PDCWolf
-
Posts
1,617 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by PDCWolf
-
-
1 hour ago, regex said:
I don't care at all whether Kerbals used methalox first, it's pretty clear to me we're not playing out the earliest days of their experimentation despite what any flavor text says. Maybe they tried a bunch of options before settling on methalox. Maybe the tier 1 science is their industry getting up to speed, not unlocking tech. There are plenty of explanations for that and I don't need to agonize over them. KSP2 clearly isn't about going from sounding rockets to Mercury to Apollo and beyond.
And those conclusions, specially for newer players, and specially if you're changing foundational stuff for the first game, shouldn't be left as an exercise for the reader. As for the second part, even then, a lot of the ordering choices of the tree don't make sense, which is kinda why this thread exists.
-
2 hours ago, regex said:
I don't care at all about the first game or parity with it. I'm playing KSP2 now.
Care about whichever of both you like, KSP2 will still need an explanation of how refined methane is easier to research and come by than black powder.
I remember from AMA 1 that Shana said she hired writers based on their ability to produce a credible explanation of why Kerbals went crewed first, guess that didn't go far either: Not only is the crewed first part unexplained, but also the text for the first node reads "This is the first step from firework rockets to real rockets"... Did they have liquid fueled fireworks? Methalox is not hypergolic so they'd need pumped, ignited liquids.
So yeah, as much as you don't care, heck, even if we ignore KSP1 at all, the problem is still there. This is "gameplay" vs common sense, and I'm using quotation marks because gameplay justifications look very flimsy.
-
On 12/29/2023 at 2:52 PM, Vl3d said:
Of course probes should come before crew. Same for SRBs.
In a normal universe, in which the devs actually listened to the players and the N modders that came before (excluding @Nertea, for he is the Destroyer of Fun), progression would be something like thisWhilst I agree that probes and SRBs should be first, the progression there seems excessively linear. I'd much prefer a bigger chance at variety, as almost every path should be a valid path forward, instead of the linear + optional system we have now. This highlights how badly part, fuel, and tech variety the game needs.
On 12/29/2023 at 2:52 PM, Vl3d said:PS: Why, oh why do people not understand that the point of Tier 1 for veterans is not to land on Tylo with the first node parts, but to actually go through the historic progression of space flight and have fun around Kerbin? Just like a beginner would.
No reason to try and rule over how people should play the game. If I'm given a set of parts capable of taking me to Tylo, and I want to challenge myself to do it, then there should be nothing but my own skill stopping me. If anything that outlines that experienced players have gone for what's now gonna be 11 months without getting at least a bone thrown at them. That is the problem, not the other way.
1 minute ago, regex said:On the whole manned vs. probe argument, I don't actually care one way or the other but I don't think Kerbals should be held down by humanity's path forward. They're overly-enthusiastic aliens who started their orbital program with methalox engines and their entire concept (and view of the consequences) of "danger" is clearly much, much different than ours.
The problem I see here is this conflicts with the first game, where you start with SRBs. Also how they discovered methane refinement before the very natural charcoal+sulfur+potassium nitrate for black powder rockets is beyond any sort of logical explanation. At some point all the gameplay vs common sense (not even realism) concessions become unintuitive and counterproductive. Now not only does veteran knowledge from KSP1 become useless, but basic real world science gets thrown out the window, and not even for a case as strong as the smaller planets have.
-
16 minutes ago, Kerbart said:
And I don't think the tech tree should purely, only, and exclusively be tailored towards first time players. It's very important that the game doesn't provide extreme hurdles for first timers, but that doesn't mean that options should be not available for experienced players, who can have all kinds of reasons to pick them over liquid fuel engines. Even if some players don't see the point in it. "It's not needed because I personally don't want it" is generally a position that's hard to defend.
Wouldn't it be easier for experienced players to unlock whatever they want almost independently of where in the tier it is? we're talking about completing the full tier in your first or second flight.
Just to be clear, I agree with you that the game shouldn't be entirely tailored to first time players, but in this case, with T1 being so cheap and easy to get, I don't see how making it not obligatory (or keeping it obligatory and maybe making it clearer for first time players why srbs are a thing) should affect us. -
3 minutes ago, hatterson said:
For equivalent sizes, solid boosters are either lighter than engine + fuel tank or very close in weight.
