Hopefully its something they can prepare for while working on the core game, so that it isn't too difficult to add in later once the core game is closer to completion. Their BRUTAL framework seems to give them a lot of control.
I hope (and believe) that RocketWerkz are focusing on the fundamental infrastructure before building out the game. Obviously that includes Celestial Mechanics, but I think it should also include the Modding System (ie; every feature is a Mod), the Component Interactions (how the various parts relate to each other in terms of communicating forces, but also thermal, fuel, control lines, etc), and Multi-Player (the propagation of State between multiple systems). Getting Multi-Player working should be (simply {??}) a case of developing a robust state propagation system. Once this is in place and integrated into the Components system, adding new functionality should not require enormous effort to support Multi-Player. It is critical that these integrated systems be established as early as possible because it will dictate what can be done performantly, so the SP version doesn't go down a path that the MP version can't follow.
@SpunieBard as said, thats the entire problem of it, its really not how it works. Many games that tried to add multiplayer after the fact failed, had unimaginable costs redeveloping features and the most basic elements of the game because the infrastructure didn't allow it. It's like building a bike for one person and later try to upgrade that to a family version vehicle for 4 people. Its more difficult to do at the start, but near impossible after thing was planed as a bike.
Kitten doesn't need the Kerbal IP. I plan to keep both KSPs installed anyway, after all the kerbalnaughts have been through. Green skin or no, we can all fly together.
Even the KSP2 Devs have not explained how multiplayer can work on this type of game: Imagine how many times you do timewarp. What will happen to the other gamers during this?
It should work on a minimum warp setting. other games do this. The player with the lowest warp controls how fast the game goes. Separate timelines is a horrible Idea
please let this game be amazing, it looks incredible. the titan atmosphere detail makes me feel like I'm actually on an interstellar trip to the outer solar system. I pray for this to be a success.
I like the idea of large inventory items that must be landed near one another. They could then connect and serve the purpose of building or refueling rockets. Energy and transmissions could have some nice deployable options and multiple types, such as solar and nuclear fission. Bases would matter more if we had access to more than one solar system.
I think they should allow for mods that change the species being played as. That way I can play Lombax space Agency, or Mouse, or Dog, or Human or Kerbal, depending on player prefferences
This will definitely be the case. Even if they don’t own the KSP IP, I bet that on day 1, there will be a mod that swaps out the kittens with “Furbals”
I think the multiplayer question is a tough one because if its going to be included, they need to build the whole game with it in mind. In my eyes its not a deal breaker either way, but I think they need to choose now and commit.
2:30 KSP SHOULDNT be a hard game to run. It's only becuase it does everything on a single thread when modern CPUs typically have more than 15-20 threads
And aditionally they wanted wobbly rockets = continuously calculating of physics of every component of the rocket with all connected components. Thats a lot of calculation especially when nobody wants wobbly rockets. For damage these calculations are only necessary when the rocket exeeds the threshold of the weakest part.
@@roli1227calculating when that threshold is reached would still require a bit of physics calculation all the time but certainly not as bad as wobbly parts
I really hope they don't do multiplayer. It could be a project destroying blunder. Time warp is essential and it's at cross purposes with multiplayer. And the effort invested is basically wasted for everyone who isn't actually using it, which would be almost everyone because multiplayer just isn't fun in a game like this.
They could have a voting system in a multiplayer server in which every player has to vote for a go ahead on time warp so that then every player gets time warped at the same reducing dispersion
As a game developer, I believe your point on multiplayer is somewhat misguided. Creating a multiplayer game requires significantly more effort than a single player one, adding multiplayer to a single player framework is almost impossible without redoing a large majority of the codebase, never mind the added complexity induced by custom vehicles, orbital mechanics, and time manipulation. They need to either build for multiplayer now, or not do multiplayer at all, because the alternative would be too costly. Edit:I saw other people echo this sentiment.
I have firsthand experience implementing P2P multiplayer and, if they intend to add it, the sooner the better. The benefits from folding it into everyone's workflow asap are far greater than the exponential cost of adding it later.
If anything, a crowdfunded purchase of the Kerbal IP should place it in the public domain. BTW, you said there would be a video linked in the description, but it isn’t. Only on screen at that point in the video.
gonna keep a eye on this one for sure, really hope it turns out good. on the fence about multiplayer, on one hand, it could be great fun to play with a small group, on the other hand, multiplayer is not the easiest to implement if they dont have the know how and is not willing to put in the effort, which is costly and time consuming, whichever they decide, for it to be properly done it has to be done early in development adn not just slapped on as a afterthought after release.
The issue is that if you want it to have multiplayer _ever_ then you need to design for it from day one. I agree there’s no need for it though. Space is too big to not have time acceleration, and there’s just no good answer to time acceleration with multiplayer. What I’d rather see is is a RP-1 style system for competitive gaming. Compete on how fast you can unlock milestones in a career play thru when everything takes time to construct and you can’t just launch 1000 ton rockets one after another without that construction time.
If you want to write efficient net code, it's best to do so alongside the regular development of the game, from the get-go. Trying to add it later on while continuing to develop the game will just incur huge technical debt that keeps building up. I'm no fan of online play either, but I can appreciate that they're trying to do this the right way.
