KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Multivac]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP is missing a boat load of essential, borderline required features (see: persistent thrust, different fuel types bc the old liquid fuel NERVs are completely broken in regards to balance, ways to access parts that are inaccessible due to camera controls, a basic reactor, part classifications inside categories, etc) and £30 is asked for all that. I don't think the indie development really holds valid seeing as you had individual modders like Nertea coordinating the development of part assets and parts themselves far better than Squad was. I don't think it's a stretch to say that what's to be said about KSP 2 applies far more to KSP 1 than 2, especially seeing as <s> KSP 1's developers were so good at priorities </s> that they spent a good chunk of developer time remaking the part assets to be just as mediocre and even more bland than the old part assets. Yes, I'm bringing KSP 1 up for the 50th time. But I'm not a big fan of double standards and seeing people take kind stances about KSP 1 when it had many issues much worse than the, as Vl3d would say, mostly "cosmetic" bugs that I encounter playing KSP 2. On my first few weeks of coming back to KSP 1 towards late 2022, I had even small probes suffering from phantom forces and shaking themselves apart on successive rails warp > physics > rails warp cycles, all because I built a tiny bit of stuff around a tiny small cubic strut. You know, using a part built for part attachment to attach parts to places they otherwise can't be attached to. Again, this game in its entirety costs £30 and that's not a kind price point for an insanely cheap and broken game - the game's look, even with all the eye candy mods you can find, is stuck in 2011 and the bugs and lack of critical features make it feel like an early access game. Even seven years after its early access ended. Sure, KSP 1's tenuous list of planned features being checked makes it "feature complete", but that's a frankly useless metric given that many features you should need for e.g. ion engines were seemingly never planned. Yes, KSP 2's parts list takes a second to load and things are a bit slow, but it's certainly better than KSP 1 directing all of its resources to getting the parts loaded, which becomes a massive problem when using mods.

I notice my tangent is getting longer so I will stop there. I just wanted to address how insanely pricey KSP 1 is for how broken it is, and that people seem to forget, ignore or get apologetic about KSP 1's Knock-Nevis full of problems when it gets brought up in discussions about KSP 2.

So far, KSP 2 costs 15 quid more than KSP 1 (and is just about the same price as the full KSP 1 experience), and it's already dealt some serious blows in my eyes. I can't now go back to single-craft construction, a separate SPH, impulse maneuver editing and a navball that's afraid to be anywhere near the altitude readout, can I?

Absolutely ridiculous how some people keep "dumping" on KSP1. KSP1 was, and remains, an absolutely brilliant and unique game that has given me and, I know, many other players, many hundreds of hours of joy.

While teaching us things about space travel we never understood before, and teaching them in a brilliantly intuitive way. And we have nothing but fun throughout the lesson.

The only reason any of us are here on this forum at all is KSP1.

It's one thing to defend the car crash that is the KSP2 launch, but throwing KSP1 under the bus in order to do so is just low. Whatever bugs or questionable design choices it may have (and I think you're severely overstating how serious they are, I've never had nearly as many issues as you keep claiming to experience, except maybe when trying to figure out new mods) the fact is it still adds up to a wonderful, deeply enjoyable game. I'd pay $50 for KSP1 again today, and it'd be worth every penny.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Multivac

[Umlüx]

sadly i too just refunded the game and it pains me as i have spent 3000 fun hours in ksp1 and love the game!

but ksp2 is nowhere ready. thats not early access, that is a beta at best. and a beta asking for 50 bucks nonetheless!!

i hope to come back when the game is in a more playable state...

[SilentSword]

2 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

We’re on the second day of EA and the devs still haven’t fixed this?  The horror… the horror…

I mean they stated in their dev blogs it was already fixed and it was one of the main reasons for rewriting the engine. Seeing 10 year old bugs happening on a rewritten game is strange 

[Jebsded]

pumping sim once

pumping sim twice

well you're not pumping sim three times

[Jebsded]

pumping sim once simulator

sign me up

[TLTay]

The steam reviews keep bouncing from 49% to 50% positive. I've been watching since it was about 2k reviews. It seems like people are rushing in to try to offset negative reviews with positive ones.

So far the content of negative reviews is about the product in its current state, and the content of positive reviews seems to be based on it being expected to get better over time and signaling support for the product. Only a small portion of the positive reviews seemed positive on the current product, with many people seemingly trying to convince themselves that their time and money are well spent.

