What happened to increased communication?

[NexusHelium]

8 hours ago, Kerbart said:

So while KSP2 is under development, those bugs do annoy because Intercept does have code that works properly but decides not to look at it.

I don’t think the problem is really that they’re not looking at it. I’m sure they have, but either the code doesn’t work with what they’re design ensues (for better or for worse no one knows but intercept right now)  or that they have looked at it and have chosen not to take inspiration from it.

if that’s true then that would be something I would change. I don't necessarily want them to copy the code from ksp 1 exactly (cause it was a bit of a mess) but I they could look at the Og code and, being actual devs, could look it through and see how they could improve or optimize it. Because once the devs know what’s wrong… you gotta admit they’re really good at optimizing it.

Edited April 25 by NexusHelium

[NexusHelium]

6 hours ago, ttikkoo said:

May I ask which aspects you find more enjoyable in the sequel? No judgement here I promise, I'm staying out of the KSP2 discussions, just genuine curiosity/interest.

I mean, for one, graphics. This may be a wildly controversial opinion but Blackracks cloud mod was a bit off to me. Now, don’t get me wrong, it was beautiful and masterfully crafted, but something about the total realism of it was off putting to me. So I was really glad to see the more vibrant and odd shaped clouds and terrain in KSP 2. KSP 2’s graphics could definitely be improved but for me they are much better in a lot of aspects.

Second is the music and sound design. Nothing I have to say here. It’s just objectively better than the first.

third is UI. Another controversial opinion, but I really like the new UI and it’s pixelated look. Again, it could be improved, but it still it better than the first to me.

Fourth is the customization options that the game has and last but not least, the performance  

I just prefer the game over KSP 1 right now. I’ve tried to go back to KSP1 but I just can’t do it because the sequel just does all of the things that I look for in a game better.

Edited April 25 by NexusHelium

[The Aziz]

5 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:

This may be a wildly controversial opinion but Blackracks cloud mod was a bit off to me. Now, don’t get me wrong, it was beautiful, but something about the total realism of it was off putting to me

Cuz it was like slapping a new chrome bonnet on a rusty car. It's pretty from the front but if you look past it... Pretty clouds, sure, but underneath? Low res heightmap with holes in it. No mod ever has managed to solve that.

[NexusHelium]

10 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Well, then you aren't looking enough. Sure, those people don't post a lot anymore save for... one or two, but god if I didn't had to read people absolutely unloading on KSP1 to somehow justify the existence of KSP2 and how whatever we have now is better and provides a better foundation (even though it literally doesn't).

What I meant is that it most likely wasn’t the majority of players. Because most of the people I read about here and on the discord do not trump on KSP 1 and all agree that it is one of the best games all times

But there’s always someone who has a wayward opinion and thats not a bad thing. They might have genuinely thought the first game was bad and went into the sequel game and found an overall genuinely more enjoyable experience.

they don’t have some sort of delusion that’s formed from a coping mechanism, they just think the sequel is better. I would also argue that the game has the type of foundation that isn’t strong at first but has a lot of potential, which in my opinion classifies as a strong foundation. Something that an amazing thing can be built on top is what I think is a strong foundation.

And the game has that and more 

Edited April 25 by NexusHelium

[ttikkoo]

11 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:

I mean, for one, graphics. This may be a wildly controversial opinion but Blackracks cloud mod was a bit off to me. Now, don’t get me wrong, it was beautiful, but something about the total realism of it was off putting to me. So I was really glad to see the more vibrant and odd shaped clouds and terrain in KSP 2. KSP 2’s graphics could definitely be improved but for me they are much better in a lot of aspects.

Second is the music and sound design. Nothing I have to say here. It’s just objectively better than the first.

third is UI. Another controversial opinion, but I really like the new UI and it’s pixelated look. Again, it could be improved, but it still it better than the first to me.

Fourth is the customization options that the game has and last but not least, the performance  

I just prefer the game over KSP 1 right now. I’ve tried to go back to KSP1 but I just can’t do it because the sequel just does all of the things that I look for in a game better.

