Why I don't want interstellar travel

[garwel]

I have mixed feelings about KSP 2. It may be to do with my playstyle, but I suspect I'm not alone there.

I've clocked over 4000 hours in KSP 1 and I'm yet to land a kerbal on another planet (not to mention return). There are still planets I haven't even visited. I like the challenge that comes with planning and implementing complex missions, and I like realism of it. As soon as I see that things are getting too easy, I add a mod or change settings to make things more difficult but also more plausible and fun.

Now, with the imminent introduction of interstellar travel, I'm afraid KSP will go in a different direction. To make interstellar travel a relevant part of the game, devs will have to make solar system exploration much easier. Otherwise, what's the point in having these crazy sci-fi engines if the player must spend 100s of hours just to land on the Mun? So instead of adding realism, we'll see "streamlining" of many aspects of the game to rush the player towards colonies and interstellar travel. Instead of a more nuanced simulation of various aspects of spaceflight (life support, radiation, parts failure, thermal regulation, gravity assists, you name it), we'll see far-future or speculative techs that will quickly make space travel trivial.

And then we'll have space trade and whatnot, so the game will evolve in the direction of Elite or EVE Online losing much of the charm of the original, nerdy KSP.

I know the devs want to expand their user base and probably believe all hardcore KSP 1 fans will buy the game anyway, but competing in the mainstream isn't always a wise choice. Anyway, I only have to hope that I got their intentions wrong and/or that modders will augment what the stock game lacks.

[Xelo]

30 minutes ago, garwel said:

As soon as I see that things are getting too easy, I add a mod or change settings to make things more difficult but also more plausible and fun.

Whats preventing this in KSP2 then? :p 
Surely once the mod ecosystem has steam behind it you will be able to play your desired realistic KSP 2 with less 'streamlining' and enjoy the feeling of hard progression. KSP means different things for everyone, the base game isn't the final experience. The devs thought the original game was too exclusionary and that's quite valid, but you don't have to take their advice when it comes to modding haha.

[Gurkonier]

Nate Simpson said in an interview, that KSP 2 will be as challenging as the original. They only add new elements, such as the animated tutorials, which make it easier for new players to get into the game.

[Bej Kerman]

53 minutes ago, garwel said:

solar system exploration much easier

Is that not the entire point of technological advancement?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, garwel said:

Now, with the imminent introduction of interstellar travel, I'm afraid KSP will go in a different direction. To make interstellar travel a relevant part of the game, devs will have to make solar system exploration much easier. Otherwise, what's the point in having these crazy sci-fi engines if the player must spend 100s of hours just to land on the Mun? So instead of adding realism, we'll see "streamlining" of many aspects of the game to rush the player towards colonies and interstellar travel. Instead of a more nuanced simulation of various aspects of spaceflight (life support, radiation, parts failure, thermal regulation, gravity assists, you name it), we'll see far-future or speculative techs that will quickly make space travel trivial.

The main problem I see in this is that a good portion  of KSP's difficulty curve wall isn't in the actual game difficulty but in the complete lack of onboarding of any kind.

Do you consider actually teaching players how they're supposed to play the game part of that bad "streamlining"? Because from my point of view if it takes you 100s of hours to just land on the Mun your problem is a severe lack of information and explanations, not a matter of skill or difficulty of the game.

Once you have a system in place that ensures players learn how to orbit, plan transfers, make rendezvous and docking, and landing with some precision, KSP becomes way easier and interplanetary travel accessible to most players with just some practice.

 

Also the streamlining you're talking about isn't happening at all, things like life support, radiation and part failure were never part of the game in the first place.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Master39

[GoldForest]

3 hours ago, garwel said:

I have mixed feelings about KSP 2. It may be to do with my playstyle, but I suspect I'm not alone there.

I've clocked over 4000 hours in KSP 1 and I'm yet to land a kerbal on another planet (not to mention return). There are still planets I haven't even visited. I like the challenge that comes with planning and implementing complex missions, and I like realism of it. As soon as I see that things are getting too easy, I add a mod or change settings to make things more difficult but also more plausible and fun.