It seems that if the reviews were only counted based on what is paid for and played today, they would be overwhelmingly negative.

Over the next week, we will be able to see what percent of reviewers actually bothered to play for more than a few hours. I expect many will not find it worthy of their time, despite signaling their allegiance with a positive review. There seem to be 2 categories of positive reviewers: "superfans" who are playing 10+ hours these last 2 days, and "investors" who've played low hours and have seemingly shelved the game despite leaving a positive review.

The single most damning thing is looking at the concurrent player count in KSP1 right after launch go up. It's the highest it has been since the lockdowns. There can be little other explanation than the people who were hyped about KSP2 were disappointed and bailed back to KSP1 to get their fix.

As of writing, there are 15k players playing KSP2 right now, down from 26k concurrent players. Viewers on twitch dropped from 28k at peak to 7k right now. Also of note is how rapidly the player count seems to be dropping compared to patterns for other recently released games. It will be interesting to see how many people play for how long after the signalling and cheerleading phase is over.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again to unreceptive audience: if you're very attached to this game, you need to prepare yourself for the possible event it gets cancelled. T2 made their promise of release this fiscal year by a week. The promise was kept, now what happens next depends on the finance department's assessment of ROI. They'll be looking at metrics and sales, you can't signal them not to cancel. They only care about money. If they project continued losses going forward, that's it. Plug pulled. They will write it off. They've written off bigger.

Edited February 25, 2023 by TLTay

[Vanamonde]

Multiple overlapping threads have been merged. 

[Stephensan]

21 minutes ago, TLTay said:

The steam reviews keep bouncing from 49% to 50% positive. I've been watching since it was about 2k reviews. It seems like people are rushing in to try to offset negative reviews with positive ones.

So far the content of negative reviews is about the product in its current state, and the content of positive reviews seems to be based on it being expected to get better over time and signaling support for the product. Only a small portion of the positive reviews seemed positive on the current product, with many people seemingly trying to convince themselves that their time and money are well spent.

It seems that if the reviews were only counted based on what is paid for and played today, they would be overwhelmingly negative.

Over the next week, we will be able to see what percent of reviewers actually bothered to play for more than a few hours. I expect many will not find it worthy of their time, despite signaling their allegiance with a positive review. There seem to be 2 categories of positive reviewers: "superfans" who are playing 10+ hours these last 2 days, and "investors" who've played low hours and have seemingly shelved the game despite leaving a positive review.

The single most damning thing is looking at the concurrent player count in KSP1 right after launch go up. It's the highest it has been since the lockdowns. There can be little other explanation than the people who were hyped about KSP2 were disappointed and bailed back to KSP1 to get their fix.

As of writing, there are 15k players playing KSP2 right now, down from 26k concurrent players. Viewers on twitch dropped from 28k at peak to 7k right now. Also of note is how rapidly the player count seems to be dropping compared to patterns for other recently released games. It will be interesting to see how many people play for how long after the signalling and cheerleading phase is over.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again to unreceptive audience: if you're very attached to this game, you need to prepare yourself for the possible event it gets cancelled. T2 made their promise of release this fiscal year by a week. The promise was kept, now what happens next depends on the finance department's assessment of ROI. They'll be looking at metrics and sales, you can't signal them not to cancel. They only care about money. If they project continued losses going forward, that's it. Plug pulled. They will write it off. They've written off bigger.

the largest, and i do mean the largest issue that hurts the game right now is the horrible fps

 

i can deal with bugs etc later, but if i have sub 5 fps on a 3070.. i have no reason to continue playing the game until there is an update about it to give high end computer even a remote chance to play..

 

what will kill the game is how long it will take for the next update that will help with performance... like 10x uplift in performance in frames.

 

im starting a joke and been saying it recently "if all the hardware gets the same frame rate regardless of specs, that means everyone is on the same playing field"..

[TLTay]

5 minutes ago, Stephensan said:

the largest, and i do mean the largest issue that hurts the game right now is the horrible fps

 

i can deal with bugs etc later, but if i have sub 5 fps on a 3070.. i have no reason to continue playing the game until there is an update about it to give high end computer even a remote chance to play..

 

what will kill the game is how long it will take for the next update that will help with performance... like 10x uplift in performance in frames.

 

im starting a joke and been saying it recently "if all the hardware gets the same frame rate regardless of specs, that means everyone is on the same playing field"..