Cheers for the reply, very fair points. For what it's worth, most of your points I'm mostly neutral on in terms of KSP1 vs KSP2 but the music on it's own makes me really want to play KSP2. However,  I'm really struggling to get past the time warp limitation, it really messes with the way I like to play KSP.  And my lord, I'd do anything for KSP1 to have KSP2's load times, such a massive difference! Glad to hear you're enjoying the game  

[Scarecrow71]

1 hour ago, NexusHelium said:

the sequel just does all of the things that I look for in a game better.

While I agree with you about the graphics and music, I just cannot wrap my mind around the quoted text.  The 4 things you mentioned have nothing to do with the actual gameplay loop, which means you aren't in this for the actual gameplay?  Is that an accurate assessment?

The visuals are good.  The music is awesome.  But the gameplay loop is sorely lacking.  I shouldn't have to rehash the bugs that make the game difficult to play, and performance still isn't optimal.  Even the YouTubers are starting to get away from the sequel as it becomes a chore to play.

The original has its own problems, sure.  But it is far more polished than the sequel.

I guess I'm just curious as to why you didn't list gameplay as one of the things KSP2 has and does better.

Edited April 25 by Scarecrow71

[AtomicTech]

On 4/22/2024 at 5:09 PM, The Aziz said:

No.

Yeah, I'm gonna agree with Aziz here.

There's way too much diversity of opinion for us Day-One-ers for anyone to claim to speak for all of us.

[NexusHelium]

10 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I guess I'm just curious as to why you didn't list gameplay as one of the things KSP2 has and does better.

Because you were right. Gameplay isn't one of the main things I look for in a game. It is certainly appreciated but I'm odd and prefer things like visuals and atmosphere and performance over gameplay. Games like Outer Wilds are not the most fun to control and move around, but the fun visuals and the story make it my all time favorite game (and a game you should play too  ). I'm also hopeful for the gameplay loop in the future so it's not a huge concern for me right now. For some reason, I also haven't encountered bugs recently (I genuinely don't know why they haven't been triggered) but I can see how the loop would be extremely frustrating with all the bugs I've seen been reported and have experienced at some point (which I haven't seen in my game for some reason :/)

10 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Even the YouTubers are starting to get away from the sequel as it becomes a chore to play.

I also don't know anyone but Matt Lowne who has said that. So saying "YoutuberS" seems a bit broad.

12 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

The original has its own problems, sure.  But it is far more polished than the sequel.

 

Overall, I just enjoy the less polished version with more of the things I look for in a game, which doesn't really include gameplay. I enjoy even the most simple gameplay loops as long as it leads to something.

Edited April 25 by NexusHelium

[Scarecrow71]

7 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:

Because you were right. Gameplay isn't one of the main things I look for in a game.

Then you and I will have to agree to disagree.  The core gameplay loop is the primary focus for what I look for in a game.  If that's broken, then no amount of polished visuals or music will make up for that.  It doesn't matter how pretty the game is; if I find it unplayable or, in the case of KSP2, broken and difficult to play, then I won't play it.  The gameplay loop has to come first; everything else is window dressing.

[PDCWolf]

52 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:

What I meant is that it most likely wasn’t the majority of players. Because most of the people I read about here and on the discord do not trump on KSP 1 and all agree that it is one of the best games all times

But there’s always someone who has a wayward opinion and thats not a bad thing. They might have genuinely thought the first game was bad and went into the sequel game and found an overall genuinely more enjoyable experience.

they don’t have some sort of delusion that’s formed from a coping mechanism, they just think the sequel is better. I would also argue that the game has the type of foundation that isn’t strong at first but has a lot of potential, which in my opinion classifies as a strong foundation. Something that an amazing thing can be built on top is what I think is a strong foundation.

And the game has that and more 

Gotta agree to disagree then, that was a painful read. Whilst you're free to like what you like, I fail to agree on any of the things you like, and some other things are plainly not a matter of personal opinion, like not being able to read the fonts on the UI, or loading times, or "potential" and so on.

For loading times, on a new and clean game, the loading speed difference between KSP1 and 2 is minimal. Sure, the initial load is faster, but at the end of the day, a game made 10 years ago loads a whole *checks notes* 15 seconds slower from startup to flight. And that's with KSP2 still being in its incomplete infancy.

Potential does not define a foundation. Foundation is a word reserved for how well the codebase and the game systems are put together. If "what I believe this game can be" was a metric, then every game in development has infinite potential and thus the strongest foundation. That's just not how it works.