Thumper is 7.65T whereas 3x FL-T400 tanks + LV-T30 "Reliant" engine is 8T.
Hammer is 3.56T whereas FL-T400 tank + LV-T30 "Reliant" engine is 3.5T.
Flea is 1.5T whereas the lightest non vacuum engine at that tech is the Reliant at 1.25T for the engine alone even without fuel.
Yes, which is pretty pointless because weight is another limitation not included in the game unlike KSP1 where the pad had weight limits, making solid rockets more and more pointless. I'm sure someone launches solid boosters to space as a last payload kick but still, that's certainly a small minority.
-
15 minutes ago, Kerbart said:
SRB's are still my goto if I need raw thrust. It's a lot easier to improve TWR with SRB's than with liquid fuel, especially if I don't need that thrust anymore when some of my LF has been burned up, and we're higher up with enough velocity to worry less about gravity losses. Of course, I could throttle down at that point, but I'd rather just run 100% throttle all the way with staging in between than managing thrust. Call me lazy. Designed that way, my launch vehicles also tend to be simpler.
1 minute ago, hatterson said:One of the tough things in balancing tier 1 is that all of us veteran players, even when we're launching "newbie" rockets, still know the valuable nodes. I know that getting Environmental Science is an obvious choice because it gives more ways to collect points. I know a need a heat shield to do orbital flight (normally). etc.
If a new player instead look at the tree and says "oh man, basic docking would be cool" or "hey micro-construction would be fun to build small satellites" they might drop all of their points on things that don't actually help them progress and end up sort of soft locked. So the early nodes need to be cheap enough that you can easily dig yourself out of that hole. Once you've got tier 1 mostly unlocked then it's pretty easy to dig yourself out either by doing Duna/Eve or by just landing on the mun/minmus in different biomes a few times so in tier 2 and beyond you have much more flexibility to ramp up the node cost and slow down unlocks if you're doing slow progression flights.
Granted one way this might be alleviated would be to have additional secondary missions like launching into a polar orbit and having the existing secondary missions like launching a satellite and having a circular or elliptical order unlocked earlier since even a newbie can very reasonably do those with only a few nodes unlocked if they're able to get to orbit in the first place (and they're also valuable in teaching new players the ropes)
The purpose of solid rocket boosters is raw power. If a new player is struggling to get off the launchpad, its far more natural for them to strap a couple solid rocket boosters to the side than it is to strap LOX stacks to the side.
Whilst I agree their TWR is better than an equivalent-sized liquid combo, their weight is also much higher (another limitation gone), and I don't think first time players are steered to understand any of that at some point, specially since it's both a very early node and an obligatory one.
-
37 minutes ago, Vl3d said:
Can you be a little more clear about what you mean?
I agree that "strap on more boosters" is not the ideal way to play the game, but the improvements to heating force you to consider TWR and velocity in the atmosphere more than before. But this doesn't seem to be a tech tree balance issue.
We start the tech tree with liquid fuel and liquid engines. What's the point of solid rockets now? They can't be the "cheaper alternative" they were in KSP1, because cost is not longer an issue. Unless you force yourself to use them, they're a waste of points that will literally add nothing to your program. My personal guess is this is exactly why they're obligatory to unlock on the way to tier 2, because they're an obvious skip otherwise.
-
45 minutes ago, RayneCloud said:
I really have to ask this question every time I see one of these, "This is stupid, get rid of it!" /Feedback/ posts..
How would you do it? Seriously, how would you design it? What do you want? Describe the form of gameplay you want. Describe your design, step for step, let's have it.
Also, if you're going to talk about science in KSP2 from a point of "realism" , you do realize that we launch probes in to space that just sit in space and follow commands sent to them to just take pictures and gather data from sensors yeah? Ya know, like SOHO, JWST, MRO, LRO, Artemis, MAVEN, Trace Gas Orbiter, etc....I had to pay already for the privilege of play-testing and emit feedback, why would I also perform the job of a paid position on top of that?
