Is KSP2 going to offer any challenge to experienced KSP1 players?

[kdaviper]

7 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

That's not a new challenge. It's very much a 10 year old challenge, which the new game didn't help overcome.

[citation needed]

Sure it has to be serious, gray and dark like your average horror movie from 1950s to be successful, mhm. No fun allowed.

Not to mention, rocket science itself is a meme, kerbals are a meme... 

[Meecrob]

6 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Shana said that, not Dakota.  And I fail to see how this is somehow telling us the company is intentionally spacing releases or stringing us along.

It makes no difference who said it. the point is that I think I figured out their plan, and if I'm right, I think it is going to kill the game.

[Scarecrow71]

10 hours ago, Meecrob said:

It makes no difference who said it. the point is that I think I figured out their plan, and if I'm right, I think it is going to kill the game.

It makes all the difference who said it.  You are trying to take a comment made by one person out of context and then pin that on someone else.

And you also failed to indicate exactly how this is the organization telling us they are intentionally spacing releases to kill the game.  You said it yourself - you think you have figured out their plan.  So tell us where you are getting this spacing comment and what their plan is.

[Meecrob]

On 3/18/2024 at 9:17 AM, Scarecrow71 said:

It makes all the difference who said it.  You are trying to take a comment made by one person out of context and then pin that on someone else.

And you also failed to indicate exactly how this is the organization telling us they are intentionally spacing releases to kill the game.  You said it yourself - you think you have figured out their plan.  So tell us where you are getting this spacing comment and what their plan is.

Ok, I see we are coming at this from different angles. I am saying that for my point, it does not matter who said it, just that it was said at all.  I was just taking the most convenient quote. I apologize it was incorrectly titled.

I never said they were intentionally spacing releases to kill the game. I said they seem to have indicated that there is an intent to drop content on a schedule based upon evenly spaced out updates as in live service games, rather than trying to complete content as quickly as possible while maintaining quality and aiming for 1.0 release ASAP.

Edited March 19 by Meecrob

[Meecrob]

17 hours ago, kdaviper said:

Not to mention, rocket science itself is a meme, kerbals are a meme... 

Rocket science is rocket science, not a meme, and kerbals have been memed, but they are not a meme, they are charachters in a video game.

[Meecrob]

On 3/15/2024 at 5:25 AM, The Aziz said:

Now lemme ask this: what kind of challenge are you expecting? I've noticed some people who appear disappointed with what they got, rarely ever say what improvements to existing content they would like to see. So what is there, that can be made more challenging, while still being achievable for everyone?

By your logic, I haven't done a crewed return from Eve, so take it out of the game. It is not achievable for everyone.

On 3/17/2024 at 5:40 PM, The Aziz said:

That's not a new challenge. It's very much a 10 year old challenge, which the new game didn't help overcome.

No, I am referring back to when you said the challenges should be achievable by everyone in the first text box above. The bold, underlined part.

I have not done a crewed return from Eve, so by your logic, Eve has to be taken out of the game.

On 3/17/2024 at 5:40 PM, The Aziz said:

On 3/17/2024 at 3:10 PM, Meecrob said:

Did you realize you chased away all the veterans and now you are stuck with casual players?

[citation needed]

I have no obligation to cite sources when I am the one asking the question.

 

On 3/17/2024 at 5:40 PM, The Aziz said:

On 3/17/2024 at 3:10 PM, Meecrob said:

You can get them back if you stop doing absolute cringe meme stuff and kapybaras. This game is going to be around for a decade if its made properly. You cannot have memes in it.

Sure it has to be serious, gray and dark like your average horror movie from 1950s to be successful, mhm. No fun allowed.

What are you talking about? Do not put words in my mouth. I want it to be space-themed, not petting-zoo themed. I didn't think that was going to be controversial. My mind is blown!

Edited March 19 by Meecrob

[steveman0]

40 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

Ok, I see we are coming at this from different angles. I am saying that for my point, it does not matter who said it, just that it was said at all.  I was just taking the most convenient quote. I apologize it was incorrectly titled.

I never said they were intentionally spacing releases to kill the game. I said they seem to have indicated that there is an intent to drop content on a schedule based upon evenly spaced out updates as in live service games, rather than trying to complete content as quickly as possible while maintaining quality and aiming for 1.0 release ASAP.