Now, with the imminent introduction of interstellar travel, I'm afraid KSP will go in a different direction. To make interstellar travel a relevant part of the game, devs will have to make solar system exploration much easier. Otherwise, what's the point in having these crazy sci-fi engines if the player must spend 100s of hours just to land on the Mun? So instead of adding realism, we'll see "streamlining" of many aspects of the game to rush the player towards colonies and interstellar travel. Instead of a more nuanced simulation of various aspects of spaceflight (life support, radiation, parts failure, thermal regulation, gravity assists, you name it), we'll see far-future or speculative techs that will quickly make space travel trivial.

And then we'll have space trade and whatnot, so the game will evolve in the direction of Elite or EVE Online losing much of the charm of the original, nerdy KSP.

I know the devs want to expand their user base and probably believe all hardcore KSP 1 fans will buy the game anyway, but competing in the mainstream isn't always a wise choice. Anyway, I only have to hope that I got their intentions wrong and/or that modders will augment what the stock game lacks.

KSP never had realism to begin with, well, not the kind you're talking about. It's first and foremost a space game that's supposed to be fun. That's why the size of planets are 1/10th scale and the engines are 25% of IRL thrust. The parts are super OP in stock. Going from Kerbin to the Mun is drastically easy once you get the fundamentals down. Going from Kerbin, to Duna, then back to Kerbin is almost just as easy with the right planning. The devs of KSP 2 want to make the game, in your own words "More plausible and fun."

Interstellar travel won't make things easier, if anything it will make it harder. And you're not going to use an interstellar ship to go from Kerbin to the Mun. Metallic Hydrogen engines and Torch engines will make going from Kerbin to the Mun a lot faster, but no easier. You'll still have to plan out your maneuvers and timings and all that jazz. If you do use an interstellar ship for going to the Mun, you have to worry about turning a ship the size of a sky scraper around and maneuvering something that size is not easy. 

Colonies can be done without interstellar. Heck, we NEED colonies BEFORE interstellar. Helium-3 has been confirmed to be a fuel resource. There's only one real place you can get He-3 from. Jool. You'll need to put a collection and processing plant in orbit around Jool to suck up He-3, H-2 and H-3. If anything, Interstellar will give us more reason to go to the other planets in the Kerbolar system. Duna for metals and CO2 ice. Jool for He-3, H-2 and H-3. Etcetera.

As for far future and speculative tech, Nate has said before, clearly, that the game is about NEAR future tech that is VIABLE. That means anything that can't be physically built in the next 100 years won't appear in game. I.e. Warp engines, Wormhole Drives, Blackhole Drives, etc. So don't worry about that, it won't happen. 

KSP 2 won't lose any nerdiness of KSP 1, I'm fairly certain of that. If anything, space trade will enhance it. Because Nate has said you have to do at least 1 run by yourself in order for the automation to work. I don't know about you, but Kerbals becoming basically space truckers is hilarious to me, and I can picture tons of wacky situations the Kerbals can get into, let alone the player. 

KSP 2 isn't trying to compete against the mainstream games, simply due to the fact that there are no mainstream space simulation games. Star Citizen, EVE and Elite Dangerous aren't really space simulators, they're more space MMORPGs imo. KSP 2 is not looking to go after them, simply because KPS 2 isn't the same game as them. KSP and KSP 2 are single player space simulation games at their core. You can have RPG adventures in them, but that's due to the player's imagination, not the game's mechanics. I wouldn't worry about KSP 2 'competing in the mainstream'. Not against those three games mentioned earlier. Both because it's not trying to, and it simply couldn't. There is no game like KSP, and none in the foreseeable future afaik. KSP 2 will go mainstream against itself, not against any space MMORPG. The only game that might compete against KSP is Simple Rockets, but that game would have to step up its game if it truly wanted to compete against KSP. And pardon the pun. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by GoldForest

[jastrone]

in the beggining there will be no "career mode" but it will come eventually. and then you will probably have to explore some of the kerbol system before unlocking those huge engines. 

2 hours ago, garwel said:

And then we'll have space trade and whatnot, so the game will evolve in the direction of Elite or EVE Online

defenetly not. it will only be automated missions to transfer resources. 

