What's an RPG, What's a Simulator, and why KSP2 is (or is not) one of them

[Lisias]

On the following thread:

I decided to challenge the KSP2 definition from being a de jure et  de facto sucessor of KSP¹, or a Fantasy RPG with space fare thematics and spells and powerups disguised as technology.

The discussion, unsurprisingly, risked degenerating into an exchange about what's a RPG and what's a Simulator, derailing the host thread. So I decided to transfer the discussion to this one.

Original post (edited on the host thread)

6 hours 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.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Lisias
(sigh). tyops.

[Lisias]

Moved from the host thread:

1 minute 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.

So I'm afraid we need to fix Steam Shop! Because this is exactly how they are being sold!!!

https://store.steampowered.com/app/220200/Kerbal_Space_Program/

Quote

 

https://store.steampowered.com/app/954850/Kerbal_Space_Program_2/

Quote

 

So, in essence, you are claiming that KSP¹ and KSP2 were being falsely advertised all these years? Since we are here… KSP2 is really an indie game?

Moved from the host thread:

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.

You see… It would not be a bad spinoff from the game - just think about something like Squeak, those the environment is a workbook where you need to build something that would fulfil the requirements mimicking the Space Race and later missions. With well defined targets and objectives, overly simplifications of the mechanics are acceptable, as the objective of the game would not be a sandbox with lego building and physics simulation!

And it would be a marvellous tool to teach about STEM and Space Fare.

Just don't call it a Simulation, and I will be sold!

 

[Nazalassa]

10 minutes ago, Lisias said:

KSP2 is really an indie game?

I don't think so. Besides, from what I've seen in various KSP2-related threads, KSP2 seems to be considered by most as a 'AAA' game; according to Wikipedia, AAA games are not supposed to be indie games, the equivalent of AAA for indie being III. If KSP2 was an indie game, I should have seen 'III' more than 'AAA', yet I have never found 'III' in a KSP2 thread.

To come back to thre main topic of this thread: I think all the easter eggs they added in KSP2 belong more to a "RPG-style game" than to a "simulator", as they seem to be part of a whole story. Besides, I don't think simulation games require such tied easter eggs.

[Lisias]

6 minutes ago, Nazalassa said:

To come back to thre main topic of this thread: I think all the easter eggs they added in KSP2 belong more to a "RPG-style game" than to a "simulator", as they seem to be part of a whole story. Besides, I don't think simulation games require such tied easter eggs.

My grudge with the RPG thingy is about how parts' features are being implemented, and yes… I was triggered by the heat discussion.

On Hollow Knight, when there're powerups and spells that when applied allows me to jump higher and sustain more damage. Ok, Hollow Knight is not an RPG neither, it's a platformer, but you got the idea - on RPGs, you buy abilities that are magically applied and improve your chances while rolling the dice.

(and, nope, I don't think it's so hard to define what's a RPG after all).

The new heat system is acting like a spell: just attach a radiator, and magically all the heat from the craft will be dissipated - as a spell from Hollow Knight.

[Nazalassa]

3 minutes ago, Lisias said:

My grudge with the RPG thingy is about how parts' features are being implemented, and yes… I was triggered by the heat discussion.

On Hollow Knight, when there're powerups and spells that when applied allows me to jump higher and sustain more damage. Ok, Hollow Knight is not an RPG neither, it's a platformer, but you got the idea - on RPGs, you buy abilities that are magically applied and improve your chances while rolling the dice.

(and, nope, I don't think it's so hard to define what's a RPG after all).

The new heat system is acting like a spell: just attach a radiator, and magically all the heat from the craft will be dissipated - as a spell from Hollow Knight.

Possible. My only source of information about KSP2 are the forum threads - so I can neither confirm or infirm this atm - but if it were the case, as I often said, that is not physically realistic  and thus isn't appropriate for a simulation game.

I think "RPG" may be too narrow for this case, since Super Mario Bros (for example; I may also say SuperTux 2 or any game like that) is more "RPG" (as per your definition, or at least what I understood of it) than "simulation", but it's not exactly RPG. It would probably be better to make the distinction between "simulation" and, er... "not simulation", than between "siulation" and "RPG".