I think you are misunderstanding the quote. I only read it as the fact the game is in EA / not complete / still under development is as a GaaS in that the challenges of resources constraints and interstellar will come later as these parts get finished. It's nothing intentional beyond the shear reality that these will take time and thus can't be released immediately. So your conclusion is the exact opposite of what I think. I think it is clear they still aim to complete and release content as quickly as possible while meeting their quality standards. For Science! Shows this. There was nothing in the quote to suggest anything has changed.

[Dakota]

34 minutes ago, steveman0 said:

I think you are misunderstanding the quote. I only read it as the fact the game is in EA / not complete / still under development is as a GaaS in that the challenges of resources constraints and interstellar will come later as these parts get finished. It's nothing intentional beyond the shear reality that these will take time and thus can't be released immediately. So your conclusion is the exact opposite of what I think. I think it is clear they still aim to complete and release content as quickly as possible while meeting their quality standards. For Science! Shows this. There was nothing in the quote to suggest anything has changed.

This is correct. Shana's mention of GaaS is more about the game design elements that play into constraints and building player power.

[Meecrob]

On 3/18/2024 at 12:29 PM, steveman0 said:

I think you are misunderstanding the quote. I only read it as the fact the game is in EA / not complete / still under development is as a GaaS in that the challenges of resources constraints and interstellar will come later as these parts get finished. It's nothing intentional beyond the shear reality that these will take time and thus can't be released immediately. So your conclusion is the exact opposite of what I think. I think it is clear they still aim to complete and release content as quickly as possible while meeting their quality standards. For Science! Shows this. There was nothing in the quote to suggest anything has changed.

Hey, I'm not trying to say that I am correct. I really hope you are, but KSP2 so far has been underwhelming. I'm forced to look at worst-case scenarios.

Here is the quote from Design Director Shana Markham:

"I think it's a fair take that KSP2's For Science update didn't bring much in the way of new challenges for KSP1 experts. If you've seen it all, done it all, and you know all of the invisible bits and bobs, then the thing that you need are either new capabilities or new limitations. That's why the resource system looks very attractive, because it's a build limitation that also has an implicit demand to explore, and it's easy to see how other new capabilities and systems key into it.

That's a thing you can see in many games as a service and sequels, where you add new capabilies and challenges over time."

Ok, so we are talking about placing limitations on the players. In the first game this was achieved by having financial limitations as well as infrastructure limitations. At the beginning of a career, all your buildings (VAB, tracking station, etc.) are at their base level. The launchpad will let you launch rockets up to a certain size and weight, VAB allows use of a small amount of parts and the Tracking Station needed to be upgraded to get patched conics for navigation. Individual Kerbals had to gain experience to level up their specialty - Pilot, Engineer or Scientist. 

KSP2 has taken a machete to the progression systems and are replacing them with making resources limited. They state the inspiration is GaaS/sequels "where you add new capabilities and challenges over time." I honestly believe the reason they are making this game a mile wide and an inch deep is that they don't care about veterans (that come up with crazy cool designs that inspire the community), because that veteran only bought the game once. They want to make as many new people buy the game as possible. Therefore their strategy is going to be aimed towards making the biggest splash, not having the best interests of playability in mind. Hence the memes, hence the childish tutorials, hence the long waits between releases to build up hype, etc.

I hope I am wrong, but we are dealing with Take Two here, they dont give two [word I can't say]s about KSP2 unless its making money.

Edited March 20 by Meecrob

[The Aziz]

I feel like the misunderstanding here came from a fact that games as a service are a part of games in long term post-release development, yes - but with certain distinction: they often offer time limited content, scheduled seasons (which dictates the release timing),  purchasable cosmetic items, battle passes, season passes etc etc. Many people hate that, especially when a game has a high starting pricetag to begin with. So the comparison wasn't quite accurate. There are games around that offer only updates over time, perhaps some rare dlcs, but they're not what people call "service". Because you don't miss out anything if you don't play for some time, and there's no need to rely on public servers, 3rd party accounts and whatnot to play, and the only thing that dictates releases is the development progress itself.

[Meecrob]

On 3/18/2024 at 1:05 PM, Dakota said:

This is correct. Shana's mention of GaaS is more about the game design elements that play into constraints and building player power.

Could you please address me directly. I'm the one with the concern. You are the community manager and what just happened is two people on your board are wondering something and your respone was "Basically what the other person said." Thats fine if you are a bystander. Or if you are busy, say so, I totally get you are at a job and you don't always have time to reply to everyone in full. I've been there, my concern is not a top priority, I know that. However, there is no excuse for poor communications. It has been among the top complaints since the game dropped. Its little things like this that make people think you don't respect them. Let that sink in. Don't hide from me. I will take anything that comes out of your mouth, no matter how bad the news may be, or how much I may disagree, with respect if I think you are dealing with me square. As soon as there is any hint of defensiveness, I think you are trying to hide something.

