In 0.2, is this as good as it gets for KSP1 comparability??? Is this all we get until new ground breaking features like colonies, interstellar, etc.

[dansiegel30]

I have to say that I was very pleased with the 0.2 Dev Chat video showing a working science GAME.  It will make many play KSP2 again.  However, I can't help from feeling selfish and greedy, considering what the player base has had to wait for.  Is this all 0.2 is?  9 new parts, a global science collection screen, and a tech tree using all the parts from 0.1?  Is this as good as it gets when trying to rewrite/copy KSP1?

 

So many things with science seem to be missing.  Biome mapping, Kerbnet info, signal strength details, the deployable science, some type of science over time with the science lab processing physical samples, etc.

 

Any guesses that we WILL get content that hasn't been shown or talked about thus far?  Do you think they could have forgotten to show us a feature? Or perhaps these very science related KSP1 features will come after 0.2 but before 0.3 because they couldn't commit to the December release during the late October announcement - just like Airbrakes, 3 docking ports, and 2 engines in 0.1.3. - and re-entry heat in 0.2.  Or do you think that some of these features were actually FORGOTTEN, and only put on the post-1.0 roadmap?

[Scarecrow71]

39 minutes ago, dansiegel30 said:

Do you think they could have forgotten to show us a feature?

It is entirely possible that they intentionally didn't show us everything, leaving some stuff out so that we'd be surprised when it drops.

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, dansiegel30 said:

Is this as good as it gets when trying to rewrite/copy KSP1?

Well, they aren't doing that.

0.2, as marked on the roadmap, is gonna bring us science collection. Everything else is a bonus. If it comes, good, if it doesn't.. chances are it'll come anyway later on.

[Kerbart]

It became very clear early on in the process that the aim forKSP2 is “KSP1 and them some,” the latter being colonies, interstellar and multiplayer. Whatever was distributed through DLC is not included in the game, for rather obvious reasons. It sold in the past, so it will likely sell again. Shelling out extra money for a $50 game isn’t my choice either but it’s understandable from a business perspective and KSP development being a sustainable rocess is something everyone benefits from.

Are the new parts in 0.2 the only new parts we get? I doubt it. We will get new parts for 0.3 (colonies), 0.4 (interstellar) and based on the patches we get some minor parts (and the grid fins) in there as well.

But don’t look for deployed science or robotics. That will likely be DLC once the game reaches 1.0

Edited December 7, 2023 by Kerbart
Fixed typo

[mcwaffles2003]

I think this patch will start off slow with minimal parts and iteratively scale up. A whole new system is being introduced that will likely bring bugs with it and the more that is added on release the harder it would be to fix them as that would be more possible variables to look into for the root cause I would assume.

[regex]

Personally, I think Intercept has their own vision of KSP's gameplay and that trying to be directly comparable with KSP1 is ultimately a losing game. KSP1 didn't really have any unified gameplay design in its larger systems and the overall experience really showed that. I'm very interested in seeing where KSP2 goes, I'm hoping for a tighter, more well-thought-out experience.

Edited December 7, 2023 by regex

[NexusHelium]

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

We will get new parts for 0.3 (colonies), 0.4 (interstellar) and based on the patches we get some minor parts (and the grid fins) in there as well.

Yeah, probably. I mean, there can't be science designed for the Kerbolar system in, say, Debdeb. They are most definitely going to add new parts made for these other features.

[Emanuel01]

It does feel a bit anemic to be honest. But it's too soon to tell. We'll probably get more science features after the 0.2 update. Also, they've stated that we'll have some kind of story and narrative going on. If done properly, this could be revolutionary! 

[PDCWolf]

The core gameplay has been shown to remain mostly the same as KSP1, with minor QOL improvements and a time mechanic added. I seriously doubt they hid anything big because the game really could use the good PR and there's no point in having a very strong set of features or parts and not showing it to build up hype right into the holidays which is one of the peak purchasing times for games. Like seriously, they've showed very minor stuff before that they could've kept hidden as part of extra stuff for this update (gridfins, extra engines), so I very much doubt there's more to 0.2 than meets the eye.

Considering what they answered on AMAs, dev chats, and such, I firmly believe "is this it?" is gonna be a recurring theme for every single thing they bring forward, specially when you bring the price into the equation.

 

[cocoscacao]

On 12/7/2023 at 10:04 PM, PDCWolf said:

Considering what they answered on AMAs, dev chats, and such, I firmly believe "is this it?