[Lisias]

2 minutes ago, Nazalassa said:

I think "RPG" may be too narrow for this case, since Super Mario Bros (for example; I may also say SuperTux 2 or any game like that) is more "RPG" (as per your definition, or at least what I understood of it) than "simulation", but it's not exactly RPG. It would probably be better to make the distinction between "simulation" and, er... "not simulation", than between "siulation" and "RPG".

Rogue style so? 

https://zenorogue.medium.com/what-is-the-difference-between-roguelike-and-roguelite-4c0fdc403db#:~:text=Roguelikes are often classified as,of roguelikes as strategy games.

In a way or another, we need to find a definition for it - we can't sell what we can't describe, and we can't sell something and deliver a different thing.

No Man's Sky is described as "Action, Adventure" (https://store.steampowered.com/app/275850/No_Mans_Sky/).

MS Flight Simulator, besides not being the best simulator available (X-Plane is used for Pilot Certification, by God's sake!), is described as "Simulation" (https://store.steampowered.com/app/1250410/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_40th_Anniversary_Edition/).

You will find a lot of games using "Simulation" on the description, but all of them (when not really a pure simulation) also had additional key-words as "Action" or "Adventure" or whatever to help correct describe the game.

Like this thing I just found, Fae Farm, described as "Action, RPG, Simulation" , https://store.steampowered.com/app/2230110/Fae_Farm/ .

As a matter of fact, I found GoG way more precise about KSP¹: Genre "Simulation -  Building -  Sci-fi", tagged "Indie, Science, Exploration, Funny, Open World, Sandbox, Sci-fi, Difficult, Space, Physics, Education" https://www.gog.com/en/game/kerbal_space_program .

[Kerbart]

It's risky to be dogmatic and polarizing. I agree that it's more an RPG than a simulator, but that doesn't mean it doesn't simulate.

But the emphasis is on playing, not simulating. Wobbly rockets is a great example. Badly designed rockets will fail. The community in genera revolts over that and when a video is showing how an absolute ridiculous design still shows some wobble the reaction is "it still wobbles." Or the discussion on heating.

Clearly, "we" want the game, not the simulation. And while I don't agree with all design decisions, overall it makes the game more fun.

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Lisias said:

The new heat system is acting like a spell: just attach a radiator, and magically all the heat from the craft will be dissipated - as a spell from Hollow Knight.

KSP1’s deployable radiators work exactly the same way! Also how are implicit coolant pipes to a radiator any different than implicit electrical cabling or implicit fuel pipes let alone implicit crew passages? Electricity and fuel flow everywhere in a craft and you can transfer crew between any two crew compartments on a single craft! So why is coolant suddenly unacceptable?

Finally, I don’t think that’s anything like a spell and even if it was, there’s nothing RPG-like about it. RPG mechanics include things like character creation, stats, experience points, quests, stats, leveling up, combat, branching story, NPC interactions, and so on. Adding a couple of these elements to a game doesn’t make it a RPG, you need many of them and you need these to be near the core gameplay loop for it to qualify. KSP1 has kerbal experience and cosmetic kerbal traits; KSP2 doesn’t even have them!

You could totally make a kerbal RPG but it would be nothing like KSP. You’d have a party of kerbals adventuring to pursue a story or unravel a mystery, it could have rocket-building and bases as a side activity, much like in Starfield, but the focus would be on the individual kerbals and their stories. They wouldn’t be disposable and interchangeable, they would be the main dish!

Edited November 2, 2023 by Periple

[AstroWolfie]

5 hours ago, Lisias said:

RGP

uhh typo?

[Lisias]

4 hours ago, AstroWolfie said:

uhh typo?

What a doubt!  (fixed)

 

8 hours ago, Kerbart said:

It's risky to be dogmatic and polarizing. I agree that it's more an RPG than a simulator, but that doesn't mean it doesn't simulate.

Every game, by itself, is a simulacrum. So, to an extend, even Sky Rogue is a simulator.