Edited March 20 by Meecrob

[Dakota]

38 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

Coiuld you please address me directly. I'm the one with the concern. You are the community manager and what just happened is two people on your board are wondering something and your respone was "Basically what the other person said." Thats fine if you are a bystander. Or if you are busy, say so, I totally get you are at a job and you don't always have time to reply to everyone in full. I've been there, my concern is not a top priority, I know that. However, there is no excuse for poor communications. It has been among the top complaints since the game dropped. Its little things like this that make people think you don't respect them. Let that sink in. Don't hide from me. I will take anything that comes out of your mouth, no matter how bad the news may be, or how much i may disagree, with respect if I think you are dealing with me square. As soon as there is any hint of defensiveness, I think you are trying to hide something.

Sure. You are reading too far into a small piece of her answer to a game design question and are jumping to conclusions about how the entire team wants to take the game in the future - instantly derailing this thread.

Never looking to hide, and always dealing with you square.

[Scarecrow71]

2 hours ago, Meecrob said:

I never said they were intentionally spacing releases to kill the game.

Really?  Because you stated:

16 hours ago, Meecrob said:

the point is that I think I figured out their plan, and if I'm right, I think it is going to kill the game.

Now, this might not directly be you stating "Hey, they are doing this to kill the game".  But based on your other responses in this thread, coupled with latching onto what even Dakota stated was one small comment in Shana's response, it can be reasoned that you do in fact think this is happening with the intent to kill the game.  Again, I've asked you to detail what plan you think you've figured out, and you haven't responded.  Which means your statement is nothing short of doomerism/the-sky-is-falling hyperbole.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not happy with the release schedule either.  I fully believe that, after a year and change, we should be getting updates far more often.  And I still can't believe that there are issues present in the game that have been there since day 1 AND are part of the core gameplay loop AND don't exist in KSP1.  But I'm not a game designer (although I am a software/automation jockey), so I won't proclaim to know how difficult it is to get this stuff working.  I don't think it should be all that difficult what with using event/variable watches and poring through code all day long.  And it certainly should take precedence over implementing new systems (which means CODERS should be working on this and not working on colonies or interstellar).  But intentional?  That's a bit out there, even for me.

So again, I'll ask:  what plan do you think you have figured out here?

[Meecrob]

55 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I feel like the misunderstanding here came from a fact that games as a service are a part of games in long term post-release development, yes - but with certain distinction: they often offer time limited content, scheduled seasons (which dictates the release timing),  purchasable cosmetic items, battle passes, season passes etc etc. Many people hate that, especially when a game has a high starting pricetag to begin with. So the comparison wasn't quite accurate. There are games around that offer only updates over time, perhaps some rare dlcs, but they're not what people call "service". Because you don't miss out anything if you don't play for some time, and there's no need to rely on public servers, 3rd party accounts and whatnot to play, and the only thing that dictates releases is the development progress itself.

I see what you are getting at, and that is separate from the point I am trying to get at. What I am saying is that they have taken aspects from GaaS and applied them to KSP2. I personally do not like these mechanics, and I am fairly certain other veteran players do not like them either. I include current newbies who are destined to be future veterans in my calculation as well. These mechanics are normally utilized to pace out a smaller game. Usually a game with a mission structure of some sort. I have thousands of hours in KSP1 because it gave me a carrot to chase when I needed one (old contract system) and left most of it up to me. I have like 40 hours in KSP2. I ran through the missions when For Science dropped and the mission structure of "go here, press button, get science" is somehow worse than the first game. Basically now I follow a pre-determined path that puts a huge yellow marker on where I am supposed to go.

Nobody had any problem racking up huge playtimes with KSP1 because the game was limited in fun ways that encouraged creative solutions. KSP2 is limited in ways that are not fun.

 

[Meecrob]

55 minutes ago, Dakota said:

Sure. You are reading too far into a small piece of her answer to a game design question and are jumping to conclusions about how the entire team wants to take the game in the future - instantly derailing this thread.

Never looking to hide, and always dealing with you square.

My apologies if I came across that way. I understand my first impression is not always correct.

I have a question for you, though. How am I derailing a thread titled:

"Is KSP2 going to offer any challenge to experienced KSP1 players?"

by offering the opinion of an experienced KSP1 player on the state of KSP2?