I can design you a science mechanic, come back to it with a presentation, multiple docs, spreadsheets about balance, and whatever you ask, but we've gotta talk money first. If you want stuff for free, there's plenty on the thread.
-
I think balance-specific feedback is kinda moot until other restrictions (namely resources) roll in. As much as people like to ignore me, the glaring issue that is solid rockets gives all the balance answers you need whilst having no block button.
-
44 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:
Not to pick a fight with or belittle anybody to whom $50 is a lot of money, but if it’s a basic truth that the price tag triggered a lot of people, another basic truth is that to a lot of people $50 isn’t as big a deal as it is to some. $50 for the EA plus the extremely high likelihood of a feature complete v.1.0 for free eventually and the ability to tag along for the game’s development (with bonus arguments on the forums!) was and remains a perfectly acceptable deal to a lot of us, and one that’s looking better following For Science!.
Oh no, definitely, there's people that can really put $50 on a shelf and wait around for it to turn into a game, or not be bothered if nothing happens, and that's mostly fine too. I'm not minimizing their validity but will however make a very safe bet that they're not the majority.
5 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:Thank you for your reply, I'll see it as a confirmation that price did not set your expectations, and you not speaking on behalf of yourself when you bring up the subject of price setting expectations.
You can see whatever you want. Get out of the forums and you'll see whatever it actually is. 20% repeat buyers from KSP1 and ~75% refund rate speak for themselves.
6 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:I wasn't talking about many, I was talking about you outgrowing, you do not have to use a royal we in your arguments to try to make them bigger.
It's not royal, if you think it's just me, that's just another count of being wrong. Maybe not the majority of people are on the club of outgrowing KSP1, but that still isn't just me.
7 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:I don't know, I fully expected nonsensical missions in KSP2 being a successor to KSP, where I was asked to bring the biggest 'We were to busy with if we could, we never asked if we should’ Rover Wheel into orbit to be tested in space.
That experience did set expectations for me for what it would be.
That's the lolsokerbal mentality doing its damage to the brand. Bac9 was always right about this.
-
Just now, LoSBoL said:
You must be speaking on behalf of everyone but those ten people, not on yourself. You were one of the most informed people who knew what they were going to ge for 50 dollars. The 50 dollar price point didn't in the slightest set your expectations, it merely set one of the conditions for you to keep bringing up as an argument because the game development isn't to your personal liking.
How do you think the release outrage would've gone if the game was $10? That's all the answers you need about price setting expectations. I don't know why this forum turns its face around so hard in front of such a basic truth.
3 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:If you want something new, something more to explore from KSP2 for science Milestone, you're going to be disappointed, you've pretty much mastered KSP and outgrown it, I mean, who can take up the challenge of flying a 1000 part manned mission to Mars in RSS, it might have even been a return mission but I don't remember. I think you need other challenges to be challenged. Next milestones might bring that, but might dissapoint you as well. That's life.
Yeah, I mastered and outgrew KSP1, why is KSP2 more of what's been mastered and outgrown by so many? It clearly didn't attract that many new players despite catering to them, selling less than 20% of the original. Also, you're confusing me with somebody else. I've played RSS and versioned some of my mods for it, but never wrote or publicized anything about 1000 parts to Mars.
Finally, something very basic this discussion is bearing out: The game shouldn't be a random challenge generator. It shouldn't be "can you land 200 tons on Duna?" It should be "Here are some really good reasons why you might want to take up the challenge to land 200 tons on Duna". If I wanted a challenge generator, I have a whole subforum for it, a discord, and a subreddit, and I could program my own as well.
-
Imagine telling your boss/investor at any job that you can't tell them your plans because they're really hard to communicate, you'd be on the streets in the next 2 weeks.
45 minutes ago, moeggz said:Ok I feel I should clarify some. I’m not asking for the resource spreadsheet and the specs of all the upcoming engines. Ie not the lowest level gameplay plans, as I recognize these are the most likely to change and really for that type of stuff early feedback isn’t helpful.
We have the high level gameplay planning, the core gameplay loops and features planned in the roadmap.
