Bej Kerman

If you're using Steam, verify the integrity of the game files via the properties panel.

As Pthigrivi referred to already in the original post, its not designed properly then if it is a "pointless leash" It does not matter in the least how it is implemented, career mode remains nothing more than a leash.

It's for players that don't like being put on pointless leashes. Not sure why that has to equate to being a newbie.

Please read the context and avoid to cherrypick me to fit me in your narrative. It doesn't matter what the context says, you called it a cheat (which it isn't).

Simply incorrect. Sandbox is a mode where you're bound only by orbital mechanics as opposed to also having arbitrary monetary limits and availability of parts. That doesn't make it some kind of cheat, you're still bound by Delta-V and physical limits.

Well according to some books it can be done in less tha 7 days. Those books are, of course, wildly out of date and based on knowledge that no longer applies (no matter how many astronomers the churches try burning)

Because you say so? Read Ryaja's comment, games change and between the scope changes, COVID and possible overconfidence from either Intercept or Take Two, delays are to be expected.

3 delays. 4 years. That's reality. You were expecting it to take less time to semi-handcraft a universe and balance all the gameplay?

The preferred term for "when you understand but can't prove it" is called having incorrect beliefs with no basis in reality

I still want the cheats of the debug menu in the game no matter what. I am currently putting a craft into Eve orbit with 'set orbit' The alternative would to launch a rocket from Kerbin to Eve every time which would be a complete waste of time No-one said cheats shouldn't be a thing, nor is "sandbox = cheat" a good analogy; it's a terrible one that only serves to make it look like a point has been made against us. Pthigrivi and Pandaman gave you likes, who knows what good they see in this (not even well-made) strawman.

It also still remains that no matter how well progression is done, most of the people here who chose sandbox did it because they didn't know how well it was implemented and simply weren't interested in progression. I still think that removing sandbox, and expecting that players still wanting it go through the process of cheating things in, is a rather transparent attempt at completely discouraging people from playing that way. That's a bad thing to do.

I assume this challenge is aimed at very new players?

Asking someone who plays a "sandbox mode" whey they would want to do that is definitely missing the point of why a sandbox player plays sandbox. Also you are bold to assume the save files will be editable at all, or easy to do so. I was playing Devil's Advocate. The point is to show Pthigrivi that "just make it a sandbox using cheats" is a rather tedious alternative to just pressing the 'sandbox mode' button and flying about with my own goals.

Why would you? Even if you had a reason to do that, you could just edit it through the save file, which I believe gives you more choices than toggling it in-game. Right?

Like an options screen, instead of having to tediously add credits and resources? It's removing them in principle. It doesn't matter if it's a separate game or not, we have sandbox mode now and then we don't. You're picking apart the words used and missing the point. People want sandbox mode.

Pthigrivi, can you take a moment to consider how you'd feel if KSP 2 removed its career mode because a few players decided they didn't like other players being able to play with the restrictions they like in a game? That's only what you're suggesting, with career swapped for sandbox and restrictions swapped for freedom and choice. Some people just want to build a space station in their days off without having to worry too hard about money, resources and research points. Why you don't like the idea of players having a choice in how they play is beyond me.

Isn't that just sandbox mode with extra steps? Rather than having people put in a bunch of cheat codes, it'd be easier to just let them select sandbox mode when they start a new save. Honestly, yeah. Just have sandbox mode anyway and let players make the choice themselves if they want to be bound by pointless rules. Removing modes doesn't do anything but force players to play the way you like - and the way you like it isn't the way everyone else has to like. Force the player to finish the tutorials and a part of the game before unlocking sandbox mode. That's how other games do it. That only frustrates sandbox players coming from KSP 1 and players reinstalling KSP 2 after a hiatus. Forced tutorials are a massive pet peeve for many people. This is all based on assumptions. Just because you hate sandbox mode doesn't mean other players enjoy having to put cheats and mods into their game before they can just play the game setting their own goals. The reason KSP 1 took so long to get a career mode is because people felt just fine having a little game that didn't put them on a leash tightened by budget and tech tree mechanics. This is kind of what I was envisioning KSP 2's sandbox to be like - primary resources are unlimited, so just like in Cities Skylines, you can go crazy and spam things all over to kickstart your city (or colony) but you still need to manage it properly, make sure LS is working, make sure that your (admittedly infinite) resources are making their way to the right places, and so on. It is still a sandbox because you could theoretically jump-start a massive orbital colony and from there do pretty much anything that can be done in the game, which is the point of the sandbox, but at the same time it has structure. This is how KSP 1 always did things so I'm not sure why people suddenly see sandbox as a threat. Why do people need to care so hard about how other people like to play?

IIRC Nertea is doing modelling on KSP 2 now.

same. Ok, cool. You're in the MP discussion thread, so I can't really suggest much else than enjoy the MP discussions.

This is the second time you've suggested they add something that's already present in KSP 1.

I'm confident in saying KSP 2 multiplayer is 99% likely to be co-op.

Yes, obviously, but what advantage is there to reducing the in-game time spent going from place to place? That's what I mean. Never thought of an answer because I never seen the point in actively thinking about how the time in-game does not really matter in the real world. I just play along with the in-game clock, that's all.

Because it takes less in-game time.

No-one said that.

Renders the thread useless if we have to leave the thread to discuss it.