We're probably a year out from stability or performance comparable to KSP1. Probably 3 years out from version 1.0. The interviews I saw from the youtubers of Nate and Nertea revealed just how little of the roadmap is in process. Although enthusiastic, the answers were barren of detail and betrayed just how little of the content has even been fully planned, let alone partially implemented.

This was announced in August 2019. It wouldn't have been appropriate to even announce a game if it were in this state, much less set a release window. We are 3 years on from announce with a horribly buggy tech demo with no meat.

I'm not sure what happened, but I expect cancellation. They may try to salvage parts of it by creating more KSP1 DLC out of it if they can port planets or functionality over. The fans bought already, the non-fans probably won't buy now. Can they keep the lights on? We will see.

[Stephensan]

3 minutes ago, TLTay said:

We're probably a year out from stability or performance comparable to KSP1. Probably 3 years out from version 1.0. The interviews I saw from the youtubers of Nate and Nertea revealed just how little of the roadmap is in process. Although enthusiastic, the answers were barren of detail and betrayed just how little of the content has even been fully planned, let alone partially implemented.

This was announced in August 2019. It wouldn't have been appropriate to even announce a game if it were in this state, much less set a release window. We are 3 years on from announce with a horribly buggy tech demo with no meat.

I'm not sure what happened, but I expect cancellation. They may try to salvage parts of it by creating more KSP1 DLC out of it if they can port planets or functionality over. The fans bought already, the non-fans probably won't buy now. Can they keep the lights on? We will see.

5 fps to 50 fps, thats all the im asking for.

 

on a 3070 it shouldn't be that hard. im not asking for everyone at all ranges to play im asking at least in the name of the kraken that controls the modular wings, the void ground

 

im asking for something that works, not a slideshow..

 

i can screenshot faster than this game can render

[caipi]

55 minutes ago, TLTay said:

There seem to be 2 categories of positive reviewers: "superfans" who are playing 10+ hours these last 2 days, and "investors" who've played low hours and have seemingly shelved the game despite leaving a positive review.

I don't know how reliable those steam played hours are for KSP2. I'm starting the game by launching the KSP2 exe directly. When I do that, my play time is not updated in Steam. Just saying. Steam says 36 minutes. I've actually spent a few hours and landed on the Mün, where my Kerbals won't come out of their Mk1-3 Gumball pod. Don't ask me why. I guess they are afraid of small steps for Kerbals.

I left a negative review though because of too many bugs, missing basic features that were present in KSP, even more bugs, the disimproved UI, did I mention bugs yet, and the high price.

I'm so disappointed right now and find the game in its current state unplayable. Even for an Early Access, the current state is just bad. I have a number of EA games that I love. I also only paid half the price for KSP 0.23 and was amazed and blown away back then. Now? ... :-( I'm still considering refunding the game, which would be the first one ever. Luckily Steam doesn't count the minutes correctly.

[Pthigrivi]

29 minutes ago, TLTay said:

I'm not sure what happened, but I expect cancellation. They may try to salvage parts of it by creating more KSP1 DLC out of it if they can port planets or functionality over. The fans bought already, the non-fans probably won't buy now. Can they keep the lights on? We will see.

I think that's a bit dramatic. Lets just see what happens with performance and bugs over the next few months. I've played a lot of buggy first day releases. The performance is the main issue for me. Technically Im right around the min spec but Im running it through an emulator on Mac, so its fine in orbit, launches with medium sized vessels are too sluggish for my taste. I imagine that's much more difficult for players near or below the min-spec. The design however is absolutely fantastic, so I'm still pretty hopeful things will get ironed out soon. I think the focus has to be solving these technical issues first before introducing new features. 


So yeah, pretty much agree with Shadowzone here: 

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[aeroeng14]

23 minutes ago, TLTay said:

We're probably a year out from stability or performance comparable to KSP1. Probably 3 years out from version 1.0. The interviews I saw from the youtubers of Nate and Nertea revealed just how little of the roadmap is in process. Although enthusiastic, the answers were barren of detail and betrayed just how little of the content has even been fully planned, let alone partially implemented.