The thing about feature creep, premature optimization, early multiplayer integration is: You actually have 3 choices: a) ignore the feature/optimizations and focus entirely on the current task (that's what KSP2 did) with the problem that adding it later is not really possible; b) full integration from the start, early optimizations etc. which will result in a good product but long development time and it's expensive; c) the middle ground I think should be used for any game in development: make absolutely sure that your design&architecture does not conflict with anything you want to add/optimize in the future, even if you don't know if you will do it yet. This is orders of magnitude less work (and therefore cheaper), while still not maneuvering the project into a corner that would require a restart from scratch to add something (with the "alternative" being implementing it poorly/laggy/buggy) This approach however requires a lot of skill, which nobody in either of the 2 KSPs development teams had.
Thanks for the update on the game and I agree with your opinions on it. Skip multiplayer at this time, don't waste money on the IP rights (the name) of KSP when that can be better used to get this game to release. If they can get it out and solid, they'll have a great foundation for building on it. Then it will be great to see where they can take it.
If they got the Kerbal IP for cheap, the best way to include it would be as an explorable lore drop. Maybe include the Kerbal solar system as an end-game achievement to find and explore, with the remains of the Kerbal Rocket center sitting there. Of course, the might be able to do that anyway, just not include the names and Kerbal images.
I really liked the gameplay that the KSP 2 team was making for the game. It reminded me a lot of the space game I played in my childhood Spore. Searching planets for resources to establish bases and progress in your technology is really fun. KSP 1 did it in a way that I don't really find all too appealing, so I'd rather wait for another thing than mod the original, I don't enjoy modding anyway. As for multiplayer, I don't usually like playing games solo pretty much ever unless it's a game with an active secret-hunt.
Additional note, I'd really like it if they made it so you progressed through technology more similarly to real history. Start the game off more prototypey with model parts instead of a weird flight sim thing.
The tricky thing about multiplayer is that it's really hard to add after-the-fact, because you have to re-structure everything to take it into account. Even if they decide to add multiplayer later, they would have to build the game as if it had multiplayer. They would save some development effort, but it would still add a ton compared to skipping it out-right. Seeing how multiplayer in a game with timewarp is already extremely complex, I would much rather they skipped it completely and spent those man-hours on other features.
KSA is made by original KSP devs - so they're basing themselves on the wildly successful KSP, not the failed one. And I hope that they'll do it similarly: Launch into EA once they have enough parts to make rockets that can get into orbit and bring probes to the moon and maybe even other planets which can then land successfully. Add in all the rest over time, until they feel that it's a full game and go into 1.0 full release. "can" is the working term here: I foresee myself exploding on the pad a few times before I make the first hops that ends in a crash. That's how I learned in KSP and it was a total blast! 😀 It made the first landing on mun that much more rewarding.
i want to add that the 2080 super regularly gets like 600+ fps and the lowest I've seen is around 200 but that was before recent omptimisations so I wouldn't be surprised if you'll be able to play this on a normal laptop at 30 fps I want to add tho that the devs have said that the fps at this stage of development basically means nothing, there are countless optimisations to be made yet and they haven't even implemented crafts yet as far as i know, and if you remember ksp, its achillies heel was big rockets, so we haven't even gotten to the bad part yet the success of KSA will lay in its ability to launch HUGE rockets without lag My personal metric of success will be if you can build a starship to scale, with procedural wings, motor joints and heat shield that you can like paint onto the belly
If they implement multiplayer, it would be easier if docking and physical contact wasn't in the scope. Same universe interactions at a distance would be easier, and it reduces the burden on the mathematics team.
I agree 100% with you on multiplayer. It would be nice to have, but I'd rather see an awesome game developed sooner and cheaper. They could possibly add multiplayer to the next version, which may not be easy, but once sales of the single-player version bring in enough funds, it would make the effort worth it.
The planned lawsuit against Minecraft got like 100k $ and Minecraft has a huge community. I highly doubt that the KSP community comes anywhere near that size so getting even 100k$ won't be easy and I'm very sure that the KSP ip won't be sold that low.
well ease of modding is one of the main features, so you definitely can have humans if you choose, but most people want something unique and memorable to play as, and it also helps with brand identity
Multiplayer would be a nice bonus, but absolutely non-essential. Roketwerks is a new studio. They need to be laser focused on the core experience. They can branch out into multiplayer with their next game after KSA.
paradox was planing to buy the KSP IP after the crash but considered too expensive, i don't think a smaller studio can get it....... only if paradox joins the project or other big publisher
they can always try to do multiplayer in the second game. granted I only want to play single player. it might be easier or better to have virtual players or something if people really want it. for the first game they need to focus on making it a great game that gets people hooked. so your thoughts sound good to me
KSP IP would be valuable in the sense that it won't be used against KSA by some parasite company. Regarding multiplayer: I don't see how it would work with time warp, which was absolutely necessary in KSP. On the other hand, building from 0 with mp in mind is much easier than shoehorning it on later.
I mean, so far this is more like game engine development than game development. There's no game here yet. I'd say build multiplayer capabilities into the engine from the bottom, if possible. That way, any game built on this can have the option.
Presumably not anything major yet. It has been only about half a year since intercept got shut down so they definitely haven’t had that much time to make a game of this nature yet.
