Nate Simpson at Space Creator Day talks about KSP 2.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Sending a kerbal on a years long mission around the sun with just a capsule, solar panels, a fuel tank and an engine is not realistic or engaging enough? (I hate not having something that makes me feel the difference in distance between a flight to low orbit and a flight to Kerbal orbit, it just feels incomplete, I can't play like this.)

It's kept me engaged more than any other game so by that standard it’s definitely engaging enough!

I just think that it could always be even more engaging!

[Wheehaw Kerman]

6 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Sending a kerbal on a years long mission around the sun with just a capsule, solar panels, a fuel tank and an engine is not realistic or engaging enough? (I hate not having something that makes me feel the difference in distance between a flight to low orbit and a flight to Kerbal orbit, it just feels incomplete, I can't play like this.)

It’s the difference between the nagging knowledge that your simulated spacecraft’s simulated mission across a simulated star system is glaringly poorly mapped to reality because its simulated little green alien pilot doesn’t have a need for simulated life support and the satisfaction of completing a [“simulated”s taken as read] mission that’s that much more satisfying because it had the added complexity of planning and building in life support.

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

the satisfaction of completing a [“simulated”s taken as read] mission that’s that much more satisfying because it had the added complexity of planning and building in life support

And testing + redundancy.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

49 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

And testing + redundancy.

Are you threatening me with a good time :)?

 

[Lisias]

On 11/1/2023 at 6:25 PM, MechBFP said:

I think I'll take the word of the person who actually developed the most in-depth heat management system mod in KSP1 as to the value of such a system.

I will stick with the users, it's where the money comes from. 

 

On 11/1/2023 at 7:55 PM, Pthigrivi said:

Im sure a small subset of real rocket nerds would have fun with that but for post players who just want to snap on an engine and have it go it would be a huge source of confusion and frustration. The devs need to consider the entire player base and make judgement calls on how much is too much for most players, and how much emphasis to put on one system vs another so that the whole experience doesn't become an unwieldy slog. 

So properly answer my question above: it's KSP2 a fancy fantasy RPG on a space fare thematics with spells and powerups, or a de jure et the facto KSP¹ sucessor? No wrong answers, but we, players, need to have this answer so we can just make our choice and, eventually, stop peskying the devs and just go play something else.

The only wrong answer is the bait and switch tactics, as they usually backfires sooner of later.

You can't have the cake and eat it too!

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Lisias
Tyops, tyops, tyops everywehre!!!

[Vl3d]

7 minutes ago, Lisias said:

stop peskying the devs and just go play something else

I have.. for 8 months. I'm, like, getting old.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Vl3d

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Lisias said:

So properly answer my question above: it's KSP2 a fancy fantasy RGP on a space fare thematics with spells and powerups

I'm still super confused, what RPG mechanics are you seeing in KSP2, either as it is now or as promised? I'm seeing nothing! 

[Lisias]

Spoiler

1 hour ago, Periple said:

I'm still super confused, what RPG mechanics are you seeing in KSP2, either as it is now or as promised? I'm seeing nothing! 

Educating someone about what's a simulator and what's a RPG is out of the scope of this thread, I'm afraid. But perhaps I could abuse a bit the thread for the sake of your education?

• What's a RPG game
• What's a simulator game

After wall, we need to leverage our knowledge if we aim to a productive discussion, instead of an endless exchange of sophistries.

If further assistance is needed, I strongly suggest to open a new thread for the subjects instead of keep polluting this one.

 

— POST EDIT — 

Discussion (hopefully) transferred to a new thread to avoid derailing this one:

Ping @kdaviper and @Periple

Edited November 2, 2023 by Lisias
POST EDIT

[kdaviper]

20 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Educating someone about what's a simulator and what's a RPG is out of the scope of this thread, I'm afraid. But perhaps I could abuse a bit the thread for the sake of your education?

• What's a RPG game
• What's a simulator game

After wall, we need to leverage our knowledge if we aim to a productive discussion, instead of an endless exchange of sophistries.

If further assistance is needed, I strongly suggest to open a new thread for the subjects instead of keep polluting this one.

I believe the question was asking what RPG elements seem to be present in ksp2... Not the difference between an RPG and a sim. 

