument of "don't promise something you cannot deliver on time, cuz players will be upset" but we have been given almost nothing. Players are going to be upset, and transparency is the way to re-gain trust. It seems nobody on the KSP2 team is willing to say "yeah, we mad a mistake" Which to me translates to "these people don't care about my experience as a player."

6 hours ago, Voqk said:

So... 'it's early access and you get what you pay for' does need the addendum: 'as long as a reasonable person would say that the developer represented the current state of the game accurately'.

This is the crux of the problem, that has thusfar, been ignored...like its expected a game is not actually a game and screw you if you complain. As a customer, I have little regard for the people who made the defective game(to be clear, obviously NOT just the devs...just to nip some snarky comments in the bud)...same way when you buy a car or a house or a fridge or anything, you don't sit there with a defective product going "well, its going to get better in the future, I totally won't complain my fridge is room temperature, my house has no roof and my car was delivered on a skid with no suspension components, surely they will be added in a future update which is only...oh...that far away. You cannot even tell me when you will be done...no "ballpark figure" even...its done at some point from now until infinity...I for some fan boi reason still have confidence in this enterprise."

 

But somehow this is acceptable in video games.

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Meecrob

[Superfluous J]

13 hours ago, Siska said:

anyone praising the game saying that is "completely playable"

I'm sure there are those who praise the game, but I need to point out there is a difference between praising something and calling it playable.

If you asked your friend if he liked his car and he said "it's completely driveable" would you think he was praising it?

[Periple]

6 hours ago, Meecrob said:

This is the crux of the problem, that has thusfar, been ignored...like its expected a game is not actually a game and screw you if you complain.

Where do you think the expectation that EA is an actual complete game came from?

In my opinion that expectation is wrong and if you opt into any EA thinking that, you will most likely be disappointed (unless it’s a “fake EA” only set up for marketing purposes).

(Note, I agree with most of what’s been said about managing expectations here — a prominent list of the biggest bugs would have helped, with a sober warning that fixing them could take a while. The pre-launch hype about how much more solid and better engineered than KSP1 it is wasn’t helpful either. But EA is EA and anyone opting in should do so knowing that there’s a risk it just won’t work out like you hoped!)

[Meecrob]

7 hours ago, Periple said:

Where do you think the expectation that EA is an actual complete game came from?

In my opinion that expectation is wrong and if you opt into any EA thinking that, you will most likely be disappointed (unless it’s a “fake EA” only set up for marketing purposes).

(Note, I agree with most of what’s been said about managing expectations here — a prominent list of the biggest bugs would have helped, with a sober warning that fixing them could take a while. The pre-launch hype about how much more solid and better engineered than KSP1 it is wasn’t helpful either. But EA is EA and anyone opting in should do so knowing that there’s a risk it just won’t work out like you hoped!)

As you, yourself explained above, proper studios and publishers are using EA. They can afford proper beta testing themselves, but they know that they can suck in gamers and charge them money to do it for them. I get that you and a bunch of other people think that top tier studios should be asking us to test their games, but not everyone does. I'll agree to disagree, cuz this is going in circles it seems.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Meecrob

[Alexoff]

I think early access from wealthy publishers should be banned. Indie studios can't afford to spend years developing games without a profit, and for them early access is often the only way out. And publishers like T2 are obviously abusing early access.

[Periple]

4 hours ago, Meecrob said:

I get that you and a bunch of other people think that top tier studios should be asking us to test their games, but not everyone does.

But that’s not what I think at all!

I think it’s cool that some studios give us a peek at a game under development, warts and all. I enjoyed it before I got into gamedev and now I have a professional interest in it too. 

EA is a ticket to the sausage factory — if you just want the sausages, wait until release (or beyond, all too often).

— Also, EA is no use for testing a game. I know it’s a common misconception that EA participants are “paying QA engineers” but that’s really not how it works, if you want to do QA it’s much cheaper to do it with a QA team.

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

 

I think early access from wealthy publishers should be banned. Indie studios can't afford to spend years developing games without a profit, and for them early access is often the only way out. And publishers like T2 are obviously abusing early access.

How would you ban it? I mean, Steam could if they wanted to, but how would you stop studios releasing games early from their own storefronts if they wanted to?

[Alexoff]

1 hour ago, Periple said:

How would you ban it? I mean, Steam could if they wanted to, but how would you stop studios releasing games early from their own storefronts if they wanted to?

