Bej Kerman

Why would you assume the worst in the first place? 5 seconds of silence and the world's ending. Come again, how is doing a giant space drift through the interstellar void faster than going there in a straight line? [~ snip ~]

Probably ya if it increases overall market share. You're going about this as if we're talking about EA, not Star Theory. Given the news we've been getting from them, I don't think they give care about what the publisher thinks. And since this is an already niche fanbase, the publishers will want to be careful anyway.

Their publisher. And will the publisher like it when the casual players, a large portion of KSP players, and those with time restrictions can't play the game as they want or at all and end up, well, not paying precious money?

So the devs matter more than the player now? Who are they developing a game for? Ditto.

Exactly. Said what I've been trying to say much better than me. The "This whole thread can pretty much be summed up by "I want every player to play the game exactly like I do, otherwise they can just sod off and play something else"" part is especially true, KSP is a simulation and you should be able to change the rules of a simulation. Restricting the rules of a simulation doesn't accomplish much, does it? Well, other than driving players away, which is the opposite of what you want to achieve when releasing a game. The player should dictate how they play, not the devs. Would it be at all possible for you to not gatekeep KSP? All you're doing here is telling people that they should either play exactly how you want or just sod off. Wish I could give more than one like. Taking away freedom then telling the player to go away if they want freedom is kind of a silly argument.

Ah, right, tell half of the KSP fanbase to stop playing instead of giving them more freedom to actually learn things that could help them get a job at a space agency. That'll benefit the devs.

Brik seems to think everyone should use Commnet. Except for Simple Rockets 2 which is still in its early stages, suggest another casual realistic space flight simulator. I play KSP for a reason, mate.

i never said I didnt want those in the game, but I should have the choice to disable any of them, Commnet in my case, because I don't always have enough time to play KSP """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""properly""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".

@Brikoleur, just accept that not everyone has enough time to play KSP """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""properly"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""". It's useless arguing for something that's going to cut off much of the fanbase.

Well, why do you think the game never got the story mode it was going to have? Your opinion is duly noted, and with the greatest respect, I disagree. And while you may not be finished, I am – so with that I'm politely bowing out of this conversation. Not even going to elaborate on why you think console players should be pushed around?

No: I'm suggesting a separate mode called Sandbox needs to go, and instead there should be a single mode with a handful of sliders that lets you play in the functional equivalent of any of the four currently-existing modes, and many more that aren't possible with the current setup. Additionally there should be a way to save world states as templates for new games, and a few pre-baked world states that let you jump straight into the equivalent of currently-existing modes. Except I don't want to waste time with sliders. Because I think CommNet ought to be a core system in the game, every bit as much as the rocket equation or Newtonian orbits. Aren't you going to take notice of the first couple sentences? It's the difference between giving a you a box of Legos, and telling you to build a specific model out of the Legos. And forcing Commnet is like telling someone to build something 5x before being able to build their own things. And I'm not changing it. So, how about we note that we disagree on this question, and move on? But I'm not finished.You think that console players should be restricted in freedom? You think they shouldn't be able to play the game if they get unlucky with their available freetime? I'm not going to stop until I've made it clear that forcing Commnet down everyone's throats is a bad idea.

The functional equivalent of a sandbox mode. It's just not a separate mode: you're still in the single game mode, you're just starting with a different world state. If you set the funds and science cost coefficients to zero, it'll be an exact equivalent, with the sole exception that you could still enter mission control to accept missions if you want to; you just won't have anywhere to spend the credits or science since everything's free. Then have a button for it. I already said there's a pre-baked world state named "Sandbox." Click on that and go. You're also suggesting that needs to go. Sorry, that's not how it works. The way they're set up, probes should require a signal to work. As I said, it's too bad if this opinion upsets you, but I believe this quite strongly. Um, no? What the player does is essentially just preprogrammed commands to the probe. If you believe what you say strongly, I'm not sure why you're suggesting that KSP 2 should force commnet on people when most of them are casual or just getting into the game. I reiterate: I'm not saying the devs should choose how you play. I'm saying they should choose what you play with. What's the difference? It doesn't spoil the whole casual aspect of it. It just means that using probes is a bit more work than sending crewed missions. If you want to play casually, just send crewed missions and don't use probes. Yes it does spoil the casual aspect of it, and I can say this because unlike you, I'm a casual player and know what a casual player would think. They'll have to set up comms if they want to use probes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Not taking that as an answer.