In reality KSP2 has the same engine as the prequel, the same middleware for some features, but a much heavier save system, and also a much heavier inactive-vessel simulation. KSP2 will be thwarted by that in the future. It also still builds and saves vessels as a tree, it still calculates fuel flow mostly the same way (something something "inspiration" from the code of the previous game), it still handles the atmosphere like the previous game, but thanks to that passive simulation and bad saving system, vessels popping into range still kill your game, orbits change randomly, and the game grinds to a halt with vessels and partcounts much faster than the prequel, to the point systems (like heating) have to be "streamlined", and part-counts have to be hammered down with new, revolutionary "all in one" science modules, station modules, and in the future colony modules too... or having the logistics layer be abstracted to numbers instead of seeing your vessels come and go.

Right now, saves are just a couple vessels for 99% of players, let alone making any vessel in the hundreds of parts for maybe the last couple missions, and most people play serially too (fully complete one mission before launching the next). So really, KSP2s limits haven't yet applied to most people and thus it's no wonder they really think the game is better off. When colonies and interstellar arrive, along with more resources to keep track of... it's gonna be a mess, yet devs refuse to address it and have let the bug report sit unattended, and only mentioned the problem once in the K.E.R.B.  and that's... the opposite of potential.

So yeah, you might slowly start to realize why people who talk highly of the foundation, potential, and what not don't seem completely grounded in reality to me, and why the lack of proper technical talk in devblogs is worrying. I don't care at all for how they failed to replicate eclipses, or how they had to tesselate a line to draw a circle, I care to know why we're still stuck on something as primitive as tree based vessels, and how they plan to deal with high part counts, or even something as basic as what their target is.

 

[cocoscacao]

11 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

are plainly not a matter of personal opinion, like not being able to read the fonts on the UI

I think he meant aesthetics. You can have monospaced fonts that are crisp and readable. I like the new "feel", but it's useless until it gets the crispness...

[TickleMyMary]

And, all of this loops us round to the actual question... What happened to increased communication?

It's obvious that passion on both sides ( consumer & developer) has faded to a great degree, the forums are just reciprocal arguments about things being said since day 1... Discord is barely KSP2 related anymore and is just general space chat, kapybaras or the same looking craft, over and over again.

For Science obviously hasn't lit the fires for the masses, if it did then it certainly hasn't shown any kind of longevity or purpose at this stage. Then we had colonies hailed as the thing that will bring the game into real focus, though, with the caveat of resources being the actual key to it all so not to expect anything until that drops... Which comes after interstellar. At the current update cadence we find ourselves with, I'm honestly not seeing how we get to it seeing as it is barely running (in my opinion, of course) with what we have available now.

I'm not sure what news to expect on Friday but I honestly don't think it's going to be directly game related, with the amount of time between actual news and the recent layoff speculation, I think there will be news in relation to that and further reduction in the development cycle. I'm of the opinion that they had the heads up a few months back and thats when the studio went on their break and came back to weeks of 'sprint planning' with a great plan to engage the community (according to dakotas list of work they had been doing) that they, once again, failed to follow through on... Then it was a "tidying up the calendar" issue... It just reeks of a deeper issue going on behind the scenes.

We will find out tomorrow regardless... Again, I hope I am wrong and that real work amd  improvement have been made beind the scenes that we will all be genuinely pleased by and will propel the game forward... Past track record would disagree with this though imo.

[NexusHelium]

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Then you and I will have to agree to disagree.  The core gameplay loop is the primary focus for what I look for in a game.  If that's broken, then no amount of polished visuals or music will make up for that.  It doesn't matter how pretty the game is; if I find it unplayable or, in the case of KSP2, broken and difficult to play, then I won't play it.  The gameplay loop has to come first; everything else is window dressing.

That's totally fine. Then let's all hope for the best when it comes to gameplay on KSP 2  

[Fizzlebop Smith]

52 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

(Snip)

why the lack of proper technical talk in devblogs is worrying. I don't care at all for how they failed to replicate eclipses, or how they had to tesselate a line to draw a circle, I care to know why we're still stuck on something as primitive as tree based vessels, and how they plan to deal with high part counts, or even something as basic as what their target is.

 

THAT

Where are the technical dev blogs. 

Where are the REAL AMA where questions about limitation & strategy are discussed. Where are the reddit AMAs & in depth talks about the "Wheel".

