What happened to increased communication?

[steveman0]

On 4/28/2024 at 12:30 AM, Meecrob said:

I said I think Take Two is making a watered-down version of KSP for KSP2, and every official word and release has proven me right so far.

Take Two is the publisher. They're role in day-to-day decisions is not going to be substantial with respect to gameplay implementation beyond approving the overall creative direction set forth for the game. This is already locked in with the roadmap. Any concerns from a gameplay perspective are then only really to be based on the roadmap and public statements. Any bad feelings about the publisher are moot unless/until we get official statements to say otherwise.

So getting to the facts, are you honestly saying you think KSP2 with it colonies built in part with resource collection to supply orbital construction of future-tech interstellar craft by ferrying the required materials by automated supply lines established by player flown example flight plans to enable the growth of those colonies to support interstelar colonization is a watered-down version of KSP?

To me this is a massive project scope with steep requirements that will take substantial dedication to complete. With such a massive scope deviating from the original in notable ways it should come as no surprise that some of the filler/fluff features of the original title would be reevaluated in the context of whether they fit the sequel or if they are not worth prioritizing among the long list of work that must be done to accomplish their goals. With such radical changes, it would be prudent to wait to hear how these will impact the gameplay rather than make assumptions.

Again back to the topic at hand, is where communication is needed, but the lack thereof is not an excuse to make things up as the expected way they will be. It may well be that some decisions have not been made one way or another.

And to be clear, this is not just directed at people disparaging the game or direction. There has been plenty of assumptions on the other side too that also originates from the lack of clear communication of the granular gameplay plans. It all goes to reinforce the need of the team to communicate plans with the community better if we're to effectively utilize the EA period to direct the game in the best direction. The problem is that the community is impatient, the pace of new content release is slow, and the engagement with the community over discussing planned features and collecting design feedback is basically non-existent.

It's understandable that such large development goals would take time, but in entering early access there should have been plans in place to bridge the large gaps in major roadmap releases with community engagement or else they shouldn't have committed to early access. Their failure here is not an excuse to fill in the blanks with rapant speculation though. The unfortunately correct answer is patience, but that's a tall order for anything on the internet and moreso for something with a price tag on it.

[Scarecrow71]

1 minute ago, steveman0 said:

So getting to the facts, are you honestly saying you think KSP2 with it colonies built in part with resource collection to supply orbital construction of future-tech interstellar craft by ferrying the required materials by automated supply lines established by player flown example flight plans to enable the growth of those colonies to support interstelar colonization is a watered-down version of KSP?

And I cannot follow what you are even asking here.  I get that it's some scope/mission statement that you are coming up with, but I can't follow what that is or what it should be.

3 minutes ago, steveman0 said:

Again back to the topic at hand, is where communication is needed, but the lack thereof is not an excuse to make things up as the expected way they will be.

Unfortunately, we are left with nothing but the ability to speculate because we aren't being communicated with effectively.  And this isn't just a simple "You aren't talking to us" thing, either.  It's been years of misinformation and silence, culminating in the community having to guess what is going on.  If what we are guessing isn't true, then it's on the company to tell us AND to then tell us what the truth is.  Anything short of that just keeps us in the dark and guessing.

5 minutes ago, steveman0 said:

Their failure here is not an excuse to fill in the blanks with rapant speculation though.

Unfortunately, their failure is what has led to the speculation.  As I mentioned above, anything short of the company coming out and quelling the fears and guesses will only lead to more fear and guesswork.

6 minutes ago, steveman0 said:

The unfortunately correct answer is patience, but that's a tall order for anything on the internet and moreso for something with a price tag on it.

I've asked before, and I'll ask again:  At what point are we allowed to no longer be patient?  It's been 6 years of development, with promises and teasers and changing deadlines, and I think the community has been pretty patient to this point.  In fact, prior to the EA release, every changing deadline was met with the general sentiment of "That's ok; we are disappointed in another delay, but we want you to give us the best game you possibly can".  Unfortunately, after the release into EA, that no longer applies because we saw first-hand that our faith and hope was pretty much stepped on and taken for granted.  And throughout the last 15 or so months, the developers have proven that they either don't listen or they don't care about what we are saying.  That post from Nate last week is nothing more than a hollow promise until and unless they actually deliver on it this time. 

Now, I know someone will come in here and argue "There was an internal shake-up, and COVID hit, so you cannot blame them for those".  Um, yes, we can.  Internal re-organizations happen everywhere all the time; using that as an excuse for delaying and then pushing out inferior product is the result of management not caring about their customer-base.  As far as COVID goes, I'm pretty sure that everyone in the world was impacted by that, but it didn't stop business from moving to telecommuters and still getting the job done.

[Flush Foot]

23 minutes ago, steveman0 said:

So getting to the facts, are you honestly saying you think KSP2 with it colonies built in part with resource collection to supply orbital construction of future-tech interstellar craft by ferrying the required materials by automated supply lines established by player flown example flight plans to enable the growth of those colonies to support interstelar colonization is a watered-down version of KSP?

13 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

And I cannot follow what you are even asking here.  I get that it's some scope/mission statement that you are coming up with, but I can't follow what that is or what it should be.