Spoiler

 

 

8 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Clearly, "we" want the game, not the simulation. And while I don't agree with all design decisions, overall it makes the game more fun.

And, clearly, "we" want more of a simulator, as KSP¹ was considered to be.

It's perfectly OK to make a completely different game inspired on the original if this is what will put food on their table - as long they don't try to sell it to me as it was a direct sucessor to KSP¹, because if so I will be very liquided and I will complain about bait and switch.

 What, in principle, it's already possible to complain because KSP2 is being advertised as an Indie game, when clearly it's not.

 

8 hours ago, Periple said:

KSP1’s deployable radiators work exactly the same way! Also how are implicit coolant pipes to a radiator any different than implicit electrical cabling or implicit fuel pipes let alone implicit crew passages? Electricity and fuel flow everywhere in a craft and you can transfer crew between any two crew compartments on a single craft! So why is coolant suddenly unacceptable?

Because this is not what is being discussed about - please don't apply a straw-man on us. What was being discussed about heating was, and I will quote @PDCWolf:

On 11/1/2023 at 12:38 PM, PDCWolf said:

Then you're missing how important part to part conduction is. I hope you realize the problem by looking at the 3 part spacecraft in orbit example, and the one right below them:

• A part can explode by itself without affecting anything else.
• A part can cool another  on the other side of the craft even though there's no part to part conduction, and thus that hot part doesn't affect its neighbors.
• As a bit of a secondary consequence of the downgrade, not having a Skin/Core system also means heat can instantly be dissipated to the environment for free.

Now think of how that lack of dynamics compares to KSP1, where a heat part might not only take itself out but its neighbor/s, and where you place heat generators vs dissipators influences the design (bar usage of the one magic part).

THIS is what we are complaining, this is what was being discussed. I don't care how KSP2 would implement the feature, we are caring about the feature (or its absence).

 

8 hours ago, Periple said:

Finally, I don’t think that’s anything like a spell and even if it was, there’s nothing RPG-like about it. RPG mechanics include things like character creation, stats, experience points, quests, stats, leveling up, combat, branching story, NPC interactions, and so on. Adding a couple of these elements to a game doesn’t make it a RPG, you need many of them and you need these to be near the core gameplay loop for it to qualify.

My point is that the continuous watering down of key KSP¹ features is making KSP2 more a RPG (or rogue-like) game than a Simulator. Things that made KSP¹ an interesting simulator are being dumbed down, and once you remove these things, what is left?

Shoving a part that magically withdraws heat from the whole craft is exactly the same mechanic of a RPG (or, granted, Rogue-like) game where you buy a magical artefact that regenerates health out of the blue.

"KSP - some physics required." - I think we need yet another Campaign around here.

 

8 hours ago, Periple said:

KSP1 has kerbal experience and cosmetic kerbal traits; KSP2 doesn’t even have them!

Wait! KSP2 will not have them, or KSP2 doesn't have them yet? Having Kerbals with different traits and experience makes planning missions interesting - I need a pilot (two, if I willing to play like Real Life™), I need scientists to get science points, I need engineers to build and fix things. If KSP2 is not going to have them, the game will be seriously hindered… 

If every Kerbal is absolutely disposable without consequences, there will be no attachment to the character ("oh whoa no no Jeb come in Jeb come in no").

Spoiler

You know, this is the weak point on Juno - KSP2 should try to be better, not equal the competition.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Lisias
(sigh). tyops.

[Nuke]

simulations are physics allowed to play out. this is independent of the physics being realistic or not. you set the laws of physics in code and iterate it every frame. if there is game play (some simulators have real world applications, like flight training) its mostly is in the context of those laws of physics, and the physics are not defined by the desired gameplay mechanics.  rpgs are all lookup tables and dice rolls, really a digital extension of table top games often copying the rules verbatim. mechanics dictate everything, any simulation code is merely to support those mechanics and are subject to fudging to meet their requirements. the lines do blur considerably though, because the nature of complexity and computing, you cant simulate everything in real time, you have to make some abstractions. 

 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Nuke

[Superfluous J]

27 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Wait! KSP2 will not have them, or KSP doesn't have them yet?