Concerning multi-player it is important what you want to do with it. I can only imagine a dogfight or building on a station or base together. Doing a space race gives little interaction and for that I prefer time warp over multi-player. In the latter case even exchanging safe files is enough.
imho multiplayer would need to be *designed* in at the beginning, but implementation could wait. As long as the MP infrastructure exists (complete with software tests), that'd limit future problems. But the game would be much simpler as a single-player. In this case, don't try to add MP later: that'd be a development nightmare.
IF they make a multiplayer they will have to make new mechanics that can be comlpeted better (or faster) with multipule people. For example: a complex mining system for grinding money and/or fuel. Not complex in a you will have to watch a 50 minute tutorial to do the basics type, but more like needing to pipe those ores or fluids to your spaceship or a refinery part.
They really don't need the IP, and in my opinion they should try to control the level of spending and hiring as well. A small, passionate but well functioning team would be best for this type of work.
it's 100% easier to make a multiplayer game if everything is programmed with multiplayer in mind from the start. so, the earlier they start working on it the better. adding multiplayer to a solo game requires extensive code rewrites and foundational overhauls, so if they're gonna make a decision about multiplayer they oughta make it soon
I think your opinion is wrong on the multiplayer part (IMO). if they want multiplayer in the game at any point they will have to have that built from the start. These developers have created multiple multiplayer games before, so I think they could transfer most of that core work into this easily. The main problem with multiplayer is not timewarp or any of that. Its the reference frames, and syncing that all back up. this is the main reason why you have to build it from the start, its a bigger pain in the ass if you dont.
That's fair, and you're right, they can hopefully reuse some of that prior work. I do hope they can find a way to leave the door open for multiplayer while keeping focus on the core experience first though.
I'm going to miss the Kerbol system. But if we get the Outer planets like Saturn and Uranus, then I think it's a fair tradeoff... Venus will be as fun as (if not more) than Eve
I've seen too many space games that open with impressive procedural planet tech, and go nowhere. KSP was super engaging despite the barren and uninteresting planets. Maybe planet and orbital tech is the necessary place to start, but it can never amount to much more than the skybox in which compelling game-play experiences occurs.
I just don’t think it needs multiplayer tbh. Concentrate on making a great single player experience with modding options. Kerbals are irrelevant to me. I’d fly goldfish around if the game is good! Really looking forward to this.
I don't care about multiplayer for a kerbal like game. I care much about colonies, interstellar travels, more parts to build vessels, orbital stations, bases, and a mod with food, water and air management.
P.S. and the possibility to build a "space center" on any planet or moon with materials we could mine our self. This would be a nice thing to give a purpose to missions out of collecting science.
Now if it also would have mods that does not need compiling. Would be so much easier to maintain mods, even fix some yourself if an update broke it. Compiled mods was imho a huge pain point in KSP.
They mentioned that they want to get extremely early builds out for modders to test even before the early access period, so hopefully we will get more info on mods very soon!
Definitely looking forward to see where KSA goes. Multiplayer though looks to me like a trap. Because how would you implement that? I think promising multiplayer was one of the biggest mistakes made by KSP2. Players speed up time by several hundreds of thousands of times to reach a planet. Imagine taking off and someone warps time to go to Duna in the middle of it. Every solution to it I've seen is also imperfect at best.
The developers are making the same mistake again, which will force us to use another "Distant object enhancement" mod - the stars should not be seen in any scene where there is something lit by daylight. Space is a dark, scary void and that fact creates a lot of gaming immersion.
Multiplayer will be difficult with time warp. Maybe a competition to accomplish something within certain game time allowed. I like the Kerbals but if they are Kittens that might be even better.
Theres been a few ideas. I vaguely remeber for a KSP multiplayer mod it would time warp locally and then you could resync up to servertime once you're in your target sphere of influence. Or it could be a vote tied into some sort of alarm clock system pulling info from the trajectory and manover nodes (or equievelant). Then there's the simple idea of just basic yes no voting.
I can do without multiplayer. I get the appeal, but not every game needs to have a multiplayer component. Let the community figure it out and tack it on later as a mod. ;)
My gripe with original KSP was never in the graphics. It was faulty orbital mechanics and bad performance on ships with many parts. So smooth transitions between orbit and terrain and atmospheric scattering leave me unimpressed, visual candy is what we got from KSP2 the most of. Sure, it's imporatant part of the game too but only after the rest works well enough to let the player appreciate the beauty.
Wouldn't it be interesting if a game like this could use Space Engine as... its engine. Wasn't Space Engine supposed to be an actual game engine other games could use to render a realistic and fairly accurate universe?
As much as I'd like to see the Kerbal IP continue, the fact is it would not be a good idea. Players in general would feel that they should get this new game 'free' since KSP 2 imploded, etc. And I don't see how they could get around it. Sadly, unless someone is willing to 'make good' and give away the next KSP, the name is just going to be a negative. So sad.
Regarding Multi-player, you either work on it from the beginning, or you don't work on it at all. This is absolutely not the kind of feature you can bolt to a game engine after the fact. The KSP community is really interested in this way of playing, so the KSA devs must take this into account for the future success of the game. Better to work on it right now then.