I think the devs were deliberately vague in the answers, I mean I would be. There's a whole marketing plan, etc. for each of those phases. I see no sense hyping people up for something they won't get for months perhaps depending how the bugfixing goes in the next weeks. Also, have you seen some of the data mines people have done on the base files already? There's a lot of the science system already in and many of the interstellar parts and descriptions may have been leaked as well (if you consider them old code or not). The amount of colony stuff currently in the files is significantly less, but that's to be expected compared to the next feature coming up on the roadmap.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/11b8s6f/i_looked_into_ksp2_code_here_is_what_ive_found/
 

Spoiler

https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/11bgukg/future_ksp2_update_megaleak/

 

 

 

[Alexoff]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

You'd know what you were paying for.

It is unlikely that anyone expected that everything would be so sad. Okay, there are colonies and multiplayer, the core of the game needs to be completed for a couple more years.

[Fragile-Engineering]

Ok, I have read through half of the thread now. Some of my points were already mentioned but I don't have the time to read everything. So here is my feedback to KSP 2 EA:

Frankly, after all these delays and promissing announcement videos, I expected more ... a lot more! I am sorry, that I have to start with that sentence, because I think, that also this state, we see here, was a lot of work! But in my opinion, it is really not enough for early access and also not enough for enthusiasts, who love and have played KSP 1 for far more than thousand hours. And here comes why:

- Most of the game components and also control-keys were reused from KSP 1. Which is not bad. But most of the valuable functions of KSP 1, I did not find! For example:
  + Were is the toggle for engine's vaccum stats in assembly-building? 
  + Why is it not possible to plan manouvers in another bodys SOI before I am actually in it? (although I like this SOI-marker, the whole manouver planning is lacking precission!)
  + How can I orient the ship retrograde in relation to target? 

- All those bugs do NOT create a joyful experience. For example:
  + First undock attempt: Mission-End-Popup occured - for no comprehensible reason - something must have been badly damaged during undocking...
  + Second undock attempt in mun orbit: the ship got shot away so far that it left mun's SOI... 
  + Fairings behave strange: in assembly-building, only one half can be hidden/removed. In space, after jettison it moves very "unnatural" away from the ship
  + Shortly before reaching orbit, it happend two times that the rocket was not controllable any more. After some switching around of views and resetting SAS-mode, it worked again.
  + The burn-timer NEVER indicated the right moment to stop the burn 
  + Kerbal-Jetpacks: After the first thrust, the Kerbal does not fall to the ground any more.

- The "magic" I felt when first reaching space in KSP 1 is not there. I don't know why, but I think it is because of the "candy-look". Yes, Kerbals are comic-like by nature (and I love them), but behind the childish cover of KSP 1 there was a serios space simulation! I cannot see this in KSP2 at the moment :-(
  I think this default coloring of spacecrafts should be made optional. I would prefer a more realistic style. 
- the part-icons in VAB look somehow "undetailed". Will this be improved or is it the new style. I would prefer more detailed parts.

- Performance is worse than in the old KSP 1 - why?? (even with dozens of graphic mods KSP1 is faster ... and looks as good as KSP2)

To say at least two positive things:
I like the graphic improvements of the KSC and the environmental improvements
And I had the best "ladder-experience" ever! ;-) When there is a gap between two ladders I could press F again to grab the next ladder, This was sometimes a pain in KSP1

[dok_377]

6 hours ago, Fullmetal Analyst said:

i can only agree with everything you said, except the first point:

the camera controls in VAB are much improved, just hold MMB to scroll up/down, or just click MMB on a part to focus view on it

Not good enough. It should be like the first game's SPH. Full manual translation control. Building something complex with clipped parts is next to impossible at the moment. It's like trying to build a plane in the VAB in the first game. Also, if you try to zoom in all the way inside some part to clip something and try to rotate the camera, the game just boots you out and zooms out, which is extremely annoying. 

Edited February 25, 2023 by dok_377

[TLTay]

7 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I think that's a bit dramatic. Lets just see what happens with performance and bugs over the next few months. I've played a lot of buggy first day releases. The performance is the main issue for me. Technically Im right around the min spec but Im running it through an emulator on Mac, so its fine in orbit, launches with medium sized vessels are too sluggish for my taste. I imagine that's much more difficult for players near or below the min-spec. The design however is absolutely fantastic, so I'm still pretty hopeful things will get ironed out soon. I think the focus has to be solving these technical issues first before introducing new features. 