@Scarecrow71, what I think @steveman0 was saying in that [long] sentence was that it felt "out of place" for people to call IG's v1.0 vision of the game watered-down KSP1 (given the planned scope of having colonies, resources with automated routes, interstellar, etc.)

[cocoscacao]

4 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Are you being intentionally facetious here?

Nope. Core gameplay loop is limited by money. You're comparing apples and oranges. If career mode was the only option in KSP 1, I'd have thrown that game into the trash long ago, because I would never be able to figure out how to leave Kerbin

Edited April 29 by cocoscacao

[Scarecrow71]

32 minutes ago, Flush Foot said:

@Scarecrow71, what I think @steveman0 was saying in that [long] sentence was that it felt "out of place" for people to call IG's v1.0 vision of the game watered-down KSP1 (given the planned scope of having colonies, resources with automated routes, interstellar, etc.)

That makes sense.  It was a long and drawn-out way of saying that, but after re-reading it makes sense that's what he's asking!  Thanks!

Just now, cocoscacao said:

Nope. Core gameplay loop is limited by money. You're comparing apples and oranges. If career mode was the only option in KSP 1, I'd have thrown that game into the trash long ago

No, I'm not comparing apples to oranges.  You stated money, I came back with an example of money, you came back with gameplay loop, then got a bit condescending with your comment about me starting in career.  Money is not crippling to new players.  All games, regardless of whatever you call the mechanic, force players to use currency or points or something to limit what they can/cannot do at the start of the game.  Money, fuel, science points, experience, ammunition - all of these things limit what a player can and/or cannot do at the start of a game, and only after playing a while can they do more and more.  All games have a mechanic like this, and I would disagree whole-heartedly that it is crippling to any new player of any game that this mechanic is crippling.

[cocoscacao]

6 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

that it is crippling to any new player of any game

It was crippling to me. I still hate career mode.

[Flush Foot]

21 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

It was crippling to me. I still hate career mode.

Did you have the limited funding and choose to ignore Mission Control / available contracts?

[Scarecrow71]

22 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

It was crippling to me. I still hate career mode.

Crippling to you does not mean crippling to all new players.  This is your limitation, not a limitation of the game or to any other players.

And what was crippling about needing money that wasn't crippling needing science points?  The major difference between Career and Science modes is having to upgrade buildings.  In Science mode, you can't get better parts without getting more science.  In Career, you can't get better parts without more science, but yes, you are also limited to what you can do based on the buildings.  Which can be upgraded with funds, which are given out through Contracts.  What about this is crippling?  Pretty much everything you want to do you can get a contract for, so funds shouldn't be a problem.  In fact, about 3 tiers into the tech tree, funds stop being a problem.

[cocoscacao]

4 minutes ago, Flush Foot said:

Did you have the limited funding and choose to ignore Mission Control / available contracts?

The first time I fired up KSP 1, I went to career mode. Needless to say I was clueless on what to do. I've picked up some random contracts, and failed to complete majority of them. Mostly because I was missing airplane parts.

Just now, Scarecrow71 said:

Crippling to you does not mean crippling to all new players.

You're forcing me to nitpick... You said it's not crippling to any player. Now you're saying anyone but me. So thanks for that.

2 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

And what was crippling about needing money that wasn't crippling needing science points?

Science points limit the part options. Sure, you can't go to Duna with a small booster and a cockpit, but you can at least launch something. Without money, you cannot do anything.

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, steveman0 said:

So getting to the facts, are you honestly saying you think KSP2 with it colonies built in part with resource collection to supply orbital construction of future-tech interstellar craft by ferrying the required materials by automated supply lines established by player flown example flight plans to enable the growth of those colonies to support interstelar colonization is a watered-down version of KSP?

Yes. And it's fine to do so until proven otherwise. To not be completely confrontational though, I'll appeal to the puddle depth of "For Science!" as my main exhibit that "watering down" is what so far they've done. That's not even going into how what they have communicated so far is a watered down version of mods that already exist for the prequel, and they plan to do it on a flimsier, more limited foundation.

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

"There was an internal shake-up, and COVID hit, so you cannot blame them for those".

COVID was 4 years ago, Star Theory died 5 years ago. Anyone still hanging onto that for anything has clearly ran out of options to justify what's always been unjustifiable.

1 minute ago, cocoscacao said:

Without money, you cannot do anything.

God forbid there's a semblance of consequence for being bad at a videogame.

[cocoscacao]

2 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

God forbid there's a semblance of consequence for being bad at a videogame.

You forget how long it took you to grasp the basics.

[PDCWolf]

Just now, cocoscacao said:

You forget how long it took you to grasp the basics.

Oh no, I don't, it was about a month, in a copy of Orbiter I had to pay hours of time on a cybercafe for it to download. Sure, Orbiter allowed me to just restart the mission, but the consequence in that case was losing 8 minutes to multiple hours of missions, and I never managed to go interplanetary in that sim. Oh, and there were no tutorials, only a replay of a shuttle launch to look at and guess what was happening.