Buying the Kerbal IP: No, because most people don't follow the news around the game in detail, would confuse it with KSP2 and therefore not like it. What should happen with all the sold KSP2 EA copies? This is Take Two/Intercept/Secret Buyer's problem at it should remain like that. The value of the KSP brand is probably below 0 at the moment. Multiplayer: Can only happen, if the game is built around it from the start - far too complicated to add later. I agree that multiplayer is probably not worth it, it would make development very complicated and it is not really needed for a KSP game. Also time warp would be a big problem.
We don't *need* Kerbals. We need a fun game. Kerbals were a means, not the goal. Kittens would do just fine too. I also honestly don't want multiplayer. I want to explore the planets and, ideally, the stars. Multiplayer delays that.
You dis on multi-player saying it should be left as an add on later. Unfortunately to properly incorporate multi-player capability the game has to have it as part of their base coding. Otherwise the added strain of a second almost full game add on to make it multi-player would balloon the cost and time needed later. That is one big reason ksp2 failed. Because they used the single player base program and tried to Jerry rig a multi-player to it. If you start with a multi-player optimized engine then lock up the multi-player capability to the public while the game can release working single player content while beta testing a second multi-player content until the full game is ready then multi-player can be unlocked when it is ready...
It not worth buying the game name brand. It total waste of money. We need to let got. There are spin off base on games. So what the point if there shady deals. I hate traps and strange request and bullying. Just work on the game which will save cost. You get bankrupt instead of helping but hinder develop. Just make the game that it. Example factorio and someone name it base on their to satisfactory. We must have vary name to make it more interesting.
If the KSA developers don't understand what made KSP great, then they are doomed to fail just like KSP2. Be wary when developers push fancy graphics, effects, math models and other crap on you. The game needs meat and bones, not just skin.
Multiplayer not a priority IMHO. Let's have a solid KSP-like foundation with most of the QOL mods already implemented into the base. Once you have a proven, working base, they can plan DLC for multiplanetary, multiplayer and whatever. Let's remind we are amateur rocket scientists and we want to send rockets around in the most realistic way ;-)
We have a great single player space exploration game. It's called KSP1. We don't have a good multiplayer space exploration game. Minecraft is one of the largest and most popular game in the world because it's multiplayer, not despite it. Multiplayer let's people bring their friends and teach them to play. You don't need tutorials when a friend is inviting you to share their world.
They should absolutely NOT buy the IP. Unless its free, its not worth the effort. T2 destroyed the IP while also making it more expensive. KSP multiplayer is dumb, my opinion, to me its always been a single player game.
If they want multiplayer, they really have to put it now. It's not something that can be easily tacked on later down the line.
they propably are. And their self made game engine is good at doing multiplayer, it seems
Hopefully its something they can prepare for while working on the core game, so that it isn't too difficult to add in later once the core game is closer to completion. Their BRUTAL framework seems to give them a lot of control.
I hope (and believe) that RocketWerkz are focusing on the fundamental infrastructure before building out the game. Obviously that includes Celestial Mechanics, but I think it should also include the Modding System (ie; every feature is a Mod), the Component Interactions (how the various parts relate to each other in terms of communicating forces, but also thermal, fuel, control lines, etc), and Multi-Player (the propagation of State between multiple systems). Getting Multi-Player working should be (simply {??}) a case of developing a robust state propagation system. Once this is in place and integrated into the Components system, adding new functionality should not require enormous effort to support Multi-Player. It is critical that these integrated systems be established as early as possible because it will dictate what can be done performantly, so the SP version doesn't go down a path that the MP version can't follow.
@SpunieBard as said, thats the entire problem of it, its really not how it works. Many games that tried to add multiplayer after the fact failed, had unimaginable costs redeveloping features and the most basic elements of the game because the infrastructure didn't allow it. It's like building a bike for one person and later try to upgrade that to a family version vehicle for 4 people. Its more difficult to do at the start, but near impossible after thing was planed as a bike.
Multiplayer simulation will be done in different chambers in the engine unless the rockets are close enough together
Kitten doesn't need the Kerbal IP. I plan to keep both KSPs installed anyway, after all the kerbalnaughts have been through.
Green skin or no, we can all fly together.
Second this.
I guarantee they get modded in if they don't get the kerbal ip anyway
Minute this
Hour this.
Even the KSP2 Devs have not explained how multiplayer can work on this type of game:
Imagine how many times you do timewarp. What will happen to the other gamers during this?
there are some existing multiplayer mods in ksp1, and i believe ksp2 devs sorta stated a few times how they wanted it to work
@@clayel1 In which of this mods is timewarp a supported concept?
@@tabbycat6802 both of them i believe, it kind of creates separate timelines which you can jump to at any point to sync up
It should work on a minimum warp setting. other games do this.
The player with the lowest warp controls how fast the game goes.
Separate timelines is a horrible Idea
The idea of using a vote system where players would agree when to enter/exit warp has been thrown around. Not sure how I feel about that.
please let this game be amazing, it looks incredible. the titan atmosphere detail makes me feel like I'm actually on an interstellar trip to the outer solar system. I pray for this to be a success.
It does look incredible. It looking this good this early is a good sign, I hope!
I hope KSA has proper base building that isn't just landing modules next to each other
How would you build a base off world?
