Superfluous J

I misspoke, and apologize. If you spend money on something, you should be COMFORTABLE with the idea that what you just bought might be all you ever get. Maybe you are comfortable with it because you like the developer. Maybe it's because you accept the risk. Maybe it's because the game actually is good enough now. But NO ONE should buy an EA product thinking "Sweet I'm guaranteed to get a great game in the near future even though this version barely even starts." Or they're restating an EA marketing point. Which is the opposite of the marketing point they were stating a year ago when they were going to release v1.0 without first going through EA.

You can "plan" it pretty easily if you have control of a ship in LKO. Make a maneuver node that intersects Jool, set up a mid-course correction that encounters Pol, and then at Pol set up a maneuver that stops you. Landing at Pol won't cost appreciably more than stopping in space next to it would. Add those 3 maneuvers up, add 10% margin or so, and there's your fuel budget. Oh, one more thing. Make sure you encounter Pol when it and your ship are traveling as close to the same direction as possible. And yes, you can try to encounter Tylo or Laythe to save some dV but I'm not sure how much you'll save over a direct encounter. It will take more maneuver nodes but if you've got the time (and conic patch limits in settings) why not give it a shot?

I disagree wholeheartedly with this definition. In EA you are buying the product as-is, with the HOPE that you'll get the finished product for a cheaper initial investment. If you don't want to gamble you should not spend your money. If you spend your money, you should be happy with the game the moment you bought it. As to the first 2 benefits: You turn the QA/Tester job into a purchasable position. Instead of paying huge teams, people throw money at you to try your game. You also get a LOT of noise in your signal. There's a reason professional QA teams get paid. They make GOOD bug reports. You get instant, copious consumer feedback inside the development cycle, right where you're meant to have it and implement it. You get a LOT of noise in your signal here as well. 30 people - each suggesting the same thing you already decided you'll never do - is not any better than one person suggesting it. It's 30 times worse, in fact. 3 and 4, I agree with. 5 and 6 could go either way IMO. It's amazing then that even though all these exist, I'm still finding tons of great games. This is because I make sure I'm informed and don't buy a game (including KSP2) until I think the cost is worth it. I'm not saying "accept whatever they put on your plate." I'm saying "if what they're producing isn't what you want don't waste your money OR your time on it."

You mean let the content producers deliver products and the consumers buy said products if they're worth the money but otherwise they don't actually have a say? Then yes, that's actually pretty accurate to what should happen. Unless people actually are GIVING you free games. In which case again yes you should be grateful.

I think the launcher has an update button, but I've never run it.

That literally does not matter. He's a human being and human beings should be able to take breaks. For f.... you know what I can't write the rest of this post without violating - like - the entire rules post of this forum.

That assumes the OP means "TWR=1 at Kerbin's Surface" and not "TWR=1 relative to the gravity field you're in right now, changing throughout the challenge." Now both are fine assumptions, but there's no way to know if the OP meant one or the other. Mostly because the entire challenge is:

I don't feel like typing it again.

Cost to orbit would not be all that great, but if you could turn it off and on at will cost to the Moon could be lowered greatly. Turn it on, 0 gravity. Aim for the Moon (or thereabouts, orbital mechanics and whatnot) and fire. Once near the Moon, turn it back on to start getting pulled in/around. At Pe (if possible) turn gravity UP and you can get into orbit. And why limit yourself to 0 gravity? You invented this stuff, why not let gravity go negative? Then your ship would just start falling away from the surface of the planet.

Again, I don't know or pretend to. Would you prefer the KSP team to just shut up for months and not tell you anything? You can simulate that quite well by stopping reading anything.

Where's that pic from that signature... Ah here it is.

No clue. They went radio silent for months. And everybody doom-and-gloomed them as well. More proof you literally can't satisfy everybody so it's best to just ignore people.

I would like to remind everybody that "ask me anything" does not mean "I'll answer everything." It never has. If you want real, solid, concrete information about the future of the game there is only one way to get it: Wait. If I was working on KSP2 and Nate asked me if I wanted to do an AMA, I'm not sure if I'd laugh or cry. Possibly both. But my answer would be "No [expletive] way."