 

Also, I'm not accusing you of not dealing with me square. I am saying in general, if someone comes up to me and is open and honest with me, I will listen to whatever they have to say. If I feel they are hiding something, I will tend to not trust them so much. I was not talking about you specifically.

 

Having said that, you came into this thread, presumably read all that I said, did not address any of my points, did not even reply to me until I asked you to specifically, and told me that I am reading too far into something and jumping to conclusions.

Ok, tell me how. I will not believe something without proof just because you said it. Give me something to work with here. How am I jumping to conclusions? Maybe if you talk to me you could straighten me out rather than have me derailing threads with misinformation.

Edited March 18 by Meecrob

[Scarecrow71]

3 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

KSP2 is limited in ways that are not fun.

Nothing said about the game to this point is more true.  While there are fun things to be seen and done in the game, and while there are some limitations that are fun, there are limitations in the game that are not.  Core gameplay bugs and camera issues, as examples.

[Meecrob]

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Really?  Because you stated:

Now, this might not directly be you stating "Hey, they are doing this to kill the game".  But based on your other responses in this thread, coupled with latching onto what even Dakota stated was one small comment in Shana's response, it can be reasoned that you do in fact think this is happening with the intent to kill the game.  Again, I've asked you to detail what plan you think you've figured out, and you haven't responded.  Which means your statement is nothing short of doomerism/the-sky-is-falling hyperbole.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not happy with the release schedule either.  I fully believe that, after a year and change, we should be getting updates far more often.  And I still can't believe that there are issues present in the game that have been there since day 1 AND are part of the core gameplay loop AND don't exist in KSP1.  But I'm not a game designer (although I am a software/automation jockey), so I won't proclaim to know how difficult it is to get this stuff working.  I don't think it should be all that difficult what with using event/variable watches and poring through code all day long.  And it certainly should take precedence over implementing new systems (which means CODERS should be working on this and not working on colonies or interstellar).  But intentional?  That's a bit out there, even for me.

So again, I'll ask:  what plan do you think you have figured out here?

Sorry, Let me try to explain more accurately. I'll start from the top.

Basically my fear is that the team realizes the veterans are gone, so they have shifted their focus to maximizing new player on-boarding. I think they do not see the benefit of having really crazy rockets inspiring the newer players to aim higher. If they do see the benefit, they have determined it to not be a priority. I'm not here to debate that choice, its just an observation. So if the focus is on attracting new players, I totally see why they are trying to push the memes, etc. for attention.

Its their game, and they are free to develop it however they want. I'm not trying to say that I want them to make a game for only KSP1 veterans.

I believe, however, that the reason KSP1 was so successful was that it was analogous to a lego set. Yes, you can make the thing on the box, but you can also make whatever else you want. KSP2 seems to be forcing me to follow the instructions. Thats fine for shorter attention-span games (relative to KSP) like what Nate developed in the past, but I think the whole reason KSP got popular was because really smart and talented people started sinking significant time into the game, and formed a community of like minded individuals who enjoy complex, immersive simulators. That sprung the modding community up and attracted other engineering-minded people to the game.

KSP2 seems to be abandoning the "delayed-gratification" aspects the first game did so brilliantly and is aiming for more of a curated theme park ride experience. I think it will kill KSP2. Sure, the game will get some buzz everytime an update drops, but people will quickly catch on to how not open-ended it is real quick after they play with the new parts or what-have-you that came with the update.

Edited March 18 by Meecrob

[magnemoe]

On 3/18/2024 at 7:37 PM, Meecrob said:

I see what you are getting at, and that is separate from the point I am trying to get at. What I am saying is that they have taken aspects from GaaS and applied them to KSP2. I personally do not like these mechanics, and I am fairly certain other veteran players do not like them either. I include current newbies who are destined to be future veterans in my calculation as well. These mechanics are normally utilized to pace out a smaller game. Usually a game with a mission structure of some sort. I have thousands of hours in KSP1 because it gave me a carrot to chase when I needed one (old contract system) and left most of it up to me. I have like 40 hours in KSP2. I ran through the missions when For Science dropped and the mission structure of "go here, press button, get science" is somehow worse than the first game. Basically now I follow a pre-determined path that puts a huge yellow marker on where I am supposed to go.

Nobody had any problem racking up huge playtimes with KSP1 because the game was limited in fun ways that encouraged creative solutions. KSP2 is limited in ways that are not fun.

