KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Dakitess]

11 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

$50 for a graphics makeover, and the chance to sell DLC to everyone without being tied to Squad's old giveaway promise.

It's fun because it's about 85% of what I expected the most for KSP2 : graphics. Being technically up to date. I almost don't care about the promised features, KSP is all about emergent gameplay (to me) and I only need KSP2 as a new beast to roast for the next decade without having to instantly install dozen of graphics mods to get something "correct" when we now have a lot of beautiful game for years.

I've said that so many times but... KSP with gorgeous scenery would mean A LOT. It would mean incentive to do everything in this game. Landing, roving, exploring, settling, sharing location, filming, screenshotting, etc. It's the only real thing which is worth a new KSP, to me : new basis, new engine, new optimization, new assets, new everything, technically speaking, so that we overcome the very draft aspect of KSP that could not benefit from full scratch dev with a pro team, the whole 10 years feedback from players, the new technologies, etc.

But nope, we have some crappy looking saturated weird lightning and full of artifact looking game, while running poorly on the of the cake. Haha.

I know that i'm actually one of the exception that place graphics and aesthetic (+ performances, of course) before anything else for KSP2. But to me, it was its very main reason to be. A technical update, a dev from scratch, the opportunity to not get stuck in known dead-ends. Everything else would go along, features, gameplay improvement, GUI, contents... Mods.

[m4inbrain]

12 hours ago, darthgently said:

But, respectfully, you should speak for yourself also. It seems like most vitriol in the forums comes from assumptions about what KSP is "supposed to be".

Ideally, I would think, KSP2 would provide core functionally and a base game that covers common players' tastes and then mods and DLCs would add the twists to suit more niche groups (detailed life support, more aero/physics realism,  advanced scripting control,  etc).

 

It doesn't get more "speaking for myself" than starting a sentence with "i". 

Now, for what KSP is supposed to be, that's a fairly obvious assessment of what Squad actually released. As we know, "hardcore realism" was added through mods, but never implemented in the core game. 

Your ideal is basically what KSP is and always has been. An accessible (HarvesteR called it "light hearted" multiple times in interviews) game, not a hardcore simulator. And that's great, i've played with plenty of mods (be it FAR, life support mods and similar things) - but those always have been optional, as you stated, through mods. 

As for vitriol, like it or not, it's usually coming from people who think that KSP isn't realistic/"hardcore" enough. Quite similarly to Diablo 2 players and their vitriol when Diablo 3 and subsequently Diablo 4 released. In this case, if you're into "hardcore realism" and played KSP for years and hundreds (or thousands) of hours with the corresponding mods, it's hard to accept that the "base game" they're playing isn't actually what KSP was "intended to be". That's where sentences like "KSP2 should be based on KSP1 with hardcore mods, realistic rockets with real engines in the real world" come from. 

No, it absolutely shouldn't be, and never has been. It's ignorant to suggest that developers where just too stupid to implement "hardcore realism", it was quite clearly a conscious choice to not do so, and leave it to modders for the niche crowd that wants it. 

Based on this, the assumption that KSP (the base game) wasn't intended as a hardcore simulator is very accurate. They wanted a semi-realistic, accessible game, and they stated so throughout the development multiple times. KSP2 absolutely should stay true to this, the "system" in KSP1 with an accessible, semi-realistic base and hardcore mods worked well - it wouldn't work the other way around.

As to "how semi does semi-realistic needs to be", that certainly can be argued either way. In this case, the post was in regards to the new heat system, and the somewhat simplistic scope of it (even compared to KSP1). I do agree that, on the surface, the new "idea" seems to swing too far into the "simplistic" field - it remains to be seen if they can make it interesting. On the flipside, one of the "pro" arguments is performance - which, after a few thousand hours in KSP (and, well, maybe two in KSP2) is an argument that i personally wouldn't want to dismiss easily either.

[jost]

On 7/24/2023 at 5:06 AM, VlonaldKerman said:

In KSP 1, the MKS mod uses a resource sharing radius concept once you have a colony hub. They’re also adding various automation features to resource sharing. MKS is widely accepted as the best KSP 1 colonization mod.

And the maker of MKS is part of the "incompetent" ksp2 team if I recall correct

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, m4inbrain said:

No, it absolutely shouldn't be, and never has been. It's ignorant to suggest that developers where just too stupid to implement "hardcore realism", it was quite clearly a conscious choice to not do so, and leave it to modders for the niche crowd that wants it. 

I made it clear it was just my opinion (not quote above, but previous quote), not what "KSP should be".  Not sure what straw man you are wrestling with, but I don't disagree with most of what you write.  KSP2 was touted as an improved KSP.  There is no reason to assume that meant being as simple as KSP and within harvestR's casual descriptions however.