So nothing regarding planned content? Start publishing the dev diaries from "For Science"

Us those notes with a few water cooler questions / emails to generate an in depth dev blog on decisions behind tech tree groupings.

The lack of substance is what sucks and lends me to the thought.. many decisions like tech tree ended up being ad hoc or arbitrarily assigned.

 

When you see people talk about the negative aspects of the UI you see specifics..

Maneuver Tool, Camera Eccentricities, GUI elements blocked / hidden beyond other objects, poor click-through priority assignment, inability to maneuver in another SOI

 

When people express a foundness for the new UI.. it's often "I like it" or "it's better than KSP1"

 

The graphics are better. A new coat of paint.. but I dislike the UI intensely.

Font

Part Manager

Staging Window Interaction 

Maneuver Tool

Camera Controls

Ship Save (Filters or Options for Structure)

 

Could you please express the parts of the UI that you enjoy more?

I like the stock app tray

I like tracking station

Aside I don't much like the UI

 

[NexusHelium]

52 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

For loading times, on a new and clean game, the loading speed difference between KSP1 and 2 is minimal. Sure, the initial load is faster, but at the end of the day, a game made 10 years ago loads a whole *checks notes* 15 seconds slower from startup to flight. And that's with KSP2 still being in its incomplete infancy.

Okay, first of all that video is over 10 months old. Long before most of the patches and FS!

And second, it's not just a game made ten years ago. It's a game men ten years ago that's also had 10 years of optimization and improvement. If KSP 2 is not better by 2029, then you can come back to this and dunk on me all you want but until then, I'm waiting.

56 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

So really, KSP2s limits haven't yet applied to most people and thus it's no wonder they really think the game is better off.

I have sent at least 30-ish vessels to every planet and moon and the game still runs fine with me.

58 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

like not being able to read the fonts on the UI,

I can personally see everything fine. But I do agree with you that the UI could be a little crisper or smoothed but that should not be a priority in my opinion.

[Scarecrow71]

48 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

something as primitive as tree based vessels

Although I'm a developer (automation jockey, to be specific) by trade, I'm curious to know what other solutions exist out there other than having a tree for identifying something and the things it contains.  I'm no game designer, and the things I deal with in code are very straight-forward and don't involve something with hundreds or thousands of sub-parts, so this is a genuine question of me not knowing why it's primitive, as well as trying to understand what other solutions might exist.

28 minutes ago, TickleMyMary said:

For Science obviously hasn't lit the fires for the masses, if it did then it certainly hasn't shown any kind of longevity or purpose at this stage.

When it dropped, For Science! absolutely lit the fire.  It brought back people who hadn't even touched the game since initial launch, and it got people playing.  But that second half of your statement about longevity is where that update failed.  Speaking only for myself, I stopped playing as soon as I ran out of story missions.  There was no point; the game gave me no direction or objective to complete any longer.  And even if you count what happened with the story missions, it was far too short and jumped from "Launch your first vessel" to "Go to the densest rock around the largest planet on the edge of the solar system" too fast.  The update brought some new content, and gave some small direction...and then it just ended without warning.  And there is no replayability in KSP2, unless you like doing the same missions over and over again?

30 minutes ago, TickleMyMary said:

Then we had colonies hailed as the thing that will bring the game into real focus, though, with the caveat of resources being the actual key to it all so not to expect anything until that drops

To expand on this point, it's a constant cycle of moving the goalposts.  "KSP2 drops in February, and it will change what you think of the franchise."  "Our first update will bring this all together."  "For Science! will have people scrambling to play for hours!"  "Colonies will really make this a complete game."  It goes on and on, and will probably continue to do so until we reach 1.0, at which point I'm afraid we'll hear "Well folks, that's it!  We're done!  On to our next thing!" and we'll all still be left wondering "What the heck did they even give us?".

As far as Resources go, I'm of the mind that they should be implemented with Colonies, not after them.  And if it weren't for the almost non-existent cadence of patches, updates, and content, I'd say to delay Colonies until they can get Resources working properly with that update.  But they can't even get heat and drag correct, so there's no reason to believe they'll ever get Resources right.

