I've been saying this for years... now someone other than Squad is realizing it.

[Superfluous J]

First, we've all been saying this for years. I almost quit the game in 0.21 because all there was to do was go places. If it wasn't for Science mode in 0.22 I may not be here today. But that was just a little bit of what I wanted.

Astroneer looks pretty cool, but I don't see it as a "better KSP." I don't see a VAB, I don't see a space program at all. I see a lot of shots of a 3rd person building game with a sci-fi theme. I'm not saying that's bad. I'll probably buy it. But I'll still be playing KSP when I want to run a space program.

(even though there's still not much to do when you get there)

[vger]

I posted similar concepts this under suggestions on more than one occasion and nobody even seemed to grasp what I was getting at (and why ISN'T this in the development discussion forum?).

Yeah, there need to be more complex things happening on different worlds. Ones that would require more planning. Contracts 'sort of' did that, but it's nowhere near as interesting as it could've been.

Just a basic one, the 'anomalies' could have been more than just oddities to come across and get an achievement. Such things should be something to investigate further.

Just look at how we have progressed with Mars as an example. The discoveries across multiple rovers have been a slow-burn that are just now beginning to show signs of something truly astonishing. Science in KSP shouldn't be a simple form of currency, but something with more substance. And sometimes getting it should be more involved than just doing the same "click from a certain location" that is the guts of exploration in the game.

Currently a manned landing really has no further purpose than getting off the ladder, grabbing your sample, and then taking off again. And that's just sad. There's so much more that could be going on in the game than there is, and it's so disappointing that we're not there.

Summary of my rambling: Getting there shouldn't be the end of the adventure. It should be the beginning of it.

Edited October 8, 2015 by vger

[LordFerret]

...

Getting there shouldn't be the end of the adventure. It should be the beginning of it.

Bingo. +rep

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

This looks like fun. Maybe someday when there's a download, I'll try it. However, I bought KSP because I wanted to build rockets, and that's what I do mostly, when I'm not building replicas. I like to build something that, when I send it to an alien world, works. Maybe not perfectly, but well enough to get to and back from a completely strange world.

Plus, I really love that KSP doesn't have anything in sandbox. No way to win, no way to lose. No goals, just strange, beautiful worlds. You can explore all of them, maybe with mods, maybe without. You can build a plane, you can build a clock. You can make arbitrary goals for yourself, and that's what makes KSP special. Most other games have a story-like... err... story, with an obstacle, a goal, and tools. KSP gives you tools, and a world. The obstacles are not implemented, they are there. There is no reason to overcome them, you don't get a "You win" dialogue. Yet, it is still enjoyable to overcome them.

Right now, I'm building a base on Laythe with MKS-lite, roverdudes's Orion drive, deepfreeze, Kerbal Foundries, KAS and KIS. The farthest I've been with a stock return Kerbal mission is Duna. Nothing told me that was the next step in defeating the villain, I just decided that was what I wanted to do.

[Camacha]

Plus, I really love that KSP doesn't have anything in sandbox. No way to win, no way to lose. No goals, just strange, beautiful worlds. You can explore all of them, maybe with mods, maybe without. You can build a plane, you can build a clock. You can make arbitrary goals for yourself, and that's what makes KSP special. Most other games have a story-like... err... story, with an obstacle, a goal, and tools. KSP gives you tools, and a world. The obstacles are not implemented, they are there. There is no reason to overcome them, you don't get a "You win" dialogue. Yet, it is still enjoyable to overcome them.

It is the same story you hear with every sandbox game. In Minecraft, people complained it did not have a story, a goal, yet it was lauded for its freedom. In Kerbal Space program people complain there is nothing to do, it does not have a story, or goals, yet it is lauded for its flexibility and scale. In Cities Skylines...

See a pattern there? I think people look for something in these games that is inherently not there. These are those few games that do not tell you what goals to achieve, what objectives to capture or fulfil. It just is a blank slate and a solar system of options. That is the beauty of it.

[Mister Dilsby]

Yeah. I, for one, have never minded that stock KSP doesn't include a story.

[Slam_Jones]

I like the ideas they're putting forth quite a bit. Terrain deformation has LONG been on my "want" list for KSP. Sure, I can go to a planet, and have fun making bases and stuff, but eventually... there's nothing to do. Nothing to explore, in that any planet is essentially X km^2 of the same thing.

Maybe KSP wouldn't purse something like this, but I think they absolutely need something to do on planets.

Getting there shouldn't be the end of the adventure. It should be the beginning of it.