Honestly, you can say the same for KSP 1. What exactly science adds there? Or career? At least now we have a reason to venture further out to other planets. I see science collection as a tutorial mode with payload minigame. Real gameplay changes will come with 0.3 for me. The thing I'm looking forward to in 0.2 is temporary wobble fix + heating, so I can finally enjoy launching stuff. 

[PDCWolf]

3 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

Honestly, you can say the same for KSP 1. What exactly science adds there? Or career? At least now we have a reason to venture further out to other planets. I see science collection as a tutorial mode with payload minigame. Real gameplay changes will come with 0.3 for me. The thing I'm looking forward to in 0.2 is temporary wobble fix + heating, so I can finally enjoy launching stuff. 

And we'd fall into the same comparison: KSP1 was the groundbreaker, developed by indie devs. This is a studio of professionals and so far we aren't even on feature parity with the prequel nor does it look like the future systems will have any depth or level of compromise one would normally associate with AAA $50 projects. Of course, there's still a long way for them to surprise us, but the current evidence points to "is this it?" being the recurrent theme.

[Bej Kerman]

27 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

KSP1 was the groundbreaker

Was it?

[PDCWolf]

9 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Was it?

What game like KSP, with lego styled spaceship building and somewhat realistic physics were you playing before KSP became a thing? Orbiter doesn't have the construction, simplerockets came afterwards, most other games have soap opera physics.

[cocoscacao]

11 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

have any depth or level of compromise one would normally associate with AAA $50 projects

Any examples? Sincere question. I don't play a lot of video games. Last (newer) title would be Hitman. You can ask the same thing there, and yet, I've enjoyed it. 

[Royalswissarmyknife]

10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Was it?

Yes.

The only games that have similar mechanics usually state being inspired by Ksp.

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

11 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Was it?

What game like KSP, with lego styled spaceship building and somewhat realistic physics were you playing before KSP became a thing? Orbiter doesn't have the construction, simplerockets came afterwards, most other games have soap opera physics.

The only unique thing it did was the construction (which in itself is flawed and has received years of complaints) so I'm not sure why Orbiter is implied to be inferior.

[PDCWolf]

46 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Any examples? Sincere question. I don't play a lot of video games. Last (newer) title would be Hitman. You can ask the same thing there, and yet, I've enjoyed it. 

Hey, enjoyment is subjective, and also not part of my argument. My point is for $50 I don't expect them to remain at the same level of depth as KSP1 and its systems, I'm not saying it wouldn't be enjoyable, I'm saying it wouldn't be worth the value for me if that's all they aim for.

As for depth, if you don't mind me going off genre (because the genre is pretty dry with only 2 current titles):

1. Stellaris, or any 4x for that matter. Not only do all systems go deep, they all tend to interact with each other in some way or another.
2. Larian's Divinity 2 and now BG3. They're games built on both depth, emergent narrative (even if constrained by the overarching story) and giving you a myriad of ways to achieve what you want.
3. Dwarf Fortress actually goes so deep it is hard to fathom at points. In this same vein here's 2 more ASCII-but-mad-deep games: CDDA and Caves of Qud.
4. Kenshi where the game itself morphs from third person survival to RTS with a very alive world.
5. Obviously Factorio.
6. From The Depths, which is not only a physics sim where you build your vehicles, you go as deep as designing your own engines, ammo and guns.
7. ^Same with Stormworks, to a lesser degree.
8. Stationeers, where even atmospheric pressure and composition of your settlements is at play.
9. E.Y.E. Divine Cybermancy, where after you break the initial confusing barrier, you can theorycraft amazing builds with intertwined skills that feed off each other.
10. The combat systems in DMC4.
11. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. may be mostly atmosphere and shooting, but the AI system goes so deep those of us waiting for 2 are afraid they might even scale it back or fail to port it to UE5
12. AC VI, and most Armored Core titles to be honest, have mecha building systems that are pretty much hundreds of hours to completely master.
13. Aurora 4X, if you really like having painfully granular control over absolutely everything in a military campaign.

13 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

The only unique thing it did was the construction (which in itself is flawed and has received years of complaints) so I'm not sure why Orbiter is implied to be inferior.

I never said Orbiter is inferior, in fact it is what I was playing before KSP. However Orbiter not only lacks the accesibility, but also the lego building system which is vital to both the freedom you have in KSP and its success.

[regex]

14 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Was it?