We have mentions from Intercept that imply that there will be no experience. They have not to my knowledge addressed whether or not there will be traits.

---

For my opinion, why not both? We don't ask if a certain movie is a romance or a comedy. It's okay for it to be a romantic comedy.

So why not a simulator that has rpg elements in it? And base building, and automation, and and and.

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

We have mentions from Intercept that imply that there will be no experience. They have not to my knowledge addressed whether or not there will be traits.

I stand corrected. KSP2 is being dumbed down even as a RPG.

 

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

For my opinion, why not both? We don't ask if a certain movie is a romance or a comedy. It's okay for it to be a romantic comedy.

So why not a simulator that has rpg elements in it? And base building, and automation, and and and.

I completely agree. It's just not necessary to water down what made KSP¹interesting in order to add what they think will make KSP2 interesting!

Edited November 3, 2023 by Lisias
tyops as usulla...

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

I completely agree. It's just not necessary to water down what made KSP¹interesting in order to add what they think will make KSP2 interesting!

Removing things that aren't necessary - or would actually make the game worse - is not "watering down."

And without knowing every single aspect of the game that's not come out yet, we cannot say with any assurance that any of these things they're removing are necessary, or even beneficial.

I've seen far too many EA game threads with people complaining that lack of Feature X or existence of Feature Y will totally ruin the game. Then the game comes out, and it turns out that Feature X would have been dumb along with everything else, and Feature Y fits in perfectly.

Frankly it's just more reasons for them to not bother telling us anything and just dropping the entire Science update all at once.

[Lisias]

1 minute ago, Superfluous J said:

Removing things that aren't necessary - or would actually make the game worse - is not "watering down."

We will need to agree on disagree on this one. Let's hope for KSP2's sake that users will agree with you, not with me.

At least there's no chance of the fuel mass being removed from the game, right? RIGHT?

Spoiler

 

2 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

Frankly it's just more reasons for them to not bother telling us anything and just dropping the entire Science update all at once.

As a matter of fact, it's what I was defending since day 1 - going Hello Games way: shut up, fix the game, publish the fixes as they are ready. Rinse, repeat.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/275850/allnews/

KSP2's patch releases are being, frankly, too few and too late.

[magnemoe]

8 hours ago, Lisias said:

My grudge with the RPG thingy is about how parts' features are being implemented, and yes… I was triggered by the heat discussion.

On Hollow Knight, when there're powerups and spells that when applied allows me to jump higher and sustain more damage. Ok, Hollow Knight is not an RPG neither, it's a platformer, but you got the idea - on RPGs, you buy abilities that are magically applied and improve your chances while rolling the dice.

(and, nope, I don't think it's so hard to define what's a RPG after all).

The new heat system is acting like a spell: just attach a radiator, and magically all the heat from the craft will be dissipated - as a spell from Hollow Knight.

Lots of games has light RPG elements like leveling up units to veteran and elite in an strategy war game.  This does not make it an RPG but often affect how you use units. Much the same with leveling up kerbals in KSP 1, the tradition to take them out of Kerbin SOI, but no real character development unlike obvious RPG but also games like the sims series there character development and leveling was important. 

But I call KSP an simulator as it try to be realistic at the core. 

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, Nuke said:

<…> the lines do blur considerably though, because the nature of complexity and computing, you cant simulate everything in real time, you have to make some abstractions. 

I agree. But too much abstractions, and we lose contact with what is being simulated - and by then we start to flirt with Fantasy.

It's exactly the same debacle between Star Wars being a Fantasy, Wild West style on Space movie, and Star Trek being Science Fiction (pushed to the limits sometimes, granted).

Some resemblance to reality is required for simulations, as defined by Steam Shop at least… 

 

7 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

But I call KSP an simulator as it try to be realistic at the core. 

KSP¹ or KSP2? IMHO they are going to have more differences than similarities… 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Lisias
The auto-complete is screwing with me. I'm absolutely sure I typed everything correctly this time!

[magnemoe]

2 minutes ago, Lisias said:

I agree. But too much abstractions, and we lose contact with what is being simulated - and by then we start to flirt with Fantasy.