[The Aziz]

2 hours ago, garwel said:

As soon as I see that things are getting too easy, I add a mod or change settings to make things more difficult

Well that's kinda on you then.

2 hours ago, garwel said:

To make interstellar travel a relevant part of the game, devs will have to make solar system exploration much easier. Otherwise, what's the point in having these crazy sci-fi engines if the player must spend 100s of hours just to land on the Mun?

Like I said, if you spend 100h to land on the Mun, that's on you. With basic understanding of orbital mechanics and aerodynamics (something you can find in online tutorials now, but what you should find in ingame tutorials of KSP2) you could land on the Mun in couple of hours even if you start from scratch.

And the high tech engines won't make it that much easier though. They may have more oomph, but that's about it. You still have to follow transfer windows, look for TWR, DV requirements etc.

And to be honest, the colony tech is what will make the planets even more worthy exploring. But then.. as with everything, you don't have to use it. You can still launch your stuff on Mainsails from Kerbin.

2 hours ago, garwel said:

Instead of a more nuanced simulation of various aspects of spaceflight (life support, radiation, parts failure, thermal regulation, gravity assists, you name it),

Funnily enough, LS and radiation are speculated to be implemented, thermal regulation, well, you have radiators for a reason. And gravity assists are integral part of spaceflight, I use them even in KSP1, why would they be gone from KSP2 if it uses the same orbital mechanics? Parts failure never were, and probably never will be a part of stock game, for a simple reason - no random events that are out of player's control. Want to make the game fun for everyone? Don't let the 20 year long mission fail in the last quarter because an engine randomly exploded. That's not fun.

2 hours ago, garwel said:

And then we'll have space trade and whatnot, so the game will evolve in the direction of Elite or EVE Online losing much of the charm of the original, nerdy KSP.

Multiplayer KSP is pretty meh for me anyway, probably won't use it unless I somehow have an equally nerdy friend who would spend thousands of hours in KSP with me.

To end this, please, compare only stock game to stock game. Any modded install is not something the devs will ever try to aim for.

[Pthigrivi]

15 minutes ago, jastrone said:

defenetly not. it will only be automated missions to transfer resources. 

Which Nate confirmed will be based on a proof run that can later be automatically repeated, which almost certainly means you cant just hit the “trade resources” button. You’ll have to deliver the first batch yourself. 
 

And while heat management, radiation and LS aren’t 100% confirmed there’s plenty of evidence they’ll be in the game in some form. They’ve shown huge procedural radiators, there’s a radiation indicator in the VAB, and they’ve shown greenhouses and mentioned snacks and food a few times. I wouldn’t worry about the engineering aspects being dumbed down, if anything things will be much more complex. What I would like to see are better tutorials for newcomers and a much less grindy career mode that doesn’t bog players down in dozens of repetitive missions in KSOI before they branch out and start visiting other planets. 

[Domonian]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

I wouldn’t worry about the engineering aspects being dumbed down, if anything things will be much more complex.

As someone who also hasn't been to another planet, I can tell that Interstellar content (and the tutorials) means that things will get harder but much more rewarding. The simple fact is that I don't know how to get to any other planets, I don't know what kind of vehicle(s) I may need to use, I don't know how much dV I may need, and at the end of it all, there's nothing there on any other planets anyway. With interstellar travel and updated resource functionalities, now there's a reason to go explore and colonize other planets, and the game can help guide you on how to do it. Instead of me spending hours watching YouTube or reading guides to get to another planet, I could watch a tutorial in-game, and choose to transfer or brute force my way wherever I want to go, with differing challenges with each. 

4 hours ago, garwel said:

To make interstellar travel a relevant part of the game, devs will have to make solar system exploration much easier.

The core of the game won't change. KSP1 is inside KSP2, it just looks better and is less buggy (hopefully). As a space agency simulation, as a space program, making space travel easier is quite literally the goal. You can choose to not use the "overpowered" parts, but the game itself won't be any easier than KSP1, it will only be easier to learn. It sounds like you like things being difficult, but after 4000 hours, you're bound to learn something that makes it easier. And if things are too easy around Kerbin, why not try and go to the rest of the planets? They all have their own unique challenges, and it sounds like you're severely limiting yourself and what you can enjoy. 