I like the idea of large inventory items that must be landed near one another. They could then connect and serve the purpose of building or refueling rockets. Energy and transmissions could have some nice deployable options and multiple types, such as solar and nuclear fission. Bases would matter more if we had access to more than one solar system.
@@davidndounou Probably have a building UI that tracks nearby materials from inventories
I think they should allow for mods that change the species being played as.
That way I can play Lombax space Agency, or Mouse, or Dog, or Human or Kerbal, depending on player prefferences
This will definitely be the case.
Even if they don’t own the KSP IP, I bet that on day 1, there will be a mod that swaps out the kittens with “Furbals”
I think the multiplayer question is a tough one because if its going to be included, they need to build the whole game with it in mind. In my eyes its not a deal breaker either way, but I think they need to choose now and commit.
2:30 KSP SHOULDNT be a hard game to run. It's only becuase it does everything on a single thread when modern CPUs typically have more than 15-20 threads
And aditionally they wanted wobbly rockets = continuously calculating of physics of every component of the rocket with all connected components. Thats a lot of calculation especially when nobody wants wobbly rockets.
For damage these calculations are only necessary when the rocket exeeds the threshold of the weakest part.
@roli1227 part welding mod FTW
@@tytyguy1ableThx for the mod!
@@roli1227calculating when that threshold is reached would still require a bit of physics calculation all the time but certainly not as bad as wobbly parts
If ppl want to crowdfun purchasing the IP, they should make it public domain, so any studio who wants to take a shot at making a game here, can do it
n body physics is so cool for a game like this, but holy shit would it make the game SO MUCH HARDER. cant wait.
holy crap!
these are the smoothest LOD transitions i have ever seen.
I see this as a video opportunity when it releases.
space gato
Ksp was never about kerbals, or kerbin, or duna, or etc, thats just the vessel for the fun.... that said i would love it is KSA ended up using humans.
I really hope they don't do multiplayer. It could be a project destroying blunder. Time warp is essential and it's at cross purposes with multiplayer. And the effort invested is basically wasted for everyone who isn't actually using it, which would be almost everyone because multiplayer just isn't fun in a game like this.
They could have a voting system in a multiplayer server in which every player has to vote for a go ahead on time warp so that then every player gets time warped at the same reducing dispersion
Multiplayer as in Cooperation, not pvp. And I do not generally care about singleplayer games anymore. I want to have fun with friends.
The idea of fucking up my friends space station because I can't fly my rocket very well seems pretty funny to me
As a game developer, I believe your point on multiplayer is somewhat misguided. Creating a multiplayer game requires significantly more effort than a single player one, adding multiplayer to a single player framework is almost impossible without redoing a large majority of the codebase, never mind the added complexity induced by custom vehicles, orbital mechanics, and time manipulation. They need to either build for multiplayer now, or not do multiplayer at all, because the alternative would be too costly.
Edit:I saw other people echo this sentiment.
I have firsthand experience implementing P2P multiplayer and, if they intend to add it, the sooner the better. The benefits from folding it into everyone's workflow asap are far greater than the exponential cost of adding it later.
If anything, a crowdfunded purchase of the Kerbal IP should place it in the public domain.
BTW, you said there would be a video linked in the description, but it isn’t. Only on screen at that point in the video.
gonna keep a eye on this one for sure, really hope it turns out good.
on the fence about multiplayer, on one hand, it could be great fun to play with a small group, on the other hand, multiplayer is not the easiest to implement if they dont have the know how and is not willing to put in the effort, which is costly and time consuming, whichever they decide, for it to be properly done it has to be done early in development adn not just slapped on as a afterthought after release.
The issue is that if you want it to have multiplayer _ever_ then you need to design for it from day one.
I agree there’s no need for it though. Space is too big to not have time acceleration, and there’s just no good answer to time acceleration with multiplayer.
What I’d rather see is is a RP-1 style system for competitive gaming. Compete on how fast you can unlock milestones in a career play thru when everything takes time to construct and you can’t just launch 1000 ton rockets one after another without that construction time.
Fwiw, I agree on the mp and KSP license. I think it expands the scope too much.
Buying the KSP IP makes no sense. It was barely known and only gained (and lost) popularity along with the Take2/Intercept flop.
the only reason to do it would likely be to prevent another company from making a ksp clone and taking business away from ksa
Elon is a big fan of KSP...
Has a lot of money...
And... He is a Game Developer sins kid.
@@elbuglione KSPX: Musky space
@@elbuglionekeep that grifter away
If you want to write efficient net code, it's best to do so alongside the regular development of the game, from the get-go. Trying to add it later on while continuing to develop the game will just incur huge technical debt that keeps building up. I'm no fan of online play either, but I can appreciate that they're trying to do this the right way.
The thing about feature creep, premature optimization, early multiplayer integration is: You actually have 3 choices: a) ignore the feature/optimizations and focus entirely on the current task (that's what KSP2 did) with the problem that adding it later is not really possible; b) full integration from the start, early optimizations etc. which will result in a good product but long development time and it's expensive; c) the middle ground I think should be used for any game in development: make absolutely sure that your design&architecture does not conflict with anything you want to add/optimize in the future, even if you don't know if you will do it yet. This is orders of magnitude less work (and therefore cheaper), while still not maneuvering the project into a corner that would require a restart from scratch to add something (with the "alternative" being implementing it poorly/laggy/buggy)
This approach however requires a lot of skill, which nobody in either of the 2 KSPs development teams had.