It's not about what they can fix or not, this game hit the limit if the accounting/finance/management team's ability to tolerate expenses. Contrary to the flowery language, it wasn't put in early access so we can tell them what we think. It was rushed out the door at the last minute possible because management is done paying for development. If the game cannot cover its own development costs from this point forward, it is done. Gone. Cancelled. They're DONE paying development costs, and that's why out now. 

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Multivac said:

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP is missing a boat load of essential, borderline required features (see: persistent thrust, different fuel types bc the old liquid fuel NERVs are completely broken in regards to balance, ways to access parts that are inaccessible due to camera controls, a basic reactor, part classifications inside categories, etc) and £30 is asked for all that. I don't think the indie development really holds valid seeing as you had individual modders like Nertea coordinating the development of part assets and parts themselves far better than Squad was. I don't think it's a stretch to say that what's to be said about KSP 2 applies far more to KSP 1 than 2, especially seeing as <s> KSP 1's developers were so good at priorities </s> that they spent a good chunk of developer time remaking the part assets to be just as mediocre and even more bland than the old part assets. Yes, I'm bringing KSP 1 up for the 50th time. But I'm not a big fan of double standards and seeing people take kind stances about KSP 1 when it had many issues much worse than the, as Vl3d would say, mostly "cosmetic" bugs that I encounter playing KSP 2. On my first few weeks of coming back to KSP 1 towards late 2022, I had even small probes suffering from phantom forces and shaking themselves apart on successive rails warp > physics > rails warp cycles, all because I built a tiny bit of stuff around a tiny small cubic strut. You know, using a part built for part attachment to attach parts to places they otherwise can't be attached to. Again, this game in its entirety costs £30 and that's not a kind price point for an insanely cheap and broken game - the game's look, even with all the eye candy mods you can find, is stuck in 2011 and the bugs and lack of critical features make it feel like an early access game. Even seven years after its early access ended. Sure, KSP 1's tenuous list of planned features being checked makes it "feature complete", but that's a frankly useless metric given that many features you should need for e.g. ion engines were seemingly never planned. Yes, KSP 2's parts list takes a second to load and things are a bit slow, but it's certainly better than KSP 1 directing all of its resources to getting the parts loaded, which becomes a massive problem when using mods.

I notice my tangent is getting longer so I will stop there. I just wanted to address how insanely pricey KSP 1 is for how broken it is, and that people seem to forget, ignore or get apologetic about KSP 1's Knock-Nevis full of problems when it gets brought up in discussions about KSP 2.

So far, KSP 2 costs 15 quid more than KSP 1 (and is just about the same price as the full KSP 1 experience), and it's already dealt some serious blows in my eyes. I can't now go back to single-craft construction, a separate SPH, impulse maneuver editing and a navball that's afraid to be anywhere near the altitude readout, can I?

Absolutely ridiculous how some people keep "dumping" on KSP1. KSP1 was, and remains, an absolutely brilliant and unique game that has given me and, I know, many other players, many hundreds of hours of joy.

Would you care to explain how this is ridiculous, rather than just telling me off for pointing out all the double standards and the issues with a game you liked, all without ever giving me any actual counterarguments to what I said?

1 hour ago, Multivac said:

While teaching us things about space travel we never understood before, and teaching them in a brilliantly intuitive way. And we have nothing but fun throughout the lesson.

The game's tutorials sum up to dialog boxes that occasionally do stuff when you satisfy conditions. One tutorial, for a while, couldn't even be completed because of a mistake during its development. KSP 2's tutorials will probably do the job of bringing rocket science to a casual audience with its animated tutorials breaking everything down into everyday analogies while using understandable and fairly common works, but KSP 1 never held up to "teaching them in a brilliantly intuitive way". The rocketry was simplified but don't confuse it for intuitive. Most people I'm finding only learned the game through Scott Manley et al.

1 hour ago, Multivac said:

It's one thing to defend the car crash that is the KSP2 launch, but throwing KSP1 under the bus in order to do so is just low.

If you are at all going to call my criticism of a game "low", at least provide me with actual counterarguments. So far I've seen you putting KSP 1 on a pedestal, exaggerating and overstating its qualities, but no counterarguments to anything I've said.