4 hours ago, garwel said:

So instead of adding realism, we'll see "streamlining" of many aspects of the game to rush the player towards colonies and interstellar travel.

They've already stated that interstellar travel is late-game, and I would expect colonies to be early on in mid-game, where the player has been to a few planets already. Given the complexity of colonies and interstellar travel, I suspect less than 10% of players will legitimately go interstellar within the first 50 hours of exploration mode (the new career mode), and less than half may have a single functional colony anywhere within the first 20 hours. 

4 hours ago, garwel said:

but competing in the mainstream isn't always a wise choice

KSP is very niche, which limits the audience to a small selection of people interested in space or may be interested in space (like young children who dream of spaceships). KSP is also very hard, and that isn't going to change, but that also makes the barrier for entry quite high, and without tutorials, those who have any vague interest in space may turn away after seeing how difficult it is. Again, KSP isn't going anywhere, new stuff is being added and the barrier for entry and progression is becoming much lower.

4 hours ago, garwel said:

Otherwise, what's the point in having these crazy sci-fi engines if the player must spend 100s of hours just to land on the Mun?

I feel like it always goes back to the tutorials. I don't really know how it would take someone 100s of hours to land on the Mun (unless they are actively avoiding leaving the atmosphere), but the tutorials aim to make that process much more inviting to the player, while also leaving plenty of room for personal improvement. Overall, I don't really see what your argument is against interstellar travel. You want things to be difficult, but you also haven't landed on another planet, so what are you waiting for, really? Interstellar brings another layer of difficulty to the game (without taking away from stellar travel), so why are you against it? I understand that atmospheric flight is fun (and what I typically do), but the reason I personally haven't left Kerbin SOI is because there's not much out there and no reason to leave (you can complete the tech tree without ever leaving Kerbin SOI, which is a shame), which KSP2 aims to solve.

[sturmhauke]

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Star Citizen, EVE and Elite Dangerous aren't really space simulators, they're more space MMORPGs imo. 

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.

[Caerfinon]

1 minute ago, sturmhauke said:

EVE is a spreadsheet simulator

Can confirm. Learned how to make awesome pivot tables running a small mining and shipping operation out of Jita.  

[K^2]

I'm sure there will be mods that clip the tech tree to something a bit more KSP-level tech, and something for an alternative start in a different system. So if you want to explore new star systems in the old KSP style, there will be a way to do this. I wouldn't worry about it.

[TLTay]

8 hours ago, garwel said:

I've clocked over 4000 hours in KSP 1 and I'm yet to land a kerbal on another planet

Devs: tap this person to test your tutorials?

[Nirgal]

38 minutes ago, TLTay said:

Devs: tap this person to test your tutorials?

Look how they massacred my boy

[Brofessional]

8 hours ago, garwel said:

To make interstellar travel a relevant part of the game, devs will have to make solar system exploration much easier.

Yes but you'll still have to work your way through the Kerbol system with current/near-future tech before you unlock the interstellar tech. Once you get there, travel inside other star systems will be easier to some degree since you'll have a lot of tech unlocked by that point, but the planets in those systems will also present some challenges that don't exist in the Kerbol system.

Also, no disrespect for playing the game at whatever pace you like, but vanilla KSP1 isn't THAT difficult to master. Realism/difficulty mods will exist for KSP2 as well.

[Gotmachine]

I've been saying this since the start.
An interstellar scope KSP fundamentally changes the granularity of the simulation and of the game, there is no way around that.

I think it's a good move for making the game a large commercial success.
A less directly exposed simulation with more gamey mechanics featuring shiny science-fiction stuff is what attracts crowds, and if the devs did the job at least half right, it will definitely be fun to play.

But there is a relatively large proportion of the KSP1 playerbase that are here for the "simulation" side.
The KSP franchise is the only game that provide a relatively decent spaceflight/rocket simulation, and a lot of people are here because they are spaceflight nerds, not because they want to play a space game.