34 minutes ago, TickleMyMary said:

I'm not sure what news to expect on Friday but I honestly don't think it's going to be directly game related, with the amount of time between actual news and the recent layoff speculation, I think there will be news in relation to that and further reduction in the development cycle. I'm of the opinion that they had the heads up a few months back and thats when the studio went on their break and came back to weeks of 'sprint planning' with a great plan to engage the community (according to dakotas list of work they had been doing) that they, once again, failed to follow through on... Then it was a "tidying up the calendar" issue... It just reeks of a deeper issue going on behind the scenes.

I've said it already in this thread, and I'll say it again:  I'm irked that Mike's statement of "News next week" really meant "News late Friday".  Why is it always Fridays?  Tom's enthusiasm aside...why?  I honestly believe and feel that it's because they don't want to answer questions or deal with backlash/outrage immediately afterwards.  By waiting over the weekend to even look at the forums, they can let things calm down and hope people just clam up and not mention it any longer.  This whole cadence of "we said next week, but we meant late Friday, which could push into the following Monday if everyone takes the day off" is bothersome.

5 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Where are the REAL AMA where questions about limitation & strategy are discussed. Where are the reddit AMAs & in depth talks about the "Wheel".

This got asked ad nauseum right after the first AMA with Nate.  People wanted to know why they didn't answer the technical questions about the state of the game, and why things were really broken, and when we could expect patches to come out.  And to be fair, they kind of hit on some of this at a very basic, ground-skimming level...but they skipped right over what people really wanted to know.  And that's been their MO since - ignore the real questions and try to distract with shiny pictures.

6 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

The lack of substance is what sucks and lends me to the thought.. many decisions like tech tree ended up being ad hoc or arbitrarily assigned.

I'm still trying to figure out if this mess was planned or not.  They have the entire first game sitting there to dissect and learn from, and they simply didn't, don't, can't, or won't.  Even something as simple as the tech tree (to use your example here) could have been really expanded upon.  Heck, take a look at the Community Tech Tree from the mods for KSP1.  Throw in Un Kerballed Start and Hide Unavailable Nodes, and there's a great starting point.  But for some reason, they simply don't want to.

9 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Could you please express the parts of the UI that you enjoy more?

I dislike the new UI in its entirety.  It holds zero aesthetic benefit, the layout is counter-intuitive to how people see things, you can't scale it, you can't move parts around, it's too dark, and it's hard to find some pieces of information.  I'm honestly waiting for someone to write a mod to change it back to the way it was in KSP1.

4 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:

And second, it's not just a game made ten years ago. It's a game men ten years ago that's also had 10 years of optimization and improvement.

Keep in mind that the original was initially written by 1 guy in his spare time in a space/genre that had almost nothing else to go off of.  And Felipe was pretty much on his own for most of the game prior to 1.0 (I'm not sure when Squad came along, or when he got a formal game publisher and backing, I could be wrong about that).  Anyone who argues that it's a game made 10 years ago but has had 10 years of polishing needs to understand that KSP2 has a full development team and the backing of a large studio with millions of dollars.  Not to mention they should have learned from KSP1's mistakes.  What's that they say about not remembering history?

[NexusHelium]

12 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

(I'm not sure when Squad came along, or when he got a formal game publisher and backing, I could be wrong about that)

During alpha. But he worked at the company before that. Pretty sure they just kinda hopped on the train when people started taking interest.

Edited April 25 by NexusHelium

[steveman0]

12 hours ago, ttikkoo said:

May I ask which aspects you find more enjoyable in the sequel? No judgement here I promise, I'm staying out of the KSP2 discussions, just genuine curiosity/interest.

Just want to throw in my perspective since it contrasts with the following discussion that the biggest factor for me was the vastly improved gameplay progression the exploration mode introduced. I got KSP 2 on its initial 0.1 release but only really played ~5hours before putting it down. The science and mission progression in FS were the hook I needed and these were substantially better than the original.

I found KSP1's tech tree progression did not provide much push to actually explore the system much and the career missions were quite repetitive. I lost interest before I left Kerbin's SOI. KSP2's requirement to complete the missions and go interplanetary for the science to progress made it much easier to commit to bigger missions. It didn't have as much of a barrier to it as I felt in 1.

There's so much more to do and think about with those bigger missions that makes for good fun. I'm not self-motivated in sandox games as well as some, so the structure here provided the enthusiasm to experience it.