It is undeniable that KSP1's core game loop and general feature list was groundbreaking. Where it failed (utterly, in my mind) was leveraging that groundbreaking game loop into something more satisfying than a sandbox experience. Science mode didn't have enough incentives to send you further than Kerbin/Mun/Minmus and maybe some probes to Duna and Eve (and easy landings on Gilly and Ike) and Career mode had very little in the way of player decision-making (the random mission slot machine was an incredibly poor design) or allowing the player to define their experience, and any rewards were quickly moot due to a glut of money. Ultimately the sandbox experience, build/fly/repeat, combined with interaction from the community on challenges and mods, had to complete the simple, incomplete, and poorly integrated mechanics in order to extend gameplay beyond the incredibly shallow and boring science/career modes.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

On 12/9/2023 at 2:16 PM, regex said:

It is undeniable that KSP1's core game loop and general feature list was groundbreaking. Where it failed (utterly, in my mind) was leveraging that groundbreaking game loop into something more satisfying than a sandbox experience. Science mode didn't have enough incentives to send you further than Kerbin/Mun/Minmus and maybe some probes to Duna and Eve (and easy landings on Gilly and Ike) and Career mode had very little in the way of player decision-making (the random mission slot machine was an incredibly poor design) or allowing the player to define their experience, and any rewards were quickly moot due to a glut of money. Ultimately the sandbox experience, build/fly/repeat, combined with interaction from the community on challenges and mods, had to complete the simple, incomplete, and poorly integrated mechanics in order to extend gameplay beyond the incredibly shallow and boring science/career modes.

I’m going to agree with you about all of that.  KSP1 was an unplanned, not terribly well integrated kitbash of a game that didn’t get developed so much as it evolved by accident, trial, error and “hey, that sounds cool”…

…and yet here we all are, some of us with thousands of hours into the game.  There’s just something about the thing that *worked*.  I’m almost afraid that by being professionally developed KSP2 will lose some of the brilliance of KSP1.  So far, I’m optimistic, but too much focus on theory and planning can ruin things.

[Datau03]

On 12/7/2023 at 3:05 PM, dansiegel30 said:

 some type of science over time

You could see that experiments can take time  in their latest video

[Bej Kerman]

On 12/16/2023 at 3:42 PM, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I’m almost afraid that by being professionally developed KSP2 will lose some of the brilliance of KSP1.

What brilliance?

[Superfluous J]

29 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

What brilliance?

Not the poster you replied to, but it seems obvious to me that they are referring to whatever intangible thing caused us all to play the game for thousands (if not tens of thousands) of hours over the past decade.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

What brilliance?

“So hear me out: you get an infinite supply of hundreds of different kinds of explode-y rocket parts,  an infinite supply of bug-eyed little green alien dudes called Kerbals that are *this* close to being sued for infringing the Minions’ IP rights, and this little cartoony solar system…”

[mattihase]

I mean i'd definitely say the approachability, both in terms of features but also yes in terms of tone too. It's like the "losing is fun" mythos of dwarf fortress where when you start out it's ok that everything is going very wrong because that's part of the charm of the game, and then you get to a point where you can though brute force achieve anything, and with the end game of once you get really good, you're able to play out things seriously and impressively and in the way you want. The big difference being that the UX kinda made doing a lot of high concept things easy to eyeball rather than being made out of two jumbled up typewriters and requiring a wiki to turn the game on.

KSP2's UI has a bit of a way to go to become as dumbass friendly as KSP1, and honestly KSP1 has gotten pretty cluttered the last few updates. I feel like both games have also drifted towards the assumption that the playerbase understand the underlying stuff what the game is doing a lot more as a result of trying to provide better tools for veteran players, and that might be true or it might not be, but it's still pretty good.

[chefsbrian]

Yea, this is probably as close to a like for like comparison as we'll have anytime soon. ISRU resource harvesting is the only directly ship related mechanic that's missing for an apples to apples comparison, and assuming it arrives at the same time as the general resource system, we'll have colonies and interstellar parts making a like to like near impossible. Alongside the general content depth comparison. For what its worth, I don't see depth as a problem - I'd much rather 5 science parts in a science system that works, than 50 in one that's broken. Because if the system works, adding more parts to it later is a relative breeze, and if I don't want to wait, modding can take advantage of a system that actually works already. Meanwhile if the system just doesn't exist or doesn't work right, then it doesn't matter what you add to it, its still too scuffed to actually use.

I imagine Colonies and orbital construction will single handedly put KSP2 well outside of easy comparison to KSP1, just from what that opens up. Right now, the game chugs trying to launch massive nightmare ships through atmosphere, and we lack a variety of heavy lifting tools to really put stuff into the stars. Orbital assembly neatly sidesteps that entire ball of yarn and puts your NERVA stack into space wholesale, no docking ports or launch reinforcement required. Trying to draw design comparisons at that point is gonna be moot, as the possibility space changes so radically.