Developer Insights #5 – KSP2 Tutorial Animations

[Guest]

It does, but it's just part of a bigger problem, namely the uselessness of Kerbals in general. Crew management should be a big part of the gameplay, but in KSP1, they're just... there. There are very few things that Kerbals can do on EVA in first place. KSP2 needs to seriously expand this aspect.

Of course, controlling a Kerbal on EVA for an hour would be boring, but let's say to fix a part you would have to EVA your engineer, clamp him/her securely near the part, and click "work on the part", which would then take an in-game hour, or two. Of course, you could timewarp through it (that's the point of it), but it could also mean you miss a burn and that your supplies will drain, so you would have to plan it out. But this would require some autonomy on part of Kerbals, limited life support, reliable ladders and parts that get broken (without exploding) in first place.

3 hours ago, Gargamel said:

But you have to remember, this is a game, not a simulator.   Having slightly over powered reaction wheels is a good thing for game play.  Yes, there's some who don't enjoy it, but the vast majority of KSP players aren't looking for a hardcore sim experience.  For those that are, there's a plethora of mods available for KSP and I assume there will also be for KSP2, that make the changes in a fashion they see fit.  

The devs have to design the game for the greatest number of players, not for a select few. 

No, having overpowered reactions wheels is very much not a good thing for gameplay. It's not about it being a simulation, it's about this being, you know, a decent game. There are too many problems that, instead of thinking up a clever solution, are most efficiently solved by piling on reaction wheels. From a game design standpoint, it's an exploit, a broken gameplay mechanic that needs to be nerfed. 

Reaction wheels and CMGs (they really should have given them a proper name) should have two functions: giving early players a crutch for attitude control on their smallest rockets, and serving as a slow, backup system should RCS propellant runs out. They should definitely not be a primary control mechanism for aircraft, which is a role they're currently quite good at. Right now, they make RCS meaningless except for one specific application, and unless you're really short on ECs, can replace control surfaces, too. Oh, and to add insult to injury, they're a very early game technology. Everything about the situation screams "bad game design". All that overpowered RWs really do is cover up the really badly coded (and prone to oscillations if not provided with a reserve of magic torque) SAS system.

They only make sense if you treat KSP as a toy, rather than a game. KSP1 is indeed a just toy (the game aspects are half-baked and not worth the time), but I'm hoping for KSP2 to be actually fun to play as a game, and that includes actual game balance. A good game starts out easy and gets harder as it progresses. KSP,1 OTOH, starts out ridiculously difficult, then once you find the exploits (RWs, the Science Lab...), it becomes completely trivial.