Also, this. So much this.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[EuSouONumero345]

I'm worried about the future of KSP, specially now that the full version has been released and not much but eye-candy has been inplemented. And I think that's why sometimes players need a huge break from it, it becomes boring : make a ship, land it there, let it gather dust (and science), then mission complete. That for at least 16 expeditions, one in each planet and moon (not considering Kerbol).

Most of the fun I have in KSP needs my imagination, like, a kerbal stranded in orbit and I need to save him, or a super expensive mission to install a base in Duna, kinda like role-playing. Maybe it's the game's charm, I don't know.

[regex]

Astroneer looks pretty cool, I'll probably pick it up if/when it comes out. By the time it's out my kid might be old enough to enjoy it with me, which is a big bonus because it looks like a fun, creative, "astronaut"-themed experience.

I don't think KSP needs more to do in the game. Hell, I've already put in over a thousand hours at least and I still have things I want to try. Mods have definitely extended the lifetime of the game as well, but I put in probably 200 hours before downloading my first mod. I count that as a good sandbox game. KSP isn't going to entertain you forever.

[vger]

I'm worried about the future of KSP, specially now that the full version has been released and not much but eye-candy has been inplemented. And I think that's why sometimes players need a huge break from it, it becomes boring : make a ship, land it there, let it gather dust (and science), then mission complete. That for at least 16 expeditions, one in each planet and moon (not considering Kerbol).

Most of the fun I have in KSP needs my imagination, like, a kerbal stranded in orbit and I need to save him, or a super expensive mission to install a base in Duna, kinda like role-playing. Maybe it's the game's charm, I don't know.

I almost immediately made it a habit to construct a Kerb'd base on the Mun that was self-sufficient and capable of gathering ALL of the science there and transmitting it home, just because it was more interesting to do it that way than what was probably intended.

[longbyte1]

If Squad is already pushing the limits of Unity without even bothering to implement an n-body simulation or a way to alter the terrain of celestial bodies, then Unity sounds like a pretty limited engine to me.

I thought KSP would be the be-all and end-all of space simulation, ranging from recreations of historical missions to colonization and FTL travel. I guess I was wrong.

Edited October 9, 2015 by longbyte1

[Harry Rhodan]

We thought KSP would be the be-all and end-all of space simulation, ranging from recreations of historical missions to colonization and FTL travel.

I didn't.

[Flymetothemun]

I didn't.

Me neither. I always saw KSP as just another gold rush; everybody flocked to "them thar hills", it looked good, but now the gold's running out. And honestly, I'm pretty damned close to putting in my resignation on this forum.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Flymetothemun

[Rath]

Seems like minecraft not KSP.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

[...]

We thought KSP would be the be-all and end-all of space simulation, ranging from recreations of historical missions to colonization and FTL travel. I guess we were wrong.

I don't see KSP as that, I see it as a pioneer. Maybe not the first, but one of the first in this "sandbox simulation-game" type of game. I don't expect KSP to last forever, nothing does. But I hope that it is the start of a new kind of game, created by small studios, about exploration, not destruction. Where the goals are completely or almost player-defined. Where the obstacles don't feel like the devs are putting walls in front of you, but that the devs are showing you those walls, and giving you ways to climb, not destroy, them

[CommanderSpock]

The real beauty of KSP is the fact that there is no story- you make it for yourself. Whether it be in sandbox, career, or science, whether it be making bases or leaving the solar system, or just going to the mun, you can decide what you want to do, and what you can and can't do. You aren't held back by any story, so you can create it for yourself.

[GoSlash27]

Honestly for me the "learning how" is the entire point of KSP.

How many folks here would understand rocket science as well as we do if it wasn't for this game?

Best,

-Slashy

[Camacha]

Me neither. I always saw KSP as just another gold rush; everybody flocked to "them thar hills", it looked good, but now the gold's running out. And honestly, I'm pretty damned close to putting in my resignation on this forum.

I do not feel you burning out on KSP is representative for the larger group. Give it a rest, come back in a year or two.

[55delta]

Squad is focused on further building up and polishing up the base game before moving on to another phase. As they should, because the exploration and effort to make that landing on the furthers reaches is still the biggest selling point of the game. Meanwhile, they feel that base-building and colonization, where it's can't be covered by stock, is covered by a number of mods right now. Maybe they'll get to it...after Unity 5, after a graphics overhaul, after multiplayer...you get the idea. If you're already bored of this, you might need to take a break and play something else for a while.