You didn't explicitly answer my question (no anger, I know you had a billion questions and had to pick a small subset) but this basically did answer it, and in exactly the way I was hoping it'd be answered.

I can't speak on how fun this would be. Playing KSP with someone else sound bad to me. Using the VAB in tandem sounds like a horror movie.

I'm game. Factorio multiplayer works. There is no time warp and no need for it. You can do anything from team up on Biters to attempt speed runs. This is not surprising, Factorio is a Perfect GameTM. Minecraft multiplayer works. Again there is no time warp and no need for it, and precious few moving parts. Valheim is Minecraft with Voxels and multiplayer there works. I've played all 3 of the above for multiple hundreds (if not over 1000) hours each, though I've never played Factorio multiplayer and I've never played Valheim in single player, I played Minecraft in both. I can't speak on the rest as I don't play them. Space Engineers looks the closest to not fitting what I'm about to say below but I don't know the game well enough. These are about as similar to KSP* as Shooter Of The Week is. Why? Two things KSP has that none of the above games have (to my knowledge): Time Warp** and the VAB*** *And by "KSP" I'm talking the main gameplay loop of KSP. Not the area around KSC messing about with planes. **I mean time warp as an absolute necessity to enjoy the game. I know you can "sleep" in Valheim and Minecraft if you convince everyone on the server to. That's nothing compared to "Hey meet me at Jool." "Okay I need to time warp 6 years to get there." *** Again, I am aware you can build things together in all of these games, and in particular you can build space ships together in Space Engineers. I don't think though that any of these games require one person on the server to segregate themselves from everyone else for anything from fractions to multiples of hours just to make something to play with others, and then possibly test these things over multiple iterations before even being able to join their friends.

And they said (of 90% of my KSP craft) that landing on the engine bell wasn't realistic!

Interest in KSP2 player numbers has dropped precipitously this week. We've not had a single post about the actual numbers since April 12th. At this rate, we'll have less than one post a month about those numbers by mid summer, and the thread will be dead before the year's out.

I do not believe Pthigrivi meant any offense and just worded "What about it (what you've heard about Adventure Mode) don't you like?" slightly differently. I too am curious though. What about it (what you've heard about Adventure Mode) don't you like?

I know this was not directed at me so I am truly not taking any offense, but to be clear. I love (though rarely play anymore, stupid vertigo effects) Shooter of the Week gamefests with my friends. I'd hop on tonight if a) a friend asked me and b) I wasn't currently working. But still, I'd never play KSP multiplayer for the same reason I'd never play Shooter of the Week single player: That sounds really dumb and boring to me. One game is perfect for multiplayer and has this sad singleplayer add-on. The other is perfect for single player and sure you can race planes or something but if you want to actually play it as a space game multplayer is tacked on. I don't care how well it's going to be tacked on, it's going to be tacked on.

You likely can't. But it's not a big deal. At your Pe, set up a maneuver node to fire forward so your Ap touches Kerbin's Orbit, so you see the encounter markers. then, use the alarm clock to set an alert for that maneuver. Then, go do the other contracts you've taken in that time. It's like half a year so you have plenty of time. When the maneuver node time comes up, do that burn and then set up a new maneuver node at your Ap, burning forward to see if you can get an encounter. Use the +/- buttons on the maneuver node to look further into the future. Between +/- buttons and tugging the node handles, you should eventually get an encounter. It may be 10 years from now, but who cares? Because you can set an alarm, and then go do other things. Or, if you run out of other things you want to do, just time warp those years away. tl;dr, use the alarm clock functionality to do other things while your ships are doing long transfers.

What in your opinion was lacking in KSP1's Science gathering/spending mechanisms, and what has been done to improve upon these?

If there was an option above the top one of "never ever not even a chance" I'd have picked that.

I'd guess more that they saw multiple YouTube players (or internal testing with people who've never played before) get confused about the dV calculator so they added this change, likely not long before release.

I agree that this should not be in the game, however the fix to #1 isn't "make it possible to put a dummy probe in orbit to use that to plan flight maneuvers." It's "make it possible to plan flight maneuvers without having to put a dummy probe into orbit" #2 is a massively valid point.