Now, objectively, stock KSP 1 doesn't offer much on that front, but if you look closely at the modding community, a large proportion of it is about real world, historic and contemporary era spaceflight.
And there is a lot of interest for real world constraints like more realistic system scale and overall part balance (including real world rockets/missions), and simulation-leaning implementations of features like fuel boiloff, tank ullage, thrust limits, engine ignitions, components reliability, life support, radiation, ISRU, comms, science, etc.
To a lot of long time KSP 1 players having used mods extensively, the feeling of stock gameplay is that you're playing with toy rockets in a toy system.
And that aside of the delta-v equation and orbital mechanics, you're not really facing any of the "real" challenges of spaceflight.

And for those players, stock KSP 2 won't offer anything more than stock KSP 1, apart from a (welcome) technical/graphical upgrade.
Time will tell, but long term I'm relatively confident that a segregationist "de-interstellarized" KSP 2 modding ecosystem leaning toward contemporary spaceflight will emerge.

Speaking for myself, I think they could have made KSP 2 a slightly more simulation leaning game than KSP 1 without that interstellar scope and it would still have been a success.
A world setting a la "The Expanse" with a slightly more realistically scaled system and featuring more planets, moons, comets and asteroids would have been very appealing to a lot of people, I think.
But well, other stars and sci-fi colonies we shall have. To me, it seems early on they got quite stuck in the "we must keep/reuse everything that exists in KSP 1" safe zone. At least they dumped science/career mode.

[Bej Kerman]

4 hours ago, Domonian said:

The simple fact is that I don't know how to get to any other planets, I don't know what kind of vehicle(s) I may need to use, I don't know how much dV I may need, and at the end of it all, there's nothing there on any other planets anyway.

That was KSP 1; KSP 2 should provide most of the tools needed to make these judgements.

4 hours ago, Domonian said:

KSP1 is inside KSP2

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.

29 minutes ago, Brofessional said:

but vanilla KSP1 isn't THAT difficult to master

I'm guessing you either forgot what it was like playing KSP at first, or you got your NASA degree first then got KSP? 

4 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

6 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Star Citizen, EVE and Elite Dangerous aren't really space simulators, they're more space MMORPGs imo. 

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.

4 minutes ago, Gotmachine said:

But there is a relatively large proportion of the KSP1 playerbase that are here for the "simulation" side.

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.

[MechBFP]

9 hours ago, garwel said:

I know the devs want to expand their user base and probably believe all hardcore KSP 1 fans will buy the game anyway, but competing in the mainstream isn't always a wise choice.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that competing in the main stream here is a better option than choosing an even smaller niche to shoehorn yourself into. 

[Gotmachine]

37 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Try not to base a mini-essay on an assumption that has no source yet

Nobody has a source on that.
But RSS and RO are in the top 10 downloaded mods on CKAN. 
"Real rockets" part mods like BDB and Tantares are also hugely popular.
System rescale mods or larger system scale mods like JNSQ or KSRSS, quite popular too.
"Simulation" mods like TAC-LS or Kerbalism are also still quite sought after, despite being essentially abandoned.
If you look at KSP youtube videos produced and views or discord servers populations, you can see that there is quite some interest for "more simulation".

37 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

Yes, there is definitely a greater potential playerbase for a more casual game, that's exactely what I said.
But it can't be so easily dismissed that a large part of the success of KSP is due to the enthusiasm and dedication of the hardcore space nerds.
Beside, the Orbiter comparison is irrelevant. Orbiter is a simulation, not a game. I never said KSP 2 shouldn't be a game, just that it could have had more real-world and contemporary scope.

Anyway, the point is that I just wanted to expand on OP statement :

10 hours ago, garwel said:

I have mixed feelings about KSP 2. It may be to do with my playstyle, but I suspect I'm not alone there.

You're definitely not alone.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Gotmachine

[Pthigrivi]

7 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Colonies can be done without interstellar. Heck, we NEED colonies BEFORE interstellar.

