Bej Kerman

Clearly they are -and besides, I want to keep track of which Kerbals came from whom. Besides, everyone just being named 'Kerman' is completely boring and is a dumb gag in the context of the game's humor.

No, it's just as easy and intuitive as getting into orbit I.E. you'll find it as difficult to land a booster as you 10 years ago found it difficult to achieve orbit. You're gonna need to practice, you won't be good at it immediately. Same can be said about just getting into orbit - as I've said, you can't remember how difficult it was getting into orbit. You've (probably) got lots of skill now, and you wouldn't say getting to orbit is difficult, which would invalidate the whole 'it doesn't get any easier' thing you said. Or, maybe, practice? It won't be easy immediately, but that's not the point. Just about everything you do in KSP looked impossible at one point.

Bravo! I fail to see how one could not have fun gracefully guiding boosters through the atmosphere, even if repetitively. Trying to reuse the ascent stage was the focus of most of my spacecraft.

Automated milk runs will be a thing so repeated propulsive landings to a single colony are ruled out.

Unfortunately the people who give up in that scenario won't have fun attempting to escape Rask and Rusk with little stable orbital configurations nor getting their interstellar burn right without falling several hundred billion kilometers to the side of the system. The scope of KSP is expanding and you'll find yourself at the beginning of the learning curve again, and it'll seem like everything is too difficult to do. Propulsive landings will be a part of that, and while automated milk runs will help alleviate repetitiveness, it's a skill that'll become just as important as getting to orbit.

That's not the point. And how many hours and reloads did you pour into being able to do those things? Exactly - a lot. I'd imagine you put a lot more hours into starting out in KSP than you did trying to land boosters. Landing boosters is no different as trying to thread the Mun arch or establish a Tylo base. The difficulty of landing a booster is something you must accept to have fun, equally as much as learning interplanetary transfers and the aerodynamics on a spaceplane depending on the amount of stuff in its fuel tanks. Nor does NASA have some poor sod take their rockets to orbit every time they need a satellite in space. But obviously launching rockets and getting them to orbit is a part of KSP - equally as much as returning boosters. Yep. That includes flying them back to base.

Nope but I'm sure if I tried as hard as I did when I was first starting out - when I had to try as hard as possible to do anything in this game - then I could get it down fairly consistently. Either way, quickloads are a thing. This. Not everyone has the time or patience to perfect landings. Nor does everyone have the patience or time to perfect their ability to rendezvous with objects in a far different orbit, but that happens to be the minority KSP panders to; KSP is literally about time and patience. Moot points all round.

That's definitely false; cargo runs are gonna be massive part of the game, and reusing/scrapping rockets will probably be one of the ways players try to conserve resources as they run colonies. It's just as difficult as orbiting Kerbin or landing on the Mun for the first time - it's identical. It's something that comes to you over time and eventually you forget that there was ever any difficulty to it in the first place. I see lots of posts about how difficult landing rockets will be, but that's only because previously we weren't pushed to develop new skills like that. We just got settled into the routine of launching rockets and landing landers and forgot that in the beginning these seemed like monumental tasks to pull off, but now with booster landings being more prominent we are having to do something new with our rockets that previously we didn't know how to do. It seems like a monumental task now but landing boosters is going to become easier in the same manner as all the other skills you developed in KSP.

SAS may be off. I agree, EVA controls are bologna. Basically every space game I've played in recent memory with EVA things have a sync velocity feature that cancels all your velocity relative to the selected object. With that missing in conjunction with how fiddly precisely controlling a Kerbal can be, trying to precision place parts in orbit is a pain.

Squad has never heard the addage 'don't fix it if it isn't broken'. Wheels pre-suspension were fine, but after that the physics got progressively worse and now we're stuck with duct tape workarounds - like the recent fine-tuned steering at high speeds. I don't get why wheels were never reverted or why there aren't any mods (to my knowledge) that do that, but for the time being we'll have to deal with wonky physics, Kerbals phasing through wheels and ships blowing up instantly on touchdown with the runway.

It seems a bit silly that a toolbar mod is required for a mod in a game that already has a toolbar flush with the rest of the UI, but still you get used to the semi-pointless clutter and Kerbal bloatware as your pile of mods grows.

Skill? Practise? You really don't need anything special to land on target - you just need to put as much effort into learning to land your rocket as you did when you were first learning to get into orbit. Trajectories accounting for atmospheric interaction would be handy but it really isn't too necessary. Recalling my previous attempts at recreating the Falcon 9, it was quite fun actually trying to land the boosters anyway despite the difficulty. It helps we have quicksaving and quickloading.

And you base this on absolutely nothing, correct? Moot point given that rockets are already risky, orbital mechanics already requires stupid precision like skyhooks will, and skyhooks would reduce the size of rockets and the amount of explosive substances they have to take.

...and?

That's the lame answer. The exciting answer is: hopefully yes. KSP 2 will have better modding support.

FAR does not massively spike the difficulty of the game, you simply have to get used to having to put more effort into ridiculous stunts. Besides, you'll have more things to be concerned about, like three-body orbits around Rask and Rusk, and interstellar flight.

There will be challenges beyond just getting into orbit, which is a chapter KSP 2 has moved past. The focus has been shifted from getting into orbit and getting around with what little Δv you have to creating interplanetary and interstellar infrastructure - tell me, how would you begin accomplishing this just with the KS-25 and nuclear engines of yesterday? Besides having lots of Delta-V, you'll need to get used to flip-and-burn trajectories which lend themselves to landing too close or too far to a planet or star if done wrong.

*cough* metastable metallic hydrogen engines *cough*. About as silly as metal birds with people inside, but you don't know what physics has up its sleeve.

Skyhooks as well while we're at it, utilizing KSP 2's far superior physics. Such structures could be used for Kerbin as well.

You build them on sight KSP 2 will be much more optimised than KSP 1, which has been known for a very long time. Well it will be lol.

Cncadiamondset

The oberth effect is a completely different phenomenon. It was not said that gravity assists are allowed.

Sounds over 100-200hz should get quieter, not the whole spectrum, I still want some sort of feedback when doing stuff in space.

It doesn't matter, orbital decay would only serve as a distraction from actual gameplay. You will have unstable orbits in proximity to Rask and Rusk to look forward to though.

Realistic Spaceflight means nothing when you're sitting in some adjacent room eating popcorn while MechJeb does all the work