1 hour ago, Multivac said:

Whatever bugs or questionable design choices it may have (and I think you're severely overstating how serious they are, I've never had nearly as many issues as you keep claiming to experience, except maybe when trying to figure out new mods)

I'm severely overstating the severity of a vessel imploding because its part tree got too complicated for the game...? I encountered this twice within a short span, on my Minmus space station and on my probe, which was barely any bigger than a small Mun lander, all because I relied a tiny bit too heavily on tiny cubic struts. Putting too much stress should cause the cubic strut to fall off with sufficient force, not cause the entire vessel to wobble, vibrate and shatter as if every attached part is being thrashed by an engine.

1 hour ago, Multivac said:

the fact is it still adds up to a wonderful, deeply enjoyable game. I'd pay $50 for KSP1 again today, and it'd be worth every penny.

Mhm? That's not going to stop me from calling double standards where I see them. I, in no universe, would pay $50 for KSP 1 knowing how barebones it is and how many features, often basic ones, are lacking that are needed. The tutorials are bad, the gameplay suffers from a lack of critical features, the parts list is full of gaps, the bugs tracker has too many bugs in it, and so on. It's not nearly the game people state it to be. People find it easy to complain about a game that's new and has lots of issues, but complaining about a game people have had 10 years to get used to and holds a sentimental value?

I don't mind constructive criticism of KSP 2, I've started on reporting bugs myself. But most of the criticism I see of KSP 2 is hardly constructive, and I do see the odd bit of criticism claiming KSP 1 is somehow better on a fundamental level even though you can see from some parts of KSP 2 that the developers are at least thinking, and not just adding stuff on impulse; "We've got ion engines (and later interstellar ones), so we need persistent thrust. People are going to be doing burns in the background and colonies will be told to perform missions on their own, so we need to support resource transfers in the background. The KSP 1 UI was designed by five-eyed aliens who don't understand that humans can't perceive the entire screen at once without bits going into our peripheral vision, so we put altitude and basic orbital info with the other navball readouts. People are going to be building space stations so we'll give them more than a pitifully small selection of girders to play with. The KSP 1 parts list was barely readable so parts are now labelled by size and are divided into subcategories. The VAB and SPH were restrictive so let's make dropped parts act as separate vehicles, integrate mirror symmetry into rocket symmetry and allow players to toggle vertical and horizontal default part orientation within the same workspace -!- wait a minute, with that last bit, we don't need an entirely different scene for aircrafts anymore!" et cetera. There are very few parts of KSP 1 where I can see thought went into planning things. Forgivable when it was still mainly Harvester, sure. Forgivable over 10 years later, absolutely not.

TL;DR: People only forgive KSP 1 because they are only attached to it, from what I can tell.

[Kubas_inko]

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

TL;DR: People only forgive KSP 1 because they are only attached to it, from what I can tell.

People forgive KSP 1 because it was started by a single guy, became a passion project, and ended with a small team, which had control over it for the most part. KSP 2 on the other hand is made by a large team (who don't have control over it) and a giant publisher. That's why people forgive KSP 1.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Kubas_inko

[TLTay]

I just tried to watch that shadowzone video, and was greeted by a 2 minute commercial for KSP2 EA. It was awesome. Watch it if you can. They literally seem to have put more effort into the commercial than the game. Look at how much work went into it. The marketing team is well-funded and on point. Development... eh. Not so much.

[Bej Kerman]

11 minutes ago, Kubas_inko said:

People forgive KSP 1 because it was started by a single guy, became a passion project, and ended with a small team, which had control over it for the most part. KSP 2 on the other hand is made by a large team (who don't have control over it) and a giant publisher. That's why people forgive KSP 1.

Not any reason for forgiveness given that the modding scene has proven that "a single guy" could also do persistent thrust or a proper parts list with good models, let alone a small team.

[ArmchairGravy]

The fuel system issues are bananas. I'm losing all fuel on a ship when I load it, and couplers don't isolate a fuel system.  I think the great tutorials would have been better served by a game with its basic functionality in place. Thank you, TTI and PD corporate for unleashing this hot mess.

[Sea_Kerman]

The fuel bug has soemthing to do with landing legs of all things 

 

[TLTay]

Review of hours played by people who have reviewed the game as on now:

6840 total reviews.

66% have played for 1 hour or more.

41% played for 2 hours or more

29% played for 3 hours or more

20% played for 4 hours or more

9% played for 5 hours or more

5% played for 6 hours or more

5% for 7 hours+

5% for 8 hours +

3% for 9 hours +

That's a pretty steep dropoff for a release weekend. Very few people are making this the fun of their weekend after all the hype. 2/3 of people haven't even played 3 hours. Only 5% could be considered to be making KSP2 a primary entertainment choice this weekend. Looks like it's getting refunded or put back on the shelf for later by a great many people.