It's exactly the same debacle between Star Wars being a Fantasy, Wild West style on Space movie, and Star Trek being Science Fiction (pushed to the limits sometimes, granted).

Some resemblance to reality is required for simulations, as defined by Steam Shop at least… 

KSP¹ or KSP2? IMHO they are going to have more differences than similarities… 

KSP 2 endgame will be less realistic. I agree here, colonies is hard to do realistic. 

[Lisias]

3 hours ago, Nuke said:

simulations are physics allowed to play out. <...> you cant simulate everything in real time, you have to make some abstractions. 

Lost your post, sorry, didn't meant to.

Well, I agree. But I insiste that too much abstractions will make you lose contact with what you are simulating, and by then you start to flirty with fantasy. What's perfectly fine, by the way - I'm not trying to tell them how to do their work, it's their game, their job, it's their table in need to get food on.

Just don't do it claiming the game will be like KSP¹ when it will be not. I will just go play KSP¹ - or something else, eventually, perhaps even KSP2, when I got fed up and decide to replace Planet Nomads with something more polished.

The whole problem here is Expectation. The KSP2 I'm seeing being delivered is not the game I've had told it would be. And I find this particularly annoying (to not mention infuriating) due KSP¹ losing players altogether, aparently because these dudes were expectating a new and improved KSP¹ too and, so, got mad and ditched both.

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

KSP 2 endgame will be less realistic. I agree here, colonies is hard to do realistic. 

 Colonies would be a completely new feature over KSP¹. Curiously,  it's the one thing they can do whatever they want, because no matter what they do, it will be an improvement over KSP¹ no matter what. It's the one thingy I have no expectations at all, because I don't have what to compare to!

 

[Guest]

Edit: deleted, since there doesn’t appear to be a possibility for a coherent and constructive discussion here.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Periple

[Nuke]

21 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Lost your post, sorry, didn't meant to.

Well, I agree. But I insiste that too much abstractions will make you lose contact with what you are simulating, and by then you start to flirty with fantasy. What's perfectly fine, by the way - I'm not trying to tell them how to do their work, it's their game, their job, it's their table in need to get food on.

Just don't do it claiming the game will be like KSP¹ when it will be not. I will just go play KSP¹ - or something else, eventually, perhaps even KSP2, when I got fed up and decide to replace Planet Nomads with something more polished.

The whole problem here is Expectation. The KSP2 I'm seeing being delivered is not the game I've had told it would be. And I find this particularly annoying (to not mention infuriating) due KSP¹ losing players altogether, aparently because these dudes were expectating a new and improved KSP¹ too and, so, got mad and ditched both.

 Colonies would be a completely new feature over KSP¹. Curiously,  it's the one thing they can do whatever they want, because no matter what they do, it will be an improvement over KSP¹ no matter what. It's the one thingy I have no expectations at all, because I don't have what to compare to!

 

just talking about whats possible. just an example of a thing i was working on for my own game. try figuring out how to track a thousand projectiles spewed fourth from an autocannon that missed and are coming back the long way around. you  got some trigger happy goon at the controls spewing these things everywhere. you cant track every bullet indefinitely the computation time would be astronomical especially when the number goes up every trigger pull. most games just despawn the projectiles at some arbitrary max range by expiring a timestamp. so you have a projectile cloud object to represent the idea of lost rounds. you build a convex hull from the bullets to represent the kill zone. this can be multiple bursts or projectiles from multiple vessles in the same engagement. they dont have transponders and if you get hit by one you are in a world of hurt, and tracking the origin of each round is not neccisary. the bullets drift apart so the volume of the hull is constantly increasing. then if you run into the cloud you figure the chance of running into a bullet based on the volume of the hull divided by the volume of the bullets times the count. you despawn when the chance of hitting a bullet gets down below a tenth of a percent. you can randomly throw in stray rounds periodically as if the rounds are getting lost in the solar system, maybe show little streaks and issue a collision hazard warning to the pilot. so now i have a small number of projectile clouds that are easier to manage and provide the illusion of stray bullets. so something computationally impossible becomes practical. 