More importantly, however why would it have to be one or the other? 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Educating someone about what's a simulator and what's a RPG is out of the scope of this thread, I'm afraid. But perhaps I could abuse a bit the thread for the sake of your education?

I work in games and you have NO IDEA how hard it is to define what a RPG is!  So I agree that that would be way OT for this thread.

Even so, I remain curious about what you meant by KSP2 potentially being a "fancy fantasy RGP on a space fare thematics" and what you had in mind with "spells and powerups." Because I honestly aren't seeing any RPG mechanics there, nor anything comparable to "spells and powerups!" 

But if that was just a rhetorical flourish for something like "I'm really unhappy that KSP2 isn't going to be more realistic and have deeper simulation elements and might even simplify these systems in places" then obviously there's no discussion to be had and that's fine too!

Edited November 2, 2023 by Periple

[Guest]

KSP has always been a game, first and foremost, not a simulator. You need mods to add the complexity you want into the game. Intercept has taken the torch from Squad in that regard, they're more concerned with "user stories" (what makes good gameplay) than providing a coherent simulation where you have to ensure you've taken everything into account (and the fact that they're considering "user stories" tells me they're far more serious than Squad about making a good game). If you want a sim go back to KSP1 and get RO/RP-1 (or wait for whatever's coming for KSP2), you're never going to get it from the base game.

[PDCWolf]

5 minutes ago, regex said:

KSP has always been a game, first and foremost, not a simulator. You need mods to add the complexity you want into the game. Intercept has taken the torch from Squad in that regard, they're more concerned with "user stories" (what makes good gameplay) than providing a coherent simulation where you have to ensure you've taken everything into account (and the fact that they're considering "user stories" tells me they're far more serious than Squad about making a good game). If you want a sim go back to KSP1 and get RO/RP-1 (or wait for whatever's coming for KSP2), you're never going to get it from the base game.

If the whole lego building and physics simulation is only there to account for a very limited, well demarcated "user stories", might as well build a linear VR animation like Apollo.

[MechBFP]

7 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

If the whole lego building and physics simulation is only there to account for a very limited, well demarcated "user stories", might as well build a linear VR animation like Apollo.

If you think that has market value, then go ahead. 

[PDCWolf]

6 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

If you think that has market value, then go ahead. 

Hey, if we wanna talk market share, whatever they're doing now has like 20% of the market of the previous game.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Hey, if we wanna talk market share, whatever they're doing now has like 20% of the market of the previous game.

If that’s true already at this point with all the negative reviews and publicity, it’s going to do really really well on release! 

[Lisias]

16 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Hey, if we wanna talk market share, whatever they're doing now has like 20% of the market of the previous game.

Probably less, and horrible reviews. Absolutely horrible.

Spoiler

 

I don't need to work in games for decades to HAVE AN IDEA about how things are not going well for KSP2.

11 minutes ago, Periple said:

If that’s true already at this point with all the negative reviews and publicity, it’s going to do really really well on release! 

Nope.

The bad reviews didn't budged, and the positive reviews kinda plummeted in the last 4 days. We are talking about the aftermath of the last patch (0.1.5.0) that bought us some serious improvements.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Lisias
Hit "save" too soon.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Lisias said:

The bad reviews didn't bulged, and the positive reviews kinda plummeted in the last 4 days.

That doesn’t matter at all. There will be a complete reset with new media coverage when the game leaves EA. If it’s good by then, it’ll make for a great redemption story! Check in again in a year!

Edited November 2, 2023 by Periple

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

If the whole lego building and physics simulation is only there to account for a very limited, well demarcated "user stories", might as well build a linear VR animation like Apollo.

Well no, you'd be taking away another gameplay element, the sandbox, the ability to build and fly things. They've given us just enough sim to support the game, but the game is the most important part; the sim is not intended to intrude into the game unless it's considered actually interesting for the game by the designers. And since not every game has to be for everyone you add in modding "support" (or in KSP's case, you just don't get in the way of modders, or don't care if they bypass your obfuscation) so that people can turn it into the sim they want to play.

[PDCWolf]

3 minutes ago, Periple said:

That doesn’t matter at all.