Edited April 25 by steveman0

[PDCWolf]

3 hours ago, NexusHelium said:

Okay, first of all that video is over 10 months old. Long before most of the patches and FS!

And second, it's not just a game made ten years ago. It's a game men ten years ago that's also had 10 years of optimization and improvement. If KSP 2 is not better by 2029, then you can come back to this and dunk on me all you want but until then, I'm waiting.

I have sent at least 30-ish vessels to every planet and moon and the game still runs fine with me.

I can personally see everything fine. But I do agree with you that the UI could be a little crisper or smoothed but that should not be a priority in my opinion.

The last optimization for KSP1's loading was a GameDatabase system overhaul released in 2013 in version 0.20 . "Optimization" is not lineally correlated to time, it's not even guaranteed to happen as sometimes it's just not possible to make an algorithm better, or not worth it to pursue an overhaul/refactor under budgetary and practical limits. Don't sit out hoping for magic optimizations to come, specially when some very foundational systems can't really be optimized thanks to the way they have been designed.

3 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Although I'm a developer (automation jockey, to be specific) by trade, I'm curious to know what other solutions exist out there other than having a tree for identifying something and the things it contains.  I'm no game designer, and the things I deal with in code are very straight-forward and don't involve something with hundreds or thousands of sub-parts, so this is a genuine question of me not knowing why it's primitive, as well as trying to understand what other solutions might exist.

It's primitive because parent-child systems have been as old as... the need to sort data. In the case of KSP1 a part has nodes, and anything that attaches to those nodes is a child, save for the node that attaches to a previous part which is the parent part, all the way up to the root. In the case of surface nodes, they're an arbitrary node created at arbitrary coordinates where another branch of the tree spawns as a child, pointing to the surface attachment node of the new child part. Almost every engineering game uses this method because it's proven to work, it's fast to cycle through all the nodes, and you do not need to check for recursions in circular structures.

As for alternatives, I can't just produce an answer because that goes beyond my skill level, but don't take that as "something different than tree based" but rather "let me use the 1 to 3 adapter, and then a 3 to 1 at the bottom without it not connecting 2 of the nodes." Currently, such a thing would mean that bottom adapter has 3 parents, something not possible as they're inheriting force, fuel flow, and other data from the parent part. It's also why the game dies when you dock vessels to themselves as it reconfigures the tree in real time.

3 hours ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

The graphics are better. A new coat of paint.. but I dislike the UI intensely.

Font

Part Manager

Staging Window Interaction 

Maneuver Tool

Camera Controls

Ship Save (Filters or Options for Structure)

The PAW has to be one of the worst crimes against everything good in UI/UX design. "Let's make a UI that shows everything at the same time"... then they fond out it obviously lags the game to hell to load tooltips for all parts at the same time and that people are having a hard time finding something specific in a sea of parts that share the same names. The first is somewhat fixable... the other not so much, it's just one of those "we have to be different at any cost" things even if the cost is making an objectively worse feature.

That and the amateur navball design/positioning.

[Flush Foot]

They’ve gone and communicationed! Even did it “early”! (Closer to 11:30 am their-time)

[NexusHelium]

1 minute ago, Flush Foot said:

They’ve gone and communicationed! Even did it “early”! (Closer to 11:30 am their-time)

HA! TAKE THAT TOM!!!!!

[NexusHelium]

You were saying people of this thread (including myself for a little there tbh)?((I'm not trying to dunk on you guys lol. I'm just genuinely really excited ))

Edited April 25 by NexusHelium
accidentally rude :(

[NexusHelium]

Let's hope this is the first of many posts that will improve communication! One of my biggest hopes for this game is that this thread becomes obsolete  

Edited April 25 by NexusHelium

[Scarecrow71]

1 hour ago, NexusHelium said:

You were saying @Scarecrow71 ? (I'm not trying to dunk on you lol. I'm just genuinely really excited )

Yes, you are trying to dunk on me.  Not cool to call me out specifically when I'm not the only one who was pretty sure nothing would come out until tomorrow.  Thanks for that.

On that note, I was wrong.  Close, but still wrong.

[Flush Foot]

1 hour ago, Flush Foot said:

They’ve gone and communicationed! Even did it “early”! (Closer to 11:30 am their-time)

Silly Flush Foot! I somehow didn't even clue in that today wasn't FRIDAY!!!!!!!!