Besides, I look at the screenshots for the one game and I'm reminded of how Space Engineers intends to implement planets. Keen (Space Engineer's dev) have been teasing planets in their weekly updates for a few weeks now.

[Flymetothemun]

I do not feel you burning out on KSP is representative for the larger group. Give it a rest, come back in a year or two.

Of course I wasn't representing everybody, I was representing me! And I've been giving it a rest for the past couple years, and the desire still hasn't come back.

[Van Disaster]

Honestly for me the "learning how" is the entire point of KSP.

How many folks here would understand rocket science as well as we do if it wasn't for this game?

Best,

-Slashy

Once you've learned how to build and launch rockets, and then land, then what? I've been complaining about the lack of things to do on planets for *years* - is that not what a considerable part of a Space Program is all about? learning about other planets? not running a taxi service to them. As far as engineering challenges go space itself is homogenous, solve a problem locally & you've solved it for everywhere - planets are most definitely not homogenous.

You could simply fix a lot of it for career just by adding multi-stage planetary surface contracts ( build a science base, explore points A-B-C-D ) but there's plenty of things that could be added that actually involved interacting with a planet & would add to sandbox. I suspect I may be talking to a wall still though.

[Camacha]

As far as engineering challenges go space itself is homogenous

This is false. An orbit closer to the sun (vast temperature gradients and piles of cosmic rays) is something else entirely than a trajectory past Pluto (no solar energy to work with) . Something passing close by Jupiter (powerful magnetic and gravitational fields) is something else completely than landing on a comet (very weak gravity and chaotic orbits).

Space is anything but homogeneous.

[SkyRender]

Real-life space missions have run into much the same sort of issue. While the research of the solar system and beyond definitely holds interest in the scientific community, to the layman, we're spending an awful lot of money to look at gigantic rocks and balls of gas that are so far away that nobody alive today is likely to see any of them in person. Practical missions such as putting up new satellites for broadcast and GPS are easy enough to justify to the public, but it really takes some effort to make the Joe Average care about seeing yet another giant space rock up close.

A large part about why space exploration loses its appeal is that it really does involve an awful lot of nothing with occasional bits of something interspersed. And once you've hit the limit for what you can learn and apply practically from it, what is there left but curiosity and sense of accomplishment to drive you on? I'm not saying that space travel has no further value to mankind (far from it), I'm just saying that it doesn't have much value in the eyes of the layman at this point short of discovering a means of actually reaching those interesting places in person within a sane amount of time (and being able to get back again in a sane amount of time as well). Those of us who are starting to find KSP to be lacking in things worth doing despite the wealth of things you can do are experiencing a variation on that perspective.

[Robotengineer]

A large part about why space exploration loses its appeal is that it really does involve an awful lot of nothing with occasional bits of something interspersed.

And more often then not the bits of something are the unplanned, highly dangerous bits. It's hard to keep a populace interested in something that is boring when it succeeds, but interesting when it fails. They don't see the point in funding boring missions for 'those academics', while at the same time they don't want to fund anything that has any significant failure rate.

[11of10]

Well, yes and no.

That is, I agree and I do not.

You see folks, some of us enjoy the journey, yet some of us see a challenge to be achieved.

If you're up for a challenge, go challenge yourself with something. In KSP you have a bunch of other people's challenges that complement the game really nice. Sort of like ingame missions only more complex. (Now, it would be really great if we could generate missions for each other by some central server, and swap them around. Sort of a very limited multiplayer)

If you're up for a journey, you might enjoy more every step it takes to go to the Mun. How you make your craft fly, how you make it aerodynamic. Where you put life support, and only just enough to survive the journey. What type of reentry do you do et cetera

Now, I'm in KSP for making rockets and seeing how they work.

I completely agree that it's rather boring when you arrive on some desolate planet, but hey, anyone saw any natives on Mars? None, huh? Boring, I guess...

And, as always, my mind wanders and now I have completely lost the point of my post.

In essence, I don't see this game as competition to KSP.

However, KSP is much more complete with roverdude's mods that allow you to make elaborate bases on various distant places.

So, yes and no.

Edit: @vger Actually, I don't find it boring, not all the time at least, but I understand why for someone it would be.

I'm actually thinking and rethinking my Elcano Challenge approach for some half a year now, what with two corrupt save games, changes in how to do it (I want it in my career game, and one of my rovers couldn't actually enter a cargo bay, it was too big...)

Edited October 9, 2015 by 11of10
Edit