Thanks for the update on the game and I agree with your opinions on it. Skip multiplayer at this time, don't waste money on the IP rights (the name) of KSP when that can be better used to get this game to release.
If they can get it out and solid, they'll have a great foundation for building on it. Then it will be great to see where they can take it.
Really don't like the AI thumbnail
true
sounds like ur personal issues with AI
@papascrumpeeh yeah I have personal issues with ugly art made by a wasteful machine built on theft.
I just hope they change the name. Kittens are fantasy, not scifi. Little green men worked because it was a scifi trope.
The Kzinti Lesson says otherwise.
If they got the Kerbal IP for cheap, the best way to include it would be as an explorable lore drop. Maybe include the Kerbal solar system as an end-game achievement to find and explore, with the remains of the Kerbal Rocket center sitting there. Of course, the might be able to do that anyway, just not include the names and Kerbal images.
I really liked the gameplay that the KSP 2 team was making for the game. It reminded me a lot of the space game I played in my childhood Spore. Searching planets for resources to establish bases and progress in your technology is really fun. KSP 1 did it in a way that I don't really find all too appealing, so I'd rather wait for another thing than mod the original, I don't enjoy modding anyway. As for multiplayer, I don't usually like playing games solo pretty much ever unless it's a game with an active secret-hunt.
Additional note, I'd really like it if they made it so you progressed through technology more similarly to real history. Start the game off more prototypey with model parts instead of a weird flight sim thing.
The tricky thing about multiplayer is that it's really hard to add after-the-fact, because you have to re-structure everything to take it into account. Even if they decide to add multiplayer later, they would have to build the game as if it had multiplayer. They would save some development effort, but it would still add a ton compared to skipping it out-right. Seeing how multiplayer in a game with timewarp is already extremely complex, I would much rather they skipped it completely and spent those man-hours on other features.
KSA is made by original KSP devs - so they're basing themselves on the wildly successful KSP, not the failed one.
And I hope that they'll do it similarly: Launch into EA once they have enough parts to make rockets that can get into orbit and bring probes to the moon and maybe even other planets which can then land successfully. Add in all the rest over time, until they feel that it's a full game and go into 1.0 full release.
"can" is the working term here: I foresee myself exploding on the pad a few times before I make the first hops that ends in a crash. That's how I learned in KSP and it was a total blast! 😀 It made the first landing on mun that much more rewarding.
It's a nice solar system but need to see some spaceships.
i want to add that the 2080 super regularly gets like 600+ fps and the lowest I've seen is around 200 but that was before recent omptimisations
so I wouldn't be surprised if you'll be able to play this on a normal laptop at 30 fps
I want to add tho that the devs have said that the fps at this stage of development basically means nothing, there are countless optimisations to be made yet and they haven't even implemented crafts yet as far as i know, and if you remember ksp, its achillies heel was big rockets, so we haven't even gotten to the bad part yet
the success of KSA will lay in its ability to launch HUGE rockets without lag
My personal metric of success will be if you can build a starship to scale, with procedural wings, motor joints and heat shield that you can like paint onto the belly
If they implement multiplayer, it would be easier if docking and physical contact wasn't in the scope. Same universe interactions at a distance would be easier, and it reduces the burden on the mathematics team.
I hope we finally have game with laminar fluxes in vacuum for particles instead of turbulence.
Now, that's a beautiful thing. I wonder how well it'll handle high part count ships.
I agree 100% with you on multiplayer. It would be nice to have, but I'd rather see an awesome game developed sooner and cheaper. They could possibly add multiplayer to the next version, which may not be easy, but once sales of the single-player version bring in enough funds, it would make the effort worth it.
The planned lawsuit against Minecraft got like 100k $ and Minecraft has a huge community. I highly doubt that the KSP community comes anywhere near that size so getting even 100k$ won't be easy and I'm very sure that the KSP ip won't be sold that low.
It's also pretty stupid to donate money so a company can own copyrights to an IP and enforce them against you.
It definitely wont be sold that low.
i do not understand why we cant have humans? why kerbals or kittens?
well ease of modding is one of the main features, so you definitely can have humans if you choose, but most people want something unique and memorable to play as, and it also helps with brand identity
@@htoothiribo1465 makes sense
Multiplayer would be a nice bonus, but absolutely non-essential. Roketwerks is a new studio. They need to be laser focused on the core experience. They can branch out into multiplayer with their next game after KSA.
3:10 could this mean that nothing will be on Rails?
God that zoom into the moon is beautiful
paradox was planing to buy the KSP IP after the crash but considered too expensive, i don't think a smaller studio can get it....... only if paradox joins the project or other big publisher
i want a ksp2 like story line, that was the best part of ksp2 in my opinion
they can always try to do multiplayer in the second game. granted I only want to play single player. it might be easier or better to have virtual players or something if people really want it. for the first game they need to focus on making it a great game that gets people hooked. so your thoughts sound good to me
KSP IP would be valuable in the sense that it won't be used against KSA by some parasite company.