My post simply stated what seems obvious to me: A base game that meets the common  expectations and mods+DLCs to cover the niches.  Not sure what could possibly be controversial about that but this is the internet I suppose

Edited July 25, 2023 by darthgently

[Dunas Only Moon]

5 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

There is normally a pointer showing where something was moved, but not in this case because I screwed it up. Sorry. 

i got one, just dont make it so that it moves me to a megathread pls

6 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Yeah, I'm looking, and I like them, just like many others here, mr. Adult. Something being a cartoon doesn't mean it's for kids. If you look at the history of 2D animation over the last 80 years...

just look at the style and voiceovers

8 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

Making it harder for people to see is why it was done.

that sounds not nice.
:( 

[The Aziz]

25 minutes ago, Dunas Only Moon said:

just look at the style and voiceovers

Cute, easy for the eyes, shows the concepts it presents in very accessible way. If you really think such style can't be enjoyed by "grown-ups" I'm very sorry for you.

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

12 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

I don't even know what I'm supposed to reply to anymore thanks to some heavy hands, so I'll just reply to the title *title of the thread this was moved to and from, which was "KSP2 is too childish" or something*:

Yes.

I don't care about the tutorials or PAIGE's voice or the countdown, but I do care about the challenge the game proposes, and it seems everything is getting dumbed down to make way for new features, which we also already know aren't super expansive. People like to think wobble was part of the challenge, well, in KSP2 it looks like it might as well be the only challenge.

1. No economics. (AMA 1)
2. No life support. (AMA 1)
3. Infinite Kerbal longevity. (Implied from 1)
4. Dumbed down heat system. (Devblog)
5. Menu-based colony building (AMA 1).
6. Orbital construction removes a big part of the original challenge. I do like the feature but let's be honest.
7. Automated shipping lanes, which the player has no direct control over (in the sense of how they work) (AMA 2).
8. Still going Kerballed first on the tech tree (AMA 2).
9. Still instantaneous, authoritative probe control (AMA 2).
10. No wind/weather systems (AMA 2).
11. Non-scaled re-entry heating (was a problem in 1, will remain in 2 when we get it).
12. Infinitely strong landing gear wheels and legs (problem in 1, still works that way in 2).
13. Infinite RTGs/Solar panels.
14. No radiation.

 

I think the smoking gun here is Multiplayer + Interstellar. Unless you have a lot of Rockstar developers, I reckon you have to dumb down mechanics even compared to KSP1, to be able to pull off all that  and a more welcoming game for younger people and/or that are new to the franchise (this latter was a pillar Nate mentioned).

 

Personally I’ll be greatly disappointed if this turns out to be true. And if it does I would just use KSP2 to have fun with my kid and just use KSP with RP-1, which was obtained for a fraction of the price, when I want to go hardcore. 

Edited July 25, 2023 by GGG-GoodGuyGreg

[Dunas Only Moon]

46 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Cute, easy for the eyes, shows the concepts it presents in very accessible way. If you really think such style can't be enjoyed by "grown-ups" I'm very sorry for you.

oh, i guess i kinda dumb. 
i mean its a bit childish with the voices but im dead wrong, i just dont know anymore

[adsii1970]

Quote

also dont remove my thread and post it onto a chain, it ruins the chance of me finding it

If something is important to you in the forum, always save a bookmark in your browser. That's what I do. I have an entire folder within my bookmarks called "KSP Mod OP bookmarks," one called "interesting threads," and another called "Forum games." The forum software is rather stupid at times.

There are a lot of times when we, as moderators, have to move stuff around to keep the flow of the forum/threads/subjects where they go. Otherwise, chaos would reign supreme. Disorder and chaos are never good! 

[Alexoff]

12 hours ago, Dakitess said:

It's fun because it's about 85% of what I expected the most for KSP2 : graphics. Being technically up to date.

There are graphics! Something is stressing my 3070 so much, I think it's the graphics...

 

I'm also surprised that any of the players sitting on this forum watched the tutorials. Does someone really not know something and decided to see how to go into orbit correctly?

[The Aziz]

I checked them to see if their form is good.

And you know, there are new players in this forum.

[regex]

18 hours ago, The Aziz said:

I checked them to see if their form is good.

And you know, there are new players in this forum.

To add to this, I learned about how to do certain things in the new VAB from the tutorials. They're pretty good, if a bit hammed up.

[Gargamel]

Some content has been removed.     If you have an issue with moderators activities, please contact one of privately and we’ll usually be happy to discuss it with you if we can.   