I'm gonna be more doomer here. Look at what happened on the heating dev blog... It's clear they're not really onboard with taking feedback for the design of features (which kinda defeats the point of an EA, IMHO). Another example of this is how little the UI has changed even though it's been getting absolutely bombarded since before release with criticisms of styling, color, experience, design choices, and such. Sure, changing some icons and tonalities? they just did, large design changes to the flawed philosophy they used? Not even plans in sight. There's other features that have received the same non stop criticisms (the PAW, docking, SAS, heat system as mentioned above, cojoining parts into single monolithic pieces, and now some aspects of science).
So we're in this awkward middle ground where they clearly have a strong vision, and ask for feedback about it as things come out, but aren't really up to changing anything that isn't a glaring bug, and we're meet with (and I'll paraphrase a bit) "ehh, we'll do it our way and see if it works, and fix it down the line if it doesn't". So, if they communicate all the plans and designs they have, they'll get a lot of feedback, and then we'll see in a couple years as those systems come, that such feedback didn't go anywhere, as it's been the case.
Just now, Kerbart said:I agree that it looks a lot like we're here for advanced bug testing and not a lot else. @Nate Simpson perhaps do a video on how player feedback so far has influenced the direction of the game, outside bug fixing?
Really, it's just this.
-
7 hours ago, Superfluous J said:
I click a part on my ship, say a solar panel, and a menu window comes up. I click Deploy. It deploys. I hit escape. The part menu window remains, and another menu comes up. At least hitting escape closes THAT menu...
52 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:Yes I love this too. However if ESC cleared the part window first I'd not be sad.
It should open that window for sure, but it should only do so after hitting ESC previous times cleared any windows that were already up.
My problem with these situations in particular is that clicking outside the window doesn't close it. We had a pin option in KSP1 if we wanted that to be the behavior, now you have no option but to search for the cross and click it, and the concept of the unified PAW that shows every part makes it worse. Another one I'd like to instantly get out once I click outside it is the painting assistant.
-
11 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:
You and I have had our differences but dude that is horrific online behavior and that never should have happened to you. I think we’re not supposed to comment much on moderator stuff so we should leave it there.
It wasn't here on the forums but another official channel, that's why I feel it shouldn't be a problem.
12 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:Yeah I feel like anyone who’s played Factorio for a minute instantly recognizes the problem as a lack of filters. Each storage container should have the option to be filled by a specific resource rather than being dumped in a heap. Its one of the reasons I find it strange we don’t already have tank-switching because when we get to resources we’re definitely going to want the ability to sort and switch storage types on a tank-by-tank basis. Why not build that in right away?
You can use separate storage boxes so long as they don't touch, but that clearly goes against how the rest of the system is designed. As for tank contents being tweakable, that suggestion is about as old 0.15 when they added spaceplanes that used their own LF-only tanks. It still blows my mind we don't have such a basic thing.
-
36 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:
You might not know but you have built up a bit of a reputation here which folks may be reacting to
Yeah, I know my reputation really well, I've had pics of me edited to say racist stuff and reported to moderators, imagine. Thankfully the people that matter know I'm not a bad person, just an opinionated guy on the internet.
46 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:Be that as it may I do try to take arguments at face value. On this point though I don't want to get into a whole Starfield thing but it is a point of comparison. My feeling is that the trading aspect (which is much more classically salient in an RPG) unfortunately acts as a backstop for bad outpost production design. Managing resource production and preventing storage clogs are so clumsy that players have to fall back on just buying complex components at a vendor out of shear frustration. That kind of sucks, and KSP2 really shouldn't allow itself to fall into that trap.
Don't remember being able to acquire the high level components, only the rare and uncommon ones, with everything after needing to be crafted. Maybe I just got really bad luck. I do agree the outpost system is bad, and that badness comes precisely from being too handwavy and magical. Since there isn't an actual assembly line with belts, you can't configure ratios and speeds and so things get impossible to keep track of.
-
7 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:
The question you're asking though about the 'solid booster problem' is a good one, and relates both to how resources work at KSC and how 'affordability' works generally in a game that has time-warp. I've said many times that at some point the devs are going to need to confront the problem of time-based mechanics. There's a bit of dabbling here in science, but I haven't yet gotten the sense that they're taking this problem head on.
