Bej Kerman

If you have a better idea on how to assemble a ship that's half as long as the runway and runs on an engine that is too big to fit in the VAB, well, we're all ears Personally, launching a skyscraper from an orbital colony sounds completely in the spirit of building and flying cool ships.

The exploration genre in games never interested me Well KSP's 4 pillars according to Intercept are engineering, exploration, realism and goals. KSP 2 is only going to be extending those 4 pillars and not getting into such human things as finance and warfare. If you like warfare and finance and not engineering and exploration, then it's no surprise you don't like the idea of KSP 2. But you don't need to waste your time trying to explain why you think focusing solely on exploration is bad when you can just look at other games to play. That's my advice. You're not going to sway people that enjoy exploration and colonization into thinking interstellar travel and colonies are bad.

Warfare, as it is in real life, is a pointless endeavor supported by only the most primitive life forms that are still categorized as Homo Sapiens, ones that somehow find themselves in positions of leadership against all logic. What does KSP have to gain with warfare? If you want warfare, Children of a Dead Earth exists and has far more realistic radiation and weapon physics than KSP 2 will see in mods. I don't want KSP's proverbial bucket of apples ruined by a drop of sewage such as warfare. Interstellar builds on the game, anyway. As GoldForest said, people've been enjoying Interstellar for the better part of KSP 1's life span now; a lot more people will enjoy having torch drives and interstellar megaships than throwing missiles at each other in an attempt to emulate the human race's brutality and short-sightedness. We've wanted to place launch pads down for years now. The several mods we have right now that exist specifically for this are a testament to that. Humans... Why does everything need to be done with a competitive mindset? Does the idea of Pol being easier to launch from than Kerbin not give you enough reason to place a colony there? If you need capitalism in order to bother exploring, then I'm truly lost for words.

You believe PC Gamer journalists get all their information from my forum posts? There are obviously leads and sources that point to that possibility for multiplayer. A. There aren't any "leads and sources", unless you'd care to point to any B. They didn't have any citations for "forum member Vl3d—who wrote a post in April that envisioned KSP 2 multiplayer as "a competitive space-race team-based persistent-world MMO with inter-agency contracts and trade"—may be getting their dream for "the greatest game ever made."", which is understandable because the idea of KSP being used as the basis for an MMO is silly, especially with timewarp moving different groups of players to different subspace bubbles. Bit of a tangent but somewhat relevant, the only things from PCGamer you should ever trust are the bits of articles that quote the devs - everything else is filler or rotten speculation from the journalist.

Can say that about anything. What's the gameplay value of floating in space? All you do is a bunch of maneuvers to land on some rock. What's the gameplay value of aircraft? All you do is fly around, rockets can do that and much quicker. If you don't understand what makes underground oceans and caves exciting, that isn't necessarily going to apply to everyone.

It's easy to recognize as KSP 1 because the parts have less polygons than a Super Mario 64 model. It just goes to show that you should put thought and logic before hype before you end up mistaking KSP 1 footage for KSP 2 and having PC Gamer articles claiming KSP 2 will have MMO elements. What am I saying. To Kraken with hype!

6 minutes would be tedious - half that time is already enough tedium for a trip to Jool without BetterTimeWarp. Make it 30 seconds (42,075,901x time acceleration)

Would a breathing mask protect you from the extreme radiation that close to the Sun and that high out of the atmosphere?

[snip] That's funny, the first thing I did yesterday was build something in space that'd rotate quickly and fling payloads to higher orbits. Each time it spins up and the payload's docking port joint starts flexing, it crashes consistently. Every single time it reaches a decent speed. I've never seen a game before that crashed within the first hour I started playing it as was intended. If I can't do engineering challenges in an engineering game, what am I playing for?

[snip] I'm saying it as it is. Each stage of EA isn't far apart and the idea that the game on release is going to be any less than KSP 1 is simply wrong. The next paragraph addresses the fact that playing KSP 1 tends to cause more pain than just waiting, and the one after that addresses the fact that if you don't like the engineering aspect of a game then no amount of destinations will make you enjoy the engineering. Nothing here attacked you. Again incorrect, everything in KSP 2 is based on realistic technologies. Either way, I'm glad we could finally concede that KSP 2 does in fact have more content than KSP 1.

No kind of progression mode (which includes strategies, currency, contracts, milestones, etc), no science gathering or tech progression, no resources... in what way would you say that this first early access release has more features than KSP? Maybe a few extra parts, procedural wings, new UI... literally zero new mechanics have been added that we know of, and a lot of them have been taken away from KSP. You're going to ignore the stability, improved graphics, improved physics, greatly improved aerodynamics and wings, and interstellar travel in the next few months after release, etc. all because you don't have a funny little mechanic that locks parts away from you depending on arbitrary milestones? Besides, you're acting like each stage of EA is years apart. They aren't. Let's face it, KSP 1 is a mess of a game; its codebase probably isn't that much more impressive than the codebase of Microsoft Flight Simulator 4.0. I'd wager we'd have a better product right now if sometime in the 0.17 days Squad had noticed the concept of KSP was getting too big for a codebase Harvester only made for a pseudo-3D mobile game and had rebuilt it from square 1. We only bother with using a game that's easy to crash within 20 minutes of picking it up because we don't have much choice in regards to spaceflight and engineering games. And in just a few months we'll have "just KSP 1" but the first gadget you try building won't immediately crash the game. Why not focus on that instead of getting worked up over the fact you're going to have to wait what'll feel like a few minutes to also see interstellar flight and multiplayer? Frankly, no wait would be as painful as sticking to KSP 1. Many of the complaints here feel in the same spirit as "LEGO is boring because it's just a bunch of coloured bricks that look the same after a while". If building rockets so they don't topple is boring to some people, then I don't imagine fancier looking planets and more tangible goals is going to do a lot to help.