Regarding multiplayer: I don't see how it would work with time warp, which was absolutely necessary in KSP. On the other hand, building from 0 with mp in mind is much easier than shoehorning it on later.
Multiplayer either you focus from the START or it will never work. It is either NOW.. or NEVER. That is how things work when you build an engine.
I mean, so far this is more like game engine development than game development. There's no game here yet.
I'd say build multiplayer capabilities into the engine from the bottom, if possible.
That way, any game built on this can have the option.
Thanks for telling me about this, I think if this comes out I'm gonna buy it I'm a big Kerbal Fan.
Definitely! I am trying to not get too hyped before we see some actual gameplay, but I am very excited about this one.
cant wait to play KSA v0.13 and watch it grow from their. (this comment is a referance to me starting in ksp 1 at 0.13)
I 100% DO NOT care about multiplayer. If it's there, i won't use it anyway.
But is there any gameplay?
Presumably not anything major yet. It has been only about half a year since intercept got shut down so they definitely haven’t had that much time to make a game of this nature yet.
Concerning multi-player it is important what you want to do with it. I can only imagine a dogfight or building on a station or base together. Doing a space race gives little interaction and for that I prefer time warp over multi-player. In the latter case even exchanging safe files is enough.
imho multiplayer would need to be *designed* in at the beginning, but implementation could wait. As long as the MP infrastructure exists (complete with software tests), that'd limit future problems.
But the game would be much simpler as a single-player. In this case, don't try to add MP later: that'd be a development nightmare.
I agree. Hopefully they can build in the foundation for multiplayer now, but focus on single player first.
IF they make a multiplayer they will have to make new mechanics that can be comlpeted better (or faster) with multipule people. For example: a complex mining system for grinding money and/or fuel. Not complex in a you will have to watch a 50 minute tutorial to do the basics type, but more like needing to pipe those ores or fluids to your spaceship or a refinery part.
They really don't need the IP, and in my opinion they should try to control the level of spending and hiring as well. A small, passionate but well functioning team would be best for this type of work.
it's 100% easier to make a multiplayer game if everything is programmed with multiplayer in mind from the start. so, the earlier they start working on it the better. adding multiplayer to a solo game requires extensive code rewrites and foundational overhauls, so if they're gonna make a decision about multiplayer they oughta make it soon
I think your opinion is wrong on the multiplayer part (IMO).
if they want multiplayer in the game at any point they will have to have that built from the start.
These developers have created multiple multiplayer games before, so I think they could transfer most of that core work into this easily.
The main problem with multiplayer is not timewarp or any of that. Its the reference frames, and syncing that all back up. this is the main reason why you have to build it from the start, its a bigger pain in the ass if you dont.
That's fair, and you're right, they can hopefully reuse some of that prior work. I do hope they can find a way to leave the door open for multiplayer while keeping focus on the core experience first though.
Will it be for Xbox as well?
Hopefully not
No multiplayer
I'm going to miss the Kerbol system. But if we get the Outer planets like Saturn and Uranus, then I think it's a fair tradeoff... Venus will be as fun as (if not more) than Eve
hopefully the promises of ease of modding are true and people will be able to add the kerbol system back in a way that plays the same
I've seen too many space games that open with impressive procedural planet tech, and go nowhere. KSP was super engaging despite the barren and uninteresting planets. Maybe planet and orbital tech is the necessary place to start, but it can never amount to much more than the skybox in which compelling game-play experiences occurs.
Does kitten have a RUclips? Definitely a good way to keep people up to date and promote.
Rocketwerkz
i hope my hd graphics will run this
I just don’t think it needs multiplayer tbh. Concentrate on making a great single player experience with modding options. Kerbals are irrelevant to me. I’d fly goldfish around if the game is good! Really looking forward to this.
I don't care about multiplayer for a kerbal like game.
I care much about colonies, interstellar travels, more parts to build vessels, orbital stations, bases, and a mod with food, water and air management.
P.S. and the possibility to build a "space center" on any planet or moon with materials we could mine our self.
This would be a nice thing to give a purpose to missions out of collecting science.
as a 2080 super owner, i am very glad to hear this news. (i got mine for $180 on ebay lol)
Something i would love to see is Controller Support
not only is the 2080 getting up their in age, he still got 800FPS lmao. As long as I get 60 I'm happy
They should leave the Kerbal ip alone and focus on the cats and what they've got going here. It looks incredibly primising
Now if it also would have mods that does not need compiling. Would be so much easier to maintain mods, even fix some yourself if an update broke it. Compiled mods was imho a huge pain point in KSP.
They mentioned that they want to get extremely early builds out for modders to test even before the early access period, so hopefully we will get more info on mods very soon!
I would give up multiplayer completely if such was the cost of a successful game
Definitely looking forward to see where KSA goes.
Multiplayer though looks to me like a trap. Because how would you implement that? I think promising multiplayer was one of the biggest mistakes made by KSP2. Players speed up time by several hundreds of thousands of times to reach a planet. Imagine taking off and someone warps time to go to Duna in the middle of it. Every solution to it I've seen is also imperfect at best.
The developers are making the same mistake again, which will force us to use another "Distant object enhancement" mod - the stars should not be seen in any scene where there is something lit by daylight. Space is a dark, scary void and that fact creates a lot of gaming immersion.