And it was ignored for 3 pages even though it clearly delineates a fundamental flaw. That's how "discussions" in this forum go.
Starfield does allow you to go the trading route, completely ignoring outpost construction and getting the resources you need for crafting from vendors. It prohibits you from all the outpost automation, but you can still get it either way, so building an outpost becomes a meaningful choice. Do you want the whole trouble of building an outpost for the automation of late-game crafting recipes, or do you just trade back and forth and craft everything by hand?
27 minutes ago, hatterson said:KSP 2 was *never* sold as "super serious space agency and colony simulator" If you were expecting that and are disappointed you didn't/aren't getting it, that's 100% on you.
Nothing of what I proposed is super serious, that's the problem. You're really aiming very low for calling something serious or tedious or involved. What's been suggested is the tip of the iceberg.
If you want serious: I'd love to deal with competitors, deadlines, shipping chains, fabrication times, real logistics, piracy and hostility from said competitors against my logistics network, having to race to be the first at milestones, or getting the good colony placements, sabotage, competing to hire kerbals, getting hired to undo my competitors' mistakes, war, combat, expanding the KSC for more volume of operations, outsourcing away parts of or entire colonies so I don't have to admin them, having to gain the monopoly over worlds or star systems, and so on.
That, would mean the game, at some point, lets me sit back to design and launch vessels and craft capable of all of that, with realistic constraints in mind, for a purpose (or many), to have an impact in the world, whatever story can be implemented around that, and to have tons of replayability, rather than "you can't use this tank because you haven't been to the mun and clicking when the flashing light shows yet". I'd pay tons more than $50 for that, I'm glad it was $3 in my region for what the game seems like it's going to be currently, and I still feel ripped off at the lowest points.
Yes, KSP2 was never sold as any of that, you're absolutely right there, but aren't you even a bit sad that after involving the biggest publisher in gaming, and a team of alleged professionals, you're getting the same game you already had, sold back to you again, for god knows how long until maybe some future feature has a hope of catering to you? Or are you really just happy to play the same lackluster, purposeless game again?
-
3 minutes ago, hatterson said:
It feels like your vision for the game is basically space agency simulator with realism overhaul. Which is fine, and I'm sure they'll be mods to support it. But stock KSP, from it's infancy and in its continued life, has way to high a dose of "lol did you see how that rocket did a flip in the lower atmosphere and I still made it to space" to be that game stock.
And I'm saying that was great for the first game, but getting the exact same-and-cut-down-in-some-places in the sequel, for 10 times the price... ugh...
2 minutes ago, asmi said:Nope, your expectation is your problem and yours only. There are plenty of people who don't have a problem with price. If you do - you walk away and don't buy. Simple as that.
Sorry man, just gotta get out of the forums and look at real people interacting with the product, or rather, refunding it. The refund rate is enormous according to steam reviews, 75% of people inside the refund window refund the game.
-
6 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:
What would this mean? Does the game ship with a robotic arm wrestling simulator prop that I have to beat in order to assemble the rocket?
I was thinking of resource cost, or even going as far as time to build stuff.
2 minutes ago, asmi said:Your expectations is your problem, not that of game developer's.
That's clearly not the case. Price sets expectations. You ask for $50, and everyone but 10 people in this forum are gonna expect a $50 dollar game's worth of effort.
-
5 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:
Just because 20 years ago I knew my friends phone numbers, and now I don't, doesn't make me dumber. Automation isn't bad. I have my issues with this new system, but pointless button clicking isn't one of them. Please don't refer to game's price as an argument, that's a different topic. I'm simply asking... what (how) can a game be improved in this regard. If I'm missing something crucial with this question, feel free to point it out. I just don't see what's the argument here.
The price argument will never die, no matter how much people moan about it. Price. Sets. Expectations.