Games as an service is has been massively overused by game publishers in ways who did not work. An repeat of all the wow clone MMO who popped up 20-15 years ago and failed. In the last 10 years I say only MMO who worked well was elder scroll online
Based on the elder scroll franchise  and launched 10 years ago and they  needed some years to work out. 
For shooters its an very long list of fails or expensive recoveries to then shut down People remember you scammed them and you know that game media is very corrupt. 
KSP will not work as an live service. Yes having multiplayer is an benefit as its more fun but even in competitive mode you want to play with friends with an shard idea of fun, 
 

[ChrisShourai]

Honestly, the most frustrating thing is that this thread and so many others exist that eventually contain - roughly - two sides or two points of view (one being "it's EA, chill and wait," the other being "what we do have in EA is concerning ") and yet despite this clear division, the developers and community managers seem content to observe without making any concerted effort to provide clarity. This lack of proactive engagement is particularly worrying to me and, unfortunately, appears to reflect the approach Take Two and Intercept Games are taking towards early access. If so many threads devolve into such conversation, that should be a big red flag for the devs and something for them to pay extra attention to.

Regardless of the specific circumstances, whether it's a shortage of staff or another issue, it's evident that they are falling short in addressing the valid concerns of the community. Dakoda's recent response only serves to underscore this failing, coming across as disingenuous and out of touch with the community's sentiments.

It's important to recognize that it was Intercept Games who initiated the Discord Server and Forums for discussions on all aspects of early access. Therefore, they bear a greater responsibility for fostering open dialogue with both existing and new fans. As developers, they have a tremendous opportunity to leverage the early access phase to gather valuable feedback and improve the game before its full release. This should be the primary motivation for entering early access: to collaborate with the community and elevate the game beyond what it could achieve alone.

Edited March 19 by ChrisShourai

[herbal space program]

I must say that if anything, I find some of the marquee missions in KSP2 harder than most of what you had to do in KSP1 to get through the tech tree.  The Mun and Minmus monument missions were pretty trivial, but the  Stargazer Point and Duna monument missions were tough!  The large amount of steep terrain surrounding those objectives required either a pinpoint landing right next to the target or an epic cross--country trip using a well-designed rover -- neither of which I would call easy even though I played endless amounts of KSP1.  I'd also say that getting a probe into Jool's atmo intact and landing at the bottom of the Mohole aren't exactly trivial either, especially since the dV indicator in the VAB is completely Borked, so unless you have a rocket equation spreadsheet handy you never really know if you packed enough boom to get the job done. I'm also making the Mohole mission  harder for myself deliberately, by not  bringing the massive amount of dV required to do it the straightforward way.  If you know how to set up the right Eve gravity assist, you can actually reach Moho's orbit and do almost the whole plane change for just a little over the price of a transfer to Eve's SOI.  From there, you can set up a series of Moho assists and DSMs that will get you a lot of the way to capture for a whole lot less dV than doing the straight injection burn. The record I remember from the KSP1 challenge forum was 1800 m/s from LKO to low Moho orbit, pretty impressive when you consider the regular way costs 6640 m/s!  And then of course there's ten Kerbals to the surface of Eve and back, which is really quite difficult when you've only got half the tech tree unlocked,  at least for 95% of KSP1 players.  So challenging? Yes, I think so! New? Not so much, but I hold out a lot of hope that  this will be remedied by future updates that add both new features  and new content to explore for the existing ones.

[SolarAdmiral]

31 minutes ago, herbal space program said:

I must say that if anything, I find some of the marquee missions in KSP2 harder than most of what you had to do in KSP1 to get through the tech tree. 

Yeah, I don't know what people were expecting. If someone is an experienced enough player they don't find any challenge in KSP2, how did they find any challenge in KSP1? You could finish the whole KSP1 tech tree without doing anything more difficult than landing on the Mun. And all it took to fully upgrade all the buildings was grinding out the same rescue kerbal from orbit mission over and over.

Completing the KSP2 tech tree at least requires going to Duna, Eve, Jool and some moons. And completing the main mission chain requires accurate landings on Duna and Tylo, not to mention the 10 kerbals to Eve and back mission. Those all together are just about the hardest things the game could ask of you.