I would put in a ban through the UN, but unfortunately they are more likely to ban those who are against early access. Gabe doesn't really care what games and where to sell them.

1 hour ago, Periple said:

Also, EA is no use for testing a game.

Although it was under this sauce that we were offered early access to KSP2 - to help in testing with the game, and not to help the studio return part of the costs that T2 spent

[Periple]

8 hours ago, Alexoff said:

Although it was under this sauce that we were offered early access to KSP2 - to help in testing with the game, and not to help the studio return part of the costs that T2 spent

Can you cite a source for this?

The closest I can think of is them saying that they want community feedback on things they’re developing. That’s not QA at all! It’s not even playtesting!

[Lyneira]

On 9/5/2023 at 6:23 PM, Voqk said:

I feel like this gets to the core of the issue - a deep feeling of false advertising. This debate has been going on since launch:  'this game is not worth $50 and should not be called early access' vs. 'early access means you can't complain if it's bad' - but I think both sides are talking past each other. The issue was in how the game was advertised vs. what was delivered.

 

On 9/6/2023 at 7:06 AM, Periple said:

(Note, I agree with most of what’s been said about managing expectations here — a prominent list of the biggest bugs would have helped, with a sober warning that fixing them could take a while. The pre-launch hype about how much more solid and better engineered than KSP1 it is wasn’t helpful either. But EA is EA and anyone opting in should do so knowing that there’s a risk it just won’t work out like you hoped!)

These statements show pretty well two different views and they're not mutually exclusive, I have both of these. I know to expect an early access game to be unfinished and now that I'm here, I'm sticking with it. But as I've said in a past post, on the Steam store page the developer is required to answer the question: What is the current state of the Early Access version? Keeping in mind the state of the game at launch: a notable omission was the severity of bugs, performance and stability issues that made it difficult or impossible to get to the features that were mentioned. And on top of this, early communications followed the same pattern. That is where the feeling of false advertising comes from.

[MarcAbaddon]

I think my expectation on Early Access were in line with how they explained it:

Quote

The core pillar of KSP2 is building and flying cool rockets. While we have additional features planned like colonies, interstellar travel, and multiplayer, we first want to hear back from players about the core fundamental experience.

I was well aware of the roadmap & science and colonies not being in. But the core fundamental experience (how they term) it was a in much worse shape than expected and not in line with the "improved experience" they promised. I had SAS going totally crazy, vessels randomly disintegrating, super wobbly rockets, decaying orbits and vanishing orbit lines. The rare major new feature like burning on rails was implemented in what I feel is a very superficial and lazy manner. It's rare that I can even complete one mission near Kerbin without running into major issues and having to reload.

Of course, you should expect tweaks to the core experience in EA. But it shouldn't have been as deeply broken as what we got.  

Also, I expected heating to be in a few weeks after EA launch, which I feel was reasonable as well based on the communications ('brief window').

In summary, I think it is very fair to be unsatisfied with what the team delivered at launch based on how they spoke about it. Ant nothing yet has happened to convince me that they will be able to turn the ship around. Updates come in slow and are decidedly of the two steps forward, one step back kind, where each patch also introduces novel bugs.

[Siska]

On 8/31/2023 at 4:29 PM, Infinite Aerospace said:

To be fair when Nate went on record talking about things being 'Kerbal' I kinda feel he suggested that it was a conscious choice. A point Matt Lowne did a great job at countering in one of his videos.

Yessss, when Nate said this, i wasn't really sure if they were playing Ksp1 at all. Or maybe a little bit.

Because if they were, they would know that most satisfying thing in KSP was making perfect craft with no engineering faults, wisely calculated delta-v resulting in a perfect mission. At least for me, after 800 hours of KSP1 that was the goal.

Making rockets funny and wobbly wasn't something i (we) craved for.

The heck, i never saw spacex rocket wobble (so much for realism in wobbling).

From his word it sounded like they think of ksp of being a goofy and funny game. Kerbals being green and funny doesen't mean we want a funky goofy wobbly game.

[Alexoff]

9 hours ago, Periple said:

The closest I can think of is them saying that they want community feedback on things they’re developing. That’s not QA at all! It’s not even playtesting!

And in my opinion it's about the same. It is clear that none of us is obliged to report all the bugs found, we did not sign any contracts, we are not paid, but the meaning is about the same.