It does so long as it doesn't get better. People won't magically forget when release arrives, they have to rebuild that during however long they plan to take. It's incredible how decontextualized people have become in regards to the game's situation:

• The people that want the game no matter what already have it. They won't "come back" because they're already there.
• The people who felt hugely betrayed or disappointed are gone, they won't come back. Welcome to the 75% activity decrease slump.
• The people who don't trust the devs might still stick around to see where they end up. There's probably a chance to convince them if FS! and following headliners are actually worth it.
• That KSP2 will have the same engine, spaghetti codebase, unoptimized physics and comical joints is already set in stone, and so the people who wanted the foundational pieces changed are gone, and won't come back.
• The people that don't mind the point above but wanted more will only come back on further headliners, provided those are good, or even in post 1.0 DLCs (remember how KSP2 will not have robotics or life support?)

So far 0.1.5 and FS! announcement haven't done anything for the reviews or the playerbase being back again on a negative trend after the small patch spike.

Just now, regex said:

Well no, you'd be taking away another gameplay element, the sandbox, the ability to build and fly things. They've given us just enough sim to support the game, but the game is the most important part; the sim is not intended to intrude into the game unless it's considered actually interesting for the game by the designers. And since not every game has to be for everyone you add in modding "support" (or in KSP's case, you just don't get in the way of modders, or don't care if they bypass your obfuscation) so that people can turn it into the sim they want to play.

I don't care about mods, I care about whatever they want people to pay $50 for. At least we'll be getting the first taste of "the game" with FS! which'll probably be a big reality check by the looks of it.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

I don't care about mods, I care about whatever they want people to pay $50 for.

I paid $50 to watch this game go through development, that's kind of what "early access" is all about. The fact that there's so much disconnect there is utterly baffling to me. If the amount is too much then why the hell did you even buy the game?

[Kerbart]

11 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

It does so long as it doesn't get better. People won't magically forget when release arrives, they have to rebuild that during however long they plan to take. It's incredible how decontextualized people have become in regards to the game's situation:

• The people that want the game no matter what already have it. They won't "come back" because they're already there.
• The people who felt hugely betrayed or disappointed are gone, they won't come back. Welcome to the 75% activity decrease slump.
• The people who don't trust the devs might still stick around to see where they end up. There's probably a chance to convince them if FS! and following headliners are actually worth it.

I agree that there will be a significant group that walked away from the game and only might come back when there are absolutely raving reviews. And magazines and review sites will only do that at the 1.0 release, not before, I would think.

Convincing the doubters will be very hard. The game probably has to exceed expectations (although at this point they will be very low in that group) and basically live up to the hype Nate created with his speech. And that group will not take his words, but rather how the game lives up to those, as the measuring stick. And that will be a very tough standard to pass

Quote

So far 0.1.5 and FS! announcement haven't done anything for the reviews or the playerbase being back again on a negative trend after the small patch spike.

In the grand scheme of things, yes. But compared to the August release, player count has gone up significantly, with peak count being much higher and even the downturns still have a higher level than right after the August release. That's a new trend; in the past the release peak would quickly subside and make way for "business as usual" but 1.5 seems to have more sticking power. Of course it's still too short after the patch release to tell, and the numbers will certainly drop—they always do. But I don't think they will drop to earlier levels by the time 0.2 comes out.

Having said that, the thousands of advocates for the game on social media are gone. Even if 1.5 is the turning point in the sense of reversing the dropping trend of active players, building up player count will be hard and I doubt it will ever return to what it was at EA release.

 

 

[Lisias]

5 hours ago, regex said:

If the amount is too much then why the hell did you even buy the game?

Do you really want people that bought the game answering that right now? There's not enough bad reviews around, and you want more?

Spoiler

Because they were fooled into buying it due a very well driven marketing campaign! (this one, they made it pretty good!!!)

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

KSP2 have a very steeped hill to battle ahead. Don't make things harder than they already are!

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Lisias
Damn, I took too much coffee! :P

[Guest]

Just now, Lisias said:

Because they were fooled into buying it due a very well driven marketing campaign! (this one, they made it pretty good!!!)

Y'all need to exercise better judgement regarding hype campaigns lol

[Lisias]

5 minutes ago, regex said:

Y'all need to exercise better judgement regarding hype campaigns lol

Quote

A great ad campaign will make a bad product fail faster. It will get more people to know it's bad.

Bill Bernbach (1989)

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Lisias
Obligatory link to Wikipedia

[Vl3d]

The game would be fine if it wasn't so buggy.