Edited February 25, 2023 by TLTay

[Multivac]

56 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Would you care to explain how this is ridiculous, rather than just telling me off for pointing out all the double standards and the issues with a game you liked, all without ever giving me any actual counterarguments to what I said?

The game's tutorials sum up to dialog boxes that occasionally do stuff when you satisfy conditions. One tutorial, for a while, couldn't even be completed because of a mistake during its development. KSP 2's tutorials will probably do the job of bringing rocket science to a casual audience with its animated tutorials breaking everything down into everyday analogies while using understandable and fairly common works, but KSP 1 never held up to "teaching them in a brilliantly intuitive way". The rocketry was simplified but don't confuse it for intuitive. Most people I'm finding only learned the game through Scott Manley et al.

If you are at all going to call my criticism of a game "low", at least provide me with actual counterarguments. So far I've seen you putting KSP 1 on a pedestal, exaggerating and overstating its qualities, but no counterarguments to anything I've said.

I'm severely overstating the severity of a vessel imploding because its part tree got too complicated for the game...? I encountered this twice within a short span, on my Minmus space station and on my probe, which was barely any bigger than a small Mun lander, all because I relied a tiny bit too heavily on tiny cubic struts. Putting too much stress should cause the cubic strut to fall off with sufficient force, not cause the entire vessel to wobble, vibrate and shatter as if every attached part is being thrashed by an engine.

Mhm? That's not going to stop me from calling double standards where I see them. I, in no universe, would pay $50 for KSP 1 knowing how barebones it is and how many features, often basic ones, are lacking that are needed. The tutorials are bad, the gameplay suffers from a lack of critical features, the parts list is full of gaps, the bugs tracker has too many bugs in it, and so on. It's not nearly the game people state it to be. People find it easy to complain about a game that's new and has lots of issues, but complaining about a game people have had 10 years to get used to and holds a sentimental value?

I don't mind constructive criticism of KSP 2, I've started on reporting bugs myself. But most of the criticism I see of KSP 2 is hardly constructive, and I do see the odd bit of criticism claiming KSP 1 is somehow better on a fundamental level even though you can see from some parts of KSP 2 that the developers are at least thinking, and not just adding stuff on impulse; "We've got ion engines (and later interstellar ones), so we need persistent thrust. People are going to be doing burns in the background and colonies will be told to perform missions on their own, so we need to support resource transfers in the background. The KSP 1 UI was designed by five-eyed aliens who don't understand that humans can't perceive the entire screen at once without bits going into our peripheral vision, so we put altitude and basic orbital info with the other navball readouts. People are going to be building space stations so we'll give them more than a pitifully small selection of girders to play with. The KSP 1 parts list was barely readable so parts are now labelled by size and are divided into subcategories. The VAB and SPH were restrictive so let's make dropped parts act as separate vehicles, integrate mirror symmetry into rocket symmetry and allow players to toggle vertical and horizontal default part orientation within the same workspace -!- wait a minute, with that last bit, we don't need an entirely different scene for aircrafts anymore!" et cetera. There are very few parts of KSP 1 where I can see thought went into planning things. Forgivable when it was still mainly Harvester, sure. Forgivable over 10 years later, absolutely not.

TL;DR: People only forgive KSP 1 because they are only attached to it, from what I can tell.

I'm not interested in joining a high school debate club with you. I'm simply saying that I think it's crummy of you to badmouth a brilliant game in order to defend the launch of a sequel that's received some (perfectly fair) criticism. KSP1 made building rockets and going to space fun, and I learned plenty from it without bothering much with the tutorials, and despite the bugs and quirks the game does, indeed, have. "Omg the NERVs are unbalanced! My strut broke! It didn't have features X, Y, or Z (that KSP2 doesn't really have yet either!) Worst! Game! Ever!" is not an argument I'm gonna spend tons of time or energy refuting. If KSP1 weren't a good game, you wouldn't be arguing here, and neither would anyone else, and there'd be no such thing as KSP2 to argue about in the first place. KSP1 was more than merely a success, it was something that people loved, and still love, and rightly so. I don't like seeing people badmouth it in order to defend the sequel from well-earned criticism, is all.