Multiplayer will be difficult with time warp. Maybe a competition to accomplish something within certain game time allowed. I like the Kerbals but if they are Kittens that might be even better.
Theres been a few ideas. I vaguely remeber for a KSP multiplayer mod it would time warp locally and then you could resync up to servertime once you're in your target sphere of influence. Or it could be a vote tied into some sort of alarm clock system pulling info from the trajectory and manover nodes (or equievelant). Then there's the simple idea of just basic yes no voting.
I can do without multiplayer. I get the appeal, but not every game needs to have a multiplayer component. Let the community figure it out and tack it on later as a mod. ;)
really don't see the point in buying the kerbal IP - if they play their cards right, rocketwerkz could get an IP the same size of ksp/bigger than it
My gripe with original KSP was never in the graphics. It was faulty orbital mechanics and bad performance on ships with many parts. So smooth transitions between orbit and terrain and atmospheric scattering leave me unimpressed, visual candy is what we got from KSP2 the most of. Sure, it's imporatant part of the game too but only after the rest works well enough to let the player appreciate the beauty.
Wouldn't it be interesting if a game like this could use Space Engine as... its engine. Wasn't Space Engine supposed to be an actual game engine other games could use to render a realistic and fairly accurate universe?
getting old versions of space engine vibes from it
Screw multiplayer I just hope for a stable good game that doesn't shit itself if there's more than 1 craft active on screen
As much as I'd like to see the Kerbal IP continue, the fact is it would not be a good idea. Players in general would feel that they should get this new game 'free' since KSP 2 imploded, etc.
And I don't see how they could get around it. Sadly, unless someone is willing to 'make good' and give away the next KSP, the name is just going to be a negative. So sad.
GIVE ME KERBALS OR GIVE ME DEATH.
THIS IS NOT KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM 2, RUclips.
I hope the game uses multithreading.
Regarding Multi-player, you either work on it from the beginning, or you don't work on it at all. This is absolutely not the kind of feature you can bolt to a game engine after the fact. The KSP community is really interested in this way of playing, so the KSA devs must take this into account for the future success of the game. Better to work on it right now then.
Buying the Kerbal IP: No, because most people don't follow the news around the game in detail, would confuse it with KSP2 and therefore not like it. What should happen with all the sold KSP2 EA copies? This is Take Two/Intercept/Secret Buyer's problem at it should remain like that. The value of the KSP brand is probably below 0 at the moment.
Multiplayer: Can only happen, if the game is built around it from the start - far too complicated to add later. I agree that multiplayer is probably not worth it, it would make development very complicated and it is not really needed for a KSP game. Also time warp would be a big problem.
3:43 So this might be able to achieve 60 fps on a potato!
We don't *need* Kerbals. We need a fun game. Kerbals were a means, not the goal. Kittens would do just fine too. I also honestly don't want multiplayer. I want to explore the planets and, ideally, the stars. Multiplayer delays that.
minimun Hardware specification:
- RTX 5080
- The best CPU in the market
- 128 GB of RAM
better than KSP 2 XD
They shouldn’t buy ksp ip. Just focus on development. I bet the modding community will release mods that replace the kittens with kerbals anyways.
You dis on multi-player saying it should be left as an add on later. Unfortunately to properly incorporate multi-player capability the game has to have it as part of their base coding. Otherwise the added strain of a second almost full game add on to make it multi-player would balloon the cost and time needed later. That is one big reason ksp2 failed. Because they used the single player base program and tried to Jerry rig a multi-player to it.
If you start with a multi-player optimized engine then lock up the multi-player capability to the public while the game can release working single player content while beta testing a second multi-player content until the full game is ready then multi-player can be unlocked when it is ready...
It not worth buying the game name brand. It total waste of money. We need to let got. There are spin off base on games. So what the point if there shady deals. I hate traps and strange request and bullying. Just work on the game which will save cost. You get bankrupt instead of helping but hinder develop. Just make the game that it. Example factorio and someone name it base on their to satisfactory. We must have vary name to make it more interesting.
Completely agree, I feel it would be a total waste of money.
If the KSA developers don't understand what made KSP great, then they are doomed to fail just like KSP2.
Be wary when developers push fancy graphics, effects, math models and other crap on you.
The game needs meat and bones, not just skin.
Multiplayer not a priority IMHO. Let's have a solid KSP-like foundation with most of the QOL mods already implemented into the base. Once you have a proven, working base, they can plan DLC for multiplanetary, multiplayer and whatever.
Let's remind we are amateur rocket scientists and we want to send rockets around in the most realistic way ;-)
We have a great single player space exploration game. It's called KSP1. We don't have a good multiplayer space exploration game.
Minecraft is one of the largest and most popular game in the world because it's multiplayer, not despite it. Multiplayer let's people bring their friends and teach them to play. You don't need tutorials when a friend is inviting you to share their world.
The name is so ass though
👀👀👀🎯🎯👌👌
I'm so tired of the cartoony look. Let's go Real Solar System with people (we can keep cats as an option).
They should absolutely NOT buy the IP. Unless its free, its not worth the effort. T2 destroyed the IP while also making it more expensive. KSP multiplayer is dumb, my opinion, to me its always been a single player game.
Kittens > Kerbals