Sounds like K to me... Why would Take Two need 2 identical games? If it's a space flight simulator like KSP 2 I am certain it will not be another Kerbal game. Besides, plenty of SFS games exist besides KSP, you can't just assume it's K because it has space flight in the blurb.

We have 0 reason to assume it's got to do with KSP. The people that worked on Outer Wilds would be perfect for this.

Because Stratzenblitz's EVE infinity sea-level ship works the same way as any other rocket and took 0 imagination to build... If the only difference is the size of the rocket then you're not even bothering to learn how you can make these trips more efficiently. You say your playstyle isn't relevant but if your style is to avoid creative engineering then how are you supposed to enjoy a game where engineering is the core of the game?

Considering that early access offers a half-finished game without any requirement to complete anything beyond the initial version, which in KSP 2 is currently advertised as a sandbox with less features than KSP 1, I find this evaluation amusing. You're literally incorrect. I do believe it was made clear that the initial version will have more features than KSP 1 and that everything else in the roadmap is already in a good state telling from in-dev screenshots. Baseless assumptions that contradict evidence go nowhere.

1. One could think you're making your posts on the silly assumption that KSP 2 is, like KSP 1, being developed with no plan, by amateurs. That's simply not true and I'm fairly confident that everything you said is going to go out of the window in a few months; it's being developed and planned out by experienced individuals. Unless they handed development back over to Squad right this second, which won't happen, you won't find any "half-finished" things because this time there was actual rhyme and reason to the development of each feature. The new tidy flight interface makes that much apparent. 2. That's if you don't bother finding fun and interesting ways to abuse it. Refer to 1,

I'm saying that players, with KSP 2's on boarding, won't spend 100s of hours learning to land on the Mun. They won't even spend 50 hours learning to put a basic colony on Eeloo. In fact, most tutorials on KSP were good enough to get players to the other planets and KSP 2's tutorials will be even better. KSP 2 sure as rain will not need to simplify spaceflight to get players to go interstellar, and you don't need to make people scared it's somehow going to turn into EVE or something. Your post is built on a very faulty premise to put it lightly.

My point's that they don't know how to do a Hohmann transfer from Kerbin to Duna and they haven't taken the initiative to learn how to do things like this, and yet they're commenting on how the game would need dumbing down for interstellar (hint: it doesn't) and making comments on these game mechanics you're best only commenting on if you understand it.

Given that they're condemning interstellar travel because they themselves make the game harder every time they get closer to being able to pull off an interplanetary mission and then go on to say that the devs would need to make the game easier for interstellar travel despite not having the experience to say that's not true in the slightest, I'd say it is fair.

You're denouncing interstellar travel for problems that KSP 1 had which will probably not be present in KSP 2? The gameplay loop involving colonies, space construction and resource gathering on its own will probably nullify most of this first paragraph. Even then, KSP 1 had landmarks unique to planets. Duna has a face, Val has cryovolcanoes, Dres has the largest canyon, etc. and having planets like Rask and Rusk will probably further encourage players to make stops at different planets. I'm just saying, the basis on which you're saying interstellar travel will make these minor problems worse is really shaky.

That was KSP 1; KSP 2 should provide most of the tools needed to make these judgements. No it isn't, it's a completely different game altogether. New codebase, new code altogether, mostly new dev team, none of the spaghetti code from KSP 1 is in KSP 2. I'm guessing you either forgot what it was like playing KSP at first, or you got your NASA degree first then got KSP? EVE is a spreadsheet simulator. Well, that's the joke, but it's kind of true. More accurately, it's an economic simulator in which you can commit hostile takeovers of rival corps by declaring war and sending a fleet against them. People think it's just about space battles and mining, but the real endgame is in managing the economy and logistics of a 1000 player or larger corporation/alliance and competing with other corps/alliances. It's very much unlike KSP, they just both have pretty space graphics. To add to that, Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous couldn't even qualify for simulators. They're both hideously simple, but they hide behind unnecessarily convoluted control schemes that provide the façade of a sophisticated simulation. Citation needed Try not to base a mini-essay on an assumption that has no source yet - sure, some people would enjoy a game that is mostly unrelated to KSP and leans into detailed simulation, but as per Newton's 3rd law, you're going to lop off an equal or perhaps much greater amount of the playerbase that plays KSP rather than Orbiter specifically for what KSP provides over Orbiter, a casual easy-going experience.

Is that not the entire point of technological advancement?

I wouldn't agree. What use is a special kid in a universe of incomprehensible size?

Overpowered, creating a Kerbal like this should be a case of using them a lot on many missions as opposed to getting one because a dice roll said so.

Perhaps now would be a good time to begin trying to understand how far a light year is. Travelling 4 light years after scraping up 100km/s using, say, Ion engines, would take 11,000 years...