[Scarecrow71]

9 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

You're forcing me to nitpick... You said it's not crippling to any player. Now you're saying anyone but me. So thanks for that.

You stated, right off the bat, that money was crippling to new players.  Literally:

On 4/28/2024 at 7:05 AM, cocoscacao said:

Money restrictions aren't really beginner friendly. It is fun when you know what you are doing, but it can also totally cripple newcomers.

I stated it wasn't.  You continue(d) to state that it is.  Upon pressing further, you then stated it was crippling to you.  Literally:  

42 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

It was crippling to me. I still hate career mode.

I then stated that being crippling to you does not mean it's crippling to anyone else.  This is your limitation; don't push your limitation onto all other players.

I cannot explain this any more plainly.  I am stating that it isn't crippling to all new players, but if you are having/have had an issue with it, then that's your limitation.  Don't try to twist my words over something you didn't explain properly up front.

[cocoscacao]

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

Oh no, I don't

And that's related to being stuck in KSP 1 without cash to even build a rocket... how?

2 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I stated it wasn't.  You continue(d) to state that it is.

And I still do.

[PDCWolf]

Just now, cocoscacao said:

And that's related to being stuck in KSP 1 without cash to even build a rocket... how?

You go back and load a previous save, or start over.

[Scarecrow71]

2 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

And that's related to being stuck in KSP 1 without cash to even build a rocket... how?

And I still do.

And you are wrong.  Period.  It isn't crippling to all new players.  And in fact, you haven't given one example other than yourself where it is crippling.  Nor did you answer the question I posited asking what was so crippling about it.  Nor did you answer PDC's question about Mission Control/Contracts.

I can't help you at this point.  We are at an impasse.  If you feel it's crippling to you, that's one thing.  But again, that's your limitation, not anybody else's.  Don't speak for others as their mileage may vary from yours.

[cocoscacao]

2 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

And you are wrong.  Period.  It isn't crippling to all new players.  And in fact, you haven't given one example other than yourself where it is crippling.  Nor did you answer the question I posited asking what was so crippling about it.  Nor did you answer PDC's question about Mission Control/Contracts.

Just out of curiosity... how did you start playing KSP?

8 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

You go back and load a previous save, or start over.

But you already had some experience with orbital mechanics, rocket parts etc, without having to deal with a total showstopper called cash. I'm not saying additional challenge is bad. I'm saying new players should be eased in. It's good that career and science mode are options in KSP 1

[PDCWolf]

5 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

But you already had some experience with orbital mechanics, rocket parts etc, without having to deal with a total showstopper called cash. I'm not saying additional challenge is bad. I'm saying new players should be eased in. It's good that career and science mode are options in KSP 1

Yes, and that easing-in is called tutorials, or going to sandbox and playing around with designs before career, or just starting your career over (which you can do with easier settings in KSP1 too).

[cocoscacao]

3 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Yes, and that easing-in is called tutorials

But KSP 1 still gives you an option to enjoy the game without cash being involved. I never managed to design something that can return a Kerbal from Eve's surface, but that problem is not money related.

[PDCWolf]

3 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

But KSP 1 still gives you an option to enjoy the game without cash being involved. I never managed to design something that can return a Kerbal from Eve's surface, but that problem is not money related.

And KSP2 doesn't, which is the point of the watering down and throwing away features argument.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Exactly. Sandbox already existed and Exploration was advertised as some miraculous melding of science & career but took out a great deal of what made career... well, feel lik a career.

Currently I agree with the sentiment that *resources* will no be able capture that initial part of the game loop.. 

The one where SRBs had relevance.

Unless leaving Kerbin is also behind a resource wall.

Edited April 29 by Fizzlebop Smith

[cocoscacao]

7 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

And KSP2 doesn't, which is the point of the watering down and throwing away features argument.

I'm not arguing on that part. Just saying that new players shouldn't be overwhelmed with things that can easily be considered an additional challenge.

[Flush Foot]

5 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

 

Exactly. Sandbox already existed and Exploration was advertised as some miraculous melding of science & career but took out a great deal of what made career... well, feel lik a career.

 

And eventually I expect there should be a Science-only mode in KSP 2 that removes the “economy” for those who don’t enjoy it, such as @cocoscacao

Just now, cocoscacao said:

I'm not arguing on that part. Just saying that new players shouldn't be overwhelmed with things that can easily be considered an additional challenge.

Indeed! It’s not like it’s <checks notes> rocket science  

 

 

/s

[cocoscacao]

2 minutes ago, Flush Foot said:

“economy” for those who don’t enjoy it

Nah. Economy would be fine for me now. Emphasis on the now. Btw, this:

12 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

The one where SRBs had relevance.

is a totally valid point, and I'm curious if resources will somehow fix it.

[PDCWolf]

35 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

I'm not arguing on that part. Just saying that new players shouldn't be overwhelmed with things that can easily be considered an additional challenge.

Most didn't seem to have a problem with KSP1, and most people definitely play career or science vs sandbox according to this poll. Or this poll if you prefer the forum's opinion. If anything, I'd be in favor or removing money on the sense that it was nonsensical and too easy...