I've already mentioned my ideas for a tech tree in this thread, and anyone else who has, for the TT or science itself, also gets dismissed as "too complex for new players" or "too tedious", so why bother? There's clearly no discussion to be had, just an irreconcilable rupture between two positions,
2 minutes ago, hatterson said:Please detail, or even just conceptualize, what you'd want in a resource system
Look at the solid booster problem. A resource system should bring things like that into question. Maybe recurrent missions can use cheap RCS and RP1 rockets that you can produce anywhere to save a buck and pump them out fast. Maybe more dedicated missions would benefit from more expensive and harder to build ion thrusters and Hydrolox rockets. Maybe I should have an option to invest more into recoverable rockets that are slower to build and more expensive, but I only need a limited number of, versus cheap, expendable rockets I can build in days. I should be able to pick between in-situ refining versus shipping raw product first,
I want options, variety, choices that matter or that let me play my way. Did I take the time to learn? reward me for it, don't punch me down to the level of a new player because you can't bother to throw intelligent people a bone. KSP2 is seemingly gonna be yet another linear, consequence-less snoozefest but without the novelty of being the first one. That's a recipe for disaster and for the game to be forgotten as soon as it hits 1.0 (even though it's already been forgotten, first milestone update got only a quarter of the release players back, but people hate player numbers here because they get reality checked). No risk is being taken anywhere, thus no reward will be received, and that's when the franchise dies because investors will see it wasn't the same golden egg geese the first game was. Even roadmap features are just a safe bet from the most popular mods, and we can only hope they don't get the science skinnerbox treatment.
The first game was successful because it was all risk, on an untapped genre. It had its problems, but it was new and challenging. You won't get anywhere repeating the same formula. In fact, KSP2 hasn't gotten anywhere. Sure, reviews are on the upturn, but sales didn't budge during Christmas. This is something I'm very surprised what's assumed to be one of the smartest, most mature communities in gaming is failing to understand.
-
2 minutes ago, hatterson said:
No one said that the only thing we should do is launch rockets but KSP, either KSP 1 or KSP 2 in goal state, isn't a game about building detailed interplanetary logistics networks and the day to day of running a shipping company.
That's still the same philosophy with different words. If the game is about launching rockets, we don't need anything else after 0.7. 0.13 if you want Minmus maybe, 0.15 if you want the option of spaceplanes.
1 minute ago, Fluke said:I thought we were past this
Nope, it's an argument that'll never die, just like comparing it to the prequel. It's what KSP2 has to live with, and one day hope to surpass. PRICE-SETS-EXPECTATIONS.
-
1 minute ago, HebaruSan said:
Oh, I see, you haven't actually played the For Science! update. That's cool, you don't have to try something if you don't want to, but maybe you stand to gain more from listening than pontificating in that case?
Nice assumption, I did play the update.
-
10 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:
Is emphasis here on yet? Sci update never meant to bring anything new. Just a dumb progression mechanism. I'm still waiting for colonies. This is just something that remotely resembles KSP 1 in it's final state, and gives me juuust enough things to enjoy it somewhat.
That's part of the problem, we had a dumb progression mechanism in KSP1, for $7. The fact that we have a dumber progression mechanism that borders on what we do to rats in a lab, for $50 is completely unjustifiable for me.
5 minutes ago, hatterson said:It feels like an interesting system, but it seems too much for a casual player. Too high a barrier to entry. Seems like an excellent idea for a mod though.
Deep and involved is fundamentally different than brainlessly repetitive. I'm not sure what you want in a resource system in a game like KSP that is deep and involved but not mindless and tedious in execution.
If all you want from KSP is launching rockets, then Harvester did everything wrong after 0.7.
-
34 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:
What @hatterson said... but, really... How can science fix that? How can any further roadmap update fix that? Suppose v1 is here now, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. You already know how to make a colony, go to a different star system, mine everything everywhere, and use Kerbal fart to propel it out of Eve's atmo... What's left? You either enjoy doing it or not.
EDIT
Maybe multiplayer will be a thing you'll enjoy. Rover race against other players at the bottom of the Dres canyon
That was part of the point of getting a sequel for me, getting to do new stuff, having new toys to play with, having an iteration on the good stuff from KSP1 and a good amount of new stuff from a different developer.
Sadly didn't get either yet, as whatever is there hasn't really been iterated a lot, other things have gone backwards, and there's still nothing new or that different from the prequel.
27 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:It's called an "analogy".