[magnemoe]

19 minutes ago, herbal space program said:

I must say that if anything, I find some of the marquee missions in KSP2 harder than most of what you had to do in KSP1 to get through the tech tree.  The Mun and Minmus monument missions were pretty trivial, but the  Stargazer Point and Duna monument missions were tough!  The large amount of steep terrain surrounding those objectives required either a pinpoint landing right next to the target or an epic cross--country trip using a well-designed rover -- neither of which I would call easy even though I played endless amounts of KSP1.  I'd also say that getting a probe into Jool's atmo intact and landing at the bottom of the Mohole aren't exactly trivial either, especially since the dV indicator in the VAB is completely Borked, so unless you have a rocket equation spreadsheet handy you never really know if you packed enough boom to get the job done. I'm also making the Mohole mission  harder for myself deliberately, by not  bringing the massive amount of dV required to do it the straightforward way.  If you know how to set up the right Eve gravity assist, you can actually reach Moho's orbit and do almost the whole plane change for just a little over the price of a transfer to Eve's SOI.  From there, you can set up a series of Moho assists and DSMs that will get you a lot of the way to capture for a whole lot less dV than doing the straight injection burn. The record I remember from the KSP1 challenge forum was 1800 m/s from LKO to low Moho orbit, pretty impressive when you consider the regular way costs 6640 m/s!  And then of course there's ten Kerbals to the surface of Eve and back, which is really quite difficult when you've only got half the tech tree unlocked,  at least for 95% of KSP1 players.  So challenging? Yes, I think so! New? Not so much, but I hold out a lot of hope that  this will be remedied by future updates that add both new features  and new content to explore for the existing ones.

The mohole mission was easier than I expected, overbuild with an two stage lander and rcs. Now I knew the mohole mission would come up later, I went to Moho before arriving at Duna so I landed unmanned and left the lander there. This way I could return to lander to get the reward. My other two landers could not dock because a bug so only two landings. 

Now the lander down there saved me on my second Moho mission I was doing radiation science and the missing biomes, last landing was the mohole with my standard lander. Now it looks like its an but with some Discoverables and medium rover wheels and some landing legs. 
The tiny had no issues but the larger ones does. My lander started jumping higher and higher, tipped over and ended up on the side and I could not get it upright, if I did it would probably just start bouncing again. 
But I did science and went for the other lander, after installing the kerbal headlight mod so I could see anything. 
Walked 200 meter to other lander and got out of there. 

But another bug If you collected and handed in surface samples from The Croissant you can not complete the gourmand mission, yes I collected surface samples again but it did  not count. 
Now I think the gourmand should be before the mohole mission as you need precision landing to pull that off. For the other locations I just put rover wheels on lander instead of legs.  

But two things are very different from KSP 1:
First in KSP 1 you wanted to farm science out of Mun and Minmus to unlock the tech tree fast, Then building up my Minmus refueling base, then launch interplanetary missions while doing contracts withing Kerbin SOI, tourist ones was great as you combined this with leveling up kerbals. Land on Mun, get out of Kerbin SOI, return to Minmus to refuel and drop off astronauts, aerobrake into LKO, dock with shuttle or ssto transfer tourists and other missions. 
So it took forever for fist interplanetary ship to arrive. 
And I only launched bases, they could refuel other ships like landers and tugs. 

In KSP 2 dropped first try because so much wrong. Second time I launched two ships at Eve at day 9. First was an nuclear probe carrier with two Eve landers and an Gilly lander, second was the manned part who would return. 
I should sent 6 probe rovers and an atmospheric probe, manned mission should carry the Gilly lander. 

[magnemoe]

19 minutes ago, SolarAdmiral said:

Yeah, I don't know what people were expecting. If someone is an experienced enough player they don't find any challenge in KSP2, how did they find any challenge in KSP1? You could finish the whole KSP1 tech tree without doing anything more difficult than landing on the Mun. And all it took to fully upgrade all the buildings was grinding out the same rescue kerbal from orbit mission over and over.

Completing the KSP2 tech tree at least requires going to Duna, Eve, Jool and some moons. And completing the main mission chain requires accurate landings on Duna and Tylo, not to mention the 10 kerbals to Eve and back mission. Those all together are just about the hardest things the game could ask of you.

I say Jool, Eve or Dress, finished off Moho, Duna / Ike and tasted Eve and only miss the XL fairings, has the large nuclear engine, big round tank, large fairing and XL docking ports. Will start Eve landings and Dress injection in 20 days. 
Also some assembly needed for Moho mission. 

[AtomicTech]

On 3/15/2024 at 9:19 AM, Scarecrow71 said:

Bolded for emphasis.

Consider for a moment that the average KSP1 player never leaves Kerbin's SOI.  I read somewhere once that a whopping 70%+ of players have never gone any farther than Minmus, and another 10% or so have only ever sent probes into Kerbol orbit.  