This is the other thing Im pretty excited about. We don't know a lot about the resource and prospecting system yet or how many raw and refined resources will be available but it sounds like building the infrastructure to actually construct and fuel an interstellar ship will be quite a feat. If there's one thing Im not worried about its whether we'll have enough to do in the Kerbol system before we leave. If anything the progression game elements should be as streamlined as they can be so players are really just up against the engineering challenge of harvesting rare resources, getting them to where they're needed and hoisting up colonies capable of supporting huge missions. That sounds pretty awesome to me. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Profugo Barbatus]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

This is the other thing Im pretty excited about. We don't know a lot about the resource and prospecting system yet or how many raw and refined resources will be available but it sounds like building the infrastructure to actually construct and fuel an interstellar ship will be quite a feat. If there's one thing Im not worried about its whether we'll have enough to do in the Kerbol system before we leave. If anything the progression game elements should be as streamlined as they can be so players are really just up against the engineering challenge of harvesting rare resources, getting them to where they're needed and hoisting up colonies capable of supporting huge missions. That sounds pretty awesome to me. 

Even the snippets we've seen indicate at least a handful of fuel and structural resources, and odds are across the kerbol system that will expand to the low tens across the space - Which gives plenty of room for inner/outer system resource scarcity and implications to your production, and by extension lots of reason to invest heavily in exploring, colonizing, and then connecting the solar system. Just the transport system alone will add a lot - not because of ease of movement, but by forcing us to fly the first route. Barring bragging rights in a grand tour, there was little reason to make a trip from Duna out to Jool directly, or vice-versa. Now navigating space will be a lot more interesting than just learning the launch windows and intercepts for Kerbal-to-everything. And I would not be surprised in the slightest if the interstellar drives went a bit sci-fi in their implementation, requiring exotic mixes of ingredients not present solely on one world. They're staying grounded in the technological principles, but a lot of the concepts out there already start from "Well if we had room temperature superconductors" or other such unobtanium material thoughts. Introducing such materials as resources would be in line with KSP, without violating the scientific grounding.

Not to mention that we can all but guarantee that there will be mods going absolutely in depth on resources and production. If the base game has us pulling up 'Metallic Ore' and putting them through a refinery to get 'Metals' for ship production, modders will quickly throw in everything from a simple common/rare metals divide, to the full periodic table, with all the colony buildings for complex refining you could imagine.

[garwel]

Ok, I see that most of the commenters are much more optimistic about KSP 2. It's good to see, and maybe my fears won't materialize. And yet, from what I've seen so far (admittedly, I probably missed some info), the approach is to expand the game, not deepen it. It's not a bad thing per se, but for me, KSP 1 is already huge, especially with the multitude of mods adding celestial bodies and parts. Even if I'm wrong, and the game won't be dumbed down, it's sad to see that most of the devs' effort goes into features I'll probably never even see. At the same time, many features that might make KSP2 more realistic and immersive won't be in the game or will only receive little attention. Of course, modders will come to aid, but new mechanics added through mods are never as smooth and seamless as something existing in stock.

That said, there are some things in KSP 2 I'm looking forward to: new fuel types, improved modding capabilities, better GFX, and colonization if it's well-implemented. Many other features (science & tech, economy) are still not clear enough to tell if it's going to be a step forward or backwards.

Edited December 8, 2022 by garwel

[Profugo Barbatus]

9 minutes ago, garwel said:

Many other features (science & tech, economy) are still not clear enough to tell if it's going to be a step forward or backwards.

That's fair, and I'm mostly in agreement. Science and Technology is a concern point of mine - I found the base KSP science servicable as an exploration incentive, but not particularly interesting, until they started getting deployable science. I'm hopeful that they continue that path of more involved science options. If they had something real interesting to show, I'd imagine it would have made a devlog by now. Or they did show it and I'm just an idiot who forgot.

[Domonian]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

7 hours ago, Domonian said:

KSP1 is inside KSP2

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.

You took this a little too literally; all of the content KSP1 (minus certain parts and career mode as we know it currently) is still present in KSP2, not the actual game. 

21 minutes ago, garwel said:

And yet, from what I've seen so far (admittedly, I probably missed some info), the approach is to expand the game, not deepen it

This is the case with most space games, unfortunately. It's hard to deepen a bunch of rocks out in the middle of nowhere. Although this does depend on how you define "deepen." How would you deepen KSP2, or rather, what is your ideal sequel to KSP1?