I'm one of those people, a lot of the time. I've spent inordinate amounts of time making various aircraft with no career uses, for example, then cheating them to Eve or Duna to see how they work there. Right Same, I quite often start it up just to make a new helicopter or plane or whatever. I do play Career a lot, but that's by no means the only way I play it. Then why no options? How about a billion? Trillion? Quadrillion? I don't want to limit your initial credit balance at all. Nor would I object to an item in the F12 menu under "Cheats" giving you more Funds or Science outright. Edit: Or see below, I wouldn't object to a "Cost Multiplier" slider that you can set to zero to make everything free. In fact "Funds Cost Multiplier" and "Science Cost Multiplier" sliders would be better than the Reward Multipliers we have now, because they would allow you to completely ignore Science or Funds when set to zero. So consider my proposal amended, the starting parameters are: Resource Abundance (0 - 100, where 0 = no resources anywhere, 100 = every biome has 100% ore, and 50 is the developer default) Starting Funds (0 - some very high value, say, 10,000,000) Starting Science (0 - total Sci cost of tech tree) Funds Cost Multiplier (0 - some very high value for extra challenge, say, 1000%) Science Cost Multiplier (0 - some very high value for extra challenge, say, 1000%) Additionally, I'll throw in checkboxes "Buildings Upgraded," "Tech Tree Unlocked," and "Parts Bought" as time-savers so you don't have to click through the stuff yourself. They do what they say, except that if "Buildings Upgraded" is off, "Tech Tree Unlocked" will only unlock the first tier of the tech tree as the next tiers aren't available, and of course Parts Bought will only buy the parts in the unlocked part of the tech tree. How's that sound? I don't want any finite amount of credits. At some point it'll run out. "Additionally, I'll throw in checkboxes "Buildings Upgraded," "Tech Tree Unlocked," and "Parts Bought" as time-savers" In other words, a sandbox mode? If you had a trillion credits in your bank account -- good for a million million-credit missions – then there's no reason to do any of the contracts if you don't want. (I also think career gameplay should be completely overhauled, Contracts are clearly unsatisfactory, but that's a whole another discussion.) Unless they run out. You would be able to start off with (effectively) infinite credits, all buildings, and all parts. Reputation wouldn't even matter if you're not interested in Contracts, but I see no reason why you couldn't set your starting Reputation the same way. Then give me a sandbox mode so the credits and stuff aren't in the way. I don't want to mess with sliders with a new save, I just want to click sandbox and be done with that. Okay, now, I think this is the only actual material point of divergence I think we have. I believe very strongly that the base KSP game should give all players the same basic set of toys to play with: that the physics and the parts should work the same for everybody. I've listed some reasons: it makes the game designers' job easier when building gameplay on top of those systems; it also makes collaboration between players easier – e.g. sharing craft has less friction if you don't have to account for which settings the craft was designed for. So yes, I do think that if you simply can't live with CommNet, then you should have to live without it: instead of sending out probes, send out crewed missions. That's already a massive built-in workaround for it. It's regrettable if this opinion upsets you, but I believe it quite strongly and I don't think there's much you or anyone else can say to get me to budge on it. So in sum: no, I do not want to dictate how you play, but if you want to put it uncharitably, I do want to dictate – or, more accurately: I want the creators of KSP and KSP 2 to dictate – what toys are in the toy box. But I want to send a tiny probe instead of a pod! That's your answer to everything! I don't want to use the silly commnet that manages to mess you up in the worst spots possible. And no, a developer shouldn't choose how the players play... in a sandbox game. Game devs should never dictate how a player plays a game. This game is meant to be a sandbox - career and science were only added as optionals. Yeah, I'm missing out on accidentally landing on the terminator and losing connection half-way through a landing. I'm missing out on messing around with satellite constellations just to send a probe to scout some terrain. I'm missing out on being forced to use heavy, fuel-wasting crewed pods if life decides I shouldn't have time to play KSP the way I don't want to. Don't you start trying to tell me that commnet is good in any shape or form when I don't have time to mess with it and make things that carry more than a tiny light probe. This conversation summed up - apparently players should be forced to use a game mechanic that spoils the whole casual aspect of it. And what about the console players who can't mod this stuff out? What about em?

Crisps. Big, massive crisps with handles so the Kerbals could pick them up in their gloves and shove them in their oddly massive mouths.

Unfortunately for you, that's the consequence of reducing optional features, like commnet and re-entry heating. Do you know what? Some people just want to play the game casually. When I boot up KSP, I'm not usually in the mood to do another 5 trips to Jool to establish a sat network so I can fly a probe around. That would take an absolute eternity, and some people just don't have an absolute eternity to spend. Some people make incredibly expensive, massive ships (Heard of youtuber ShadowZone?), and starting out with a million credits won't be a sandbox to them. Even if there were a million credits per mission, people don't want to break away from their current task to send some tourist to point B. People like me, SZ, and other casual players would suffer a massive hit to not be able to start off with infinite credits, reputation, buildings and all parts, and have to set up massive networks to send a little scout somewhere in the solar system. In fact, when KSP 2 comes out with ships hundreds of meters long, and expensive types of fuel, this would be an even bigger problem. People starting off might not want re-entry heating on because they just want to learn how to land on Laythe without the risk of being incinerated. Making a new save without sandbox mode would be convoluted and cumbersome, and it would take a while to upgrade everything. Do you see what I'm saying now?

If I can't turn off the silly time-wasting Commnet, then what if I want to just play the game casually and put a tiny probe around Duna without messing around? What if I don't want to click through the entire tech tree, all the building upgrades and sloooooooooowly replenish credits when my insane amount of money runs out? The solution: Options and modes! Not only can you play the game as casually or as hardcore as you like, but consoles get customisation too!

Except the title is saying that KSP 2 should have no options.

I created a self-contained Kraken drive by learning how they're made from another craft. It's about 4m tall and 2.5m wide, and can go to 80km/s before the wheel suspension decides to stop working.

No options is a terrible idea that'll drive away plenty of people, most of them casual players. Because guess what? KSP is meant to be played casually, why do you think it exists in the same world as Orbiter?

Walk the dog. Cook up a nice curry. Go to the beach. Kiss a girl (or boy, if that's your preference). Play some other game. Lots of things you could do. Ah, so you're saying that half the players wanting to play KSP 2 should sod off? That would be a bit of a hit to the KSP 2 developers, this anti-option nonsense, wouldn't it?

What if I don't want to deal with that nonsense? It's like you don't want KSP to be casual, even though it's meant to be a casual spaceflight sim.

But what if I don't want to deal with all that <snip> and send a probe without having to use bulky pods?

But also explosions.

But weapons cause explosions

But what if I want to send a probe and not mess around with Commnet, which is what you see as an ideal game for some reason?