You may be interested to know that "Super Mario Bros." itself was a sequel of sorts:
Hence citing it as an example of a sequel to which fans might share such reactions.
It's a false equivalence, in fact, specially since even from Mario Bros to Super Mario Bros they added the stomp mechanic, sidescrolling levels that follow at least a loose narrative, and so on. You're comparing things that are in fact not equal.
15 minutes ago, hatterson said:What's the point of doing *anything* in KSP (1 or 2) once you've done it once? Because doing rocket things is fun. It can be challenging to land 200 tons on Minmus and that alone can be a motivation. If that's not a motivation for you because you've already done it in KSP 1, then I'm not really sure what else to say except that you'll likely be happier just waiting until interstellar stuff comes out so there's something that isn't in KSP 1.
Simplified and not tedious are a lot different than magical. There is absolutely nothing positive about a game forcing you to fly an identical mun -> LKO supply mission that you've flown 30 times already just so it's not "magical" Saying to a player "prove you can do this and then we'll automate the monotony of it" is actually an excellent choice for 99.9% of players. If you really want that back, I'm certain someone will make a "resources can only transfer when the player manually flies them around" mod
Yea but once I've done one race against other players at the bottom of the Dres canyon what motivation is the game giving me to do more races or race in different places????
KSP1 is forgivable, as everything we did in KSP1 was for the first time because there was no successful, well made prequel. Why must I pay $50 to do it again in a very similar (and in some cases devolved) manner?
Deep and involved don't imply tedious, that's another fallacy this forum loves. From The Depths has you design your own engines, guns and ammunitions for your vehicles, meanwhile other games give you pre-packaged guns and lego one piece engines. Does that make FTD tedious? Not at all, it means I get huge granularity when making my vehicles and I can tailor every component to my will, giving it a huge edge over other engineering games. Stormworks also exploits that fact. On the other hand, you had Robocraft devolve from players exploiting designs to create flying, hovering, fast or tanky vehicles to everything being prepackaged "for new players to not be overwhelmed", and the game absolutely died because lack of options stifles creativity.
Assuming their vision from the AMAs hasn't changed, this means you'll design a resource transport vehicle, only to never see it again. You'll land a magic VAB building to then build stuff off it magically instead of landing and connecting like in KSP1 (where colonies had no purpose, let me remind you).
Lastly, I'd like for people to stop pre-emptively insulting the intelligence of "new players", this is something the industry as a whole is very guilty of and why games have overall declined in content, outward complexity and obviously reception.
-
Just now, hatterson said:
1.) 100% completion of in game missions
2.) Building colonies and resources management
3.) Sandbox mode
4.) Mods
Obviously 2 and 4 are very limited or non-existent right now, but that's what the roadmap is for. Obviously if the team just said "OK, games done, we'll fix up some bugs and call it good" they'd get (rightly) destroyed for even making a new game that adds nothing to the previous game, but that's not the plan.
This update adds the initial bones of the science system that will underly some of the future updates. It also provides a reason, albeit a little thin and contrived, to do certain missions. It also gives you some crazy missions that force you to build some totally unnecessary craft to accomplish. No one ever needs to land a 200 ton thing on Minmus to accomplish current goals. There's absolutely no reason to land more than a single Kerbal on Eve, never mind 10 at once, Space Stations have zero use, etc. but you're prompted to do these things to show you that they can be fun to try even after you're learned your way through the base system.
If that's not the motivation you're looking for, then frankly this update isn't really for you, and it seems like you're waiting for a different update and complaining that this one isn't it.
Missions are guided gameplay for new players, in fact, if you actually do go through the job of building an overkill first or second launch to get further than the missions say, you'll quickly realize the missions aren't even designed for people to overachieve anywhere. Once you get out of that, they're pretty much Skyrim radiant missions. Why do I even need to land 200 tons on wherever? What if I've unlocked the tech tree already? What more "show that I can" is there left? It's absolutely pointless, the whole of it. I've already got an entire previous game where I've done most of that stuff, which is even more valid considering this game didn't change anything of the basics.
As for colonies, the AMA answers given until now point to another feature not built for veterans, with magical resource transfers, the magic heat system and what not.