[RickJM694]

I can't even assemble a simple craft in orbit.  For the last 2 days I've been building a craft in orbit that consists of 4 parts that have to dock together, 2 parts are the mothership broken into the crew area and the fuel/engine area. Then 2 landers that dock to the crew section.  The plan is to take it to Laythe.  I dock the landers and then refuel them using the leftover fuel from the orbital stage of the crew area of the mothership. Then when I decouple that leftover stage from the mothership, one or both landers fall off of the docking ports, but the parts manager still thinks they're connected.  If I try to undock one of them and then decouple, I simply lose control of everything.  Even if I could get this thing assembled in LKO I have absolutely no faith that I could actually get to Laythe, land, and return.  Not because I don't know how, but because this game has 1000 bugs.  I used to be on the train of "oh just give them time" but I cannot say that anymore.  I can play KSP1 for hours on end, but I can only play KSP2 for maybe an hour before I get so frustrated with the plethora of game-breaking bugs that I quit.  It is absolutely ridiculous that craft spontaneously break apart when decoupling, that the navball markers when set to "Target" get all wobbly and half the time your relative velocity to target is incorrect.  The next patch better fix most of these bugs because I am so very close to doing a chargeback through my bank for this absolute pile of garbage that they have given us.

 

Yes. It looks amazing.  Yes, I think it has a ton of potential.  But as of right now, I can't even do an Apollo-style Mun mission without encountering at least 3 separate game-breaking bugs.

[Dakitess]

Please, it does NOT look amazing. I see the superlative everywhere. It does not help... It surely is more beautiful than Stock KSP1, but we won't ever get a truely beautiful game if people are nuancing their criticism by saying that "at least it looks stellar / amazing / so beautiful / etc".

It can surely be good enough for a KSP game for even a majority, but we can't honestly say it "looks amazing", nor this is required to nuance and balance a criticism, can we ?...

[cocoscacao]

45 minutes ago, Dakitess said:

Please, it does NOT look amazing

Rockets and planets from far away do. Something tells me that all terrain details aren't there yet. However, if you expect Kerbin vegetation to looks nice... well... personally, I don't care much about that.

[Gargamel]

Some off topic material from another thread has been moved here.  

[Royalswissarmyknife]

On 7/25/2023 at 7:48 AM, Dunas Only Moon said:

just look at the style and voiceovers

The Style is good for teaching orbital mechanics I would say.

The Voice is Irritating though.

should have used the great Scott Manley.

[The Aziz]

2 hours ago, Royalswissarmyknife said:

should have used the great Scott Manley.

Considering their target audience is literally everyone, no.

Edited July 28, 2023 by The Aziz

[rockjonn]

On 2/24/2023 at 9:15 PM, Alexoff said:

 

Nice!

[Wheehaw Kerman]

On 2/24/2023 at 1:23 PM, regex said:

I find it amusing to see the comparisons to KSP1 considering just how little KSP1 had at 0.7.3 release. People have some really short memories.

I’ll just leave this here.  

“Again” -ShadowZone.  Since endless repetition seems to be the meme of the year around here.

It’s both great nostalgia for those of us who’ve been playing since 2013 or thereabouts, and an excellent argument for the optimist position.  If we can expect the same sort of improvement and expansion out of KSP2 that we did out of KSP, 1.0 is going to be amazing.

 

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I’ll just leave this here.  

“Again” -ShadowZone.  Since endless repetition seems to be the meme of the year around here.

It’s both great nostalgia for those of us who’ve been playing since 2013 or thereabouts, and an excellent argument for the optimist position.  If we can expect the same sort of improvement and expansion out of KSP2 that we did out of KSP, 1.0 is going to be amazing.

 

Bit sad that after getting professionals and a big money publisher behind the franchise all our hopes have come down to "expect the same", and so far that "same" includes the bugs, subpar update speed, bad communication, and so on. It shouldn't be the same, a sequel is supposed to be an evolution, a refinement, or even a change of direction. So far, it's a very expensive graphics mod that breaks 90% of the game.

[Alexoff]

2 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

It’s both great nostalgia for those of us who’ve been playing since 2013 or thereabouts, and an excellent argument for the optimist position.  If we can expect the same sort of improvement and expansion out of KSP2 that we did out of KSP, 1.0 is going to be amazing.

What else can you compare KSP2 to? On what background will the game look advantageous?

[The Aziz]

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

big money publisher behind the franchise

Weird how that didn't help fixing the biggest problems of KSP1, right? 

[Alexoff]

33 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Weird how that didn't help fixing the biggest problems of KSP1, right? 

The appearance of big money behind the franchise saved KSP1 from the lack of DLC. And T2 also started developing KSP2 after buying a franchise, apparently they wanted to solve problems in this way.