[kerbiloid]

It's an RPG where they player is playing an evil invisible deity, which is making the poor innocent Kerbals to make flimsy rockets and throws them into space.

[Lisias]

8 hours ago, Nuke said:

just talking about whats possible. just an example of a thing i was working on for my own game. <...> so now i have a small number of projectile clouds that are easier to manage and provide the illusion of stray bullets. so something computationally impossible becomes practical. 

That's the idea!

I don't care how the features I'm interested are implemented, as long the end result of the simulation gives me the illusion of working as I was expecting. It's the reason we call these things "simulations" and not "emulations". We play Flight Simulators, not Flight Emulators (go play RC on the garden if you want a Flight Emulator ).

By the looks of this thread, KSP2 is simulating things in a way that breaks the illusion I'm used on KSP¹.  Ergo, it's not a KSP¹ sucessor, at least for me - there're a lot of shiny new things on KSP2 that are not present on the predecessor, but I can live without them (heck, I'm playing 1.4.3), but KSP2 also misses some details that are exactly some of the reasons I enjoy KSP¹ .  Ergo I'm not willing to play KSP2.

Making a parallel with your abstraction, imagine that in a new release of your game, someone decides that your approach is too much complicated and decide to "enhance the user's experience" by removing the cloud of bullets, and instead projecting a death cone from the origin into MAX_RANGE, randomly killing anything inside it beyound a MIN_RANGE.

Superficially, it would work the same from the killed pilot's point of view - but on the other hand, you will not be able to simulate things like this (what your approach is able to!):

The Fighter Plane That Shot Itself Down

It may or may be not acceptable by the players, it will depend on how they are playing the first version of your game and, so, by their expectations about the sequel.

Every abstraction is, by definition, wrong - but they are still useful under the constrains where they are viable for your solution: depending on how and where you abstract something, you will lose the ability to simulate some aspects of the target being simulated.

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

 

9 hours ago, Periple said:

Edit: deleted, since there doesn’t appear to be a possibility for a coherent and constructive discussion here.

Agreed. For a coherent and constructive discussion, we need to:

1. Agree on the terminology, otherwise we will not establish a communication.
   1. KSP2 is a Indie game, by the way? What's an Indie game after all?
2. Recognise that the other side is entitled to have a opinion that perhaps needs some polishing, but is not be necessarily wrong just because you don't like it.

 

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It's an RPG where they player is playing an evil invisible deity, which is making the poor innocent Kerbals to make flimsy rockets and throws them into space.

Spoiler

 

[kdaviper]

Still I'm waiting for you to point out the RPG elements of KSP2...

What is the character role you are playing? How does the gameplay provide character development? 

[Lisias]

1 minute ago, kdaviper said:

Still I'm waiting for you to point out the RPG elements of KSP2...

What is the character role you are playing? How does the gameplay provide character development? 

quoting myself, again:

21 hours ago, Lisias said:

My grudge with the RPG thingy is about how parts' features are being implemented, and yes… I was triggered by the heat discussion.

On Hollow Knight, when there're powerups and spells that when applied allows me to jump higher and sustain more damage. Ok, Hollow Knight is not an RPG neither, it's a platformer, but you got the idea - on RPGs, you buy abilities that are magically applied and improve your chances while rolling the dice.

(and, nope, I don't think it's so hard to define what's a RPG after all).

The new heat system is acting like a spell: just attach a radiator, and magically all the heat from the craft will be dissipated - as a spell from Hollow Knight.

 But, with new information gathered on this thread, I'm considering being wrong about the RPG thingy, as even as an RPG, the game appears to be considerably watered down.

 

Spoiler

As a side note, on my tongue the phrase "I'm still waiting for" on a discussion implies that the interlocutor (me) owns you something, or that you are hierarchically superior. It's a phrase for demonstration of power or superiority - and even prepotence.

Considering that I don't know your culture, I'm assuming your use of this phrase not necessary implies any of that from your part - but now that I had informed you about, I kindly ask to avoid such phraseology in the future, or I will be tempted to answer in a way less polite way.