Sandbox offers literally nothing different to KSP1.
Mods are not what I paid $50 for.
1 minute ago, HebaruSan said:I feel like it's 1985 and someone is asking me why Mario can't get married and start a family in-game. You mean the game just ends after you kill the final boss?? How are experienced players supposed to get anything out of this after they master all 8 worlds?
Games have areas of focus and are not always intended to be infinite in duration.
Nice fallacy. The sequels to the mario games all had evolved systems that required a bit more skill, new enemies, new platforming challenges, then it went 3D, and spawned a lot of spinoffs. And I can say that without even liking Mario.
This is a sequel for a game that's been out for 10 years, and it's clearly failing, for now, to challenge whoever had played the previous game, as if we don't exist .
Science is pretty much stupid. Just get rid of it.
in KSP2 Discussion
Posted
I agree with a lot of the rewards proposed, but I still fail to agree with the tech tree (not suitable for the shamefully low variety of parts for a given role), and with the "examine a crater and get fuel tanks in return". Now, that later sentence needs to be clarified a bit further in saying I don't agree with the perception that I need to take my Kerbals near the sun to discover Xenon propulsion (or other proposed "applied science" type stuff).
My problem with science is foundational and multi-axial. Science in itself fails to get the player exited about it. Right now people are coping hard because it's been 10 months of famine where we got grid fins and a couple engines and that's it, but as soon as people start completing the tech tree once, it's gonna be a drag to re-complete it whenever new stuff drops. Why? Because it's a good solution applied in a place where it shouldn't, and made completely brainless too. There's no challenge, no nuance, no variation and no replayability to it, and folks will realize, seemingly later rather than sooner. Lastly, science is uninvolved with the rest of the game because the rest of the game is very lackluster in variety, mechanics, and overall depth, thus why I say "foundational" when I mention my problems with this feature.
Science should unlock detailed maps, maybe a little museum feature to display your samples (or pictures, if you transmitted science but didn't bring anything back), images/memorials of your first Kerbals on the Mün and such. That's really the easiest part to fix, as it's adding instead of changing. Another thing that's relatively easy to fix is add more parts. I should be having to choose when I unlock anything, for example engines: do I want this or that fuel? do I want engines that can survive a re-entry or make them disposable? Do I want to go for TWR or high efficiency? and so on. Make the tech tree into a damn tree.
As for the tree, my personal choice would be to not display the tree. You'll have to put up with me as I detail a bit more here: I wouldn't have "science points" but "interest points" generated. This "interest" can be interpreted as both public and private eyes looking at your space program, bringing in sponsors, researchers, engineers and such. That's what those points are supposed to represent in abstraction and so will decouple the process of science from the result, meaning we no longer need to hear about "applied science" theories where you need to land on the sun to discover heat and develop heat resistant parts and other dumb stuff anymore. We discover cool stuff and thus more people join or fund our cause. The points representing that are what gets invested.
Finally, do away with the tech tree, and have those points be assignable to the different buildings in R&D, and have parts be unlocked in a semi-linear but also semi-random way. This'd mean you don't have full agency over what you unlock, but still have enough control over where you want to point your space program, and with the inclusion of minimum investment milestones, you can actually control the progress as good as a tech tree whilst the player can't spoil themselves with the full tree in sight. Imagine you try to invest points into a specific department and get a "we can't go further in our research with our current knowledge", so you actually need to go invest into other areas instead of beelining to your favorite part. Also, for player satisfaction, this system would allow you to invest interest points partially, so you don't feel like you pulled a huge mission to still not have enough for an unlock, something the current system fails hard at.
In conclusion: There's a lot of ways to make a fun and engaging science feature. Sadly, they all require that effort actually be put into making new stuff rather than copypasting KSP1 science and changing a couple CFGs and MESH{} parts into each other to make the revolutionary concept of a part that does many things. Even better, they could actually put some effort into making the underlying systems a bit deeper, creating actually deep variety rather than a lot of puddles.
What we have right now is the minimum viable product and I'll eat my pants if adding a couple more tree nodes when colonies and interstellar arrives fixes anything. Resources will make it more interesting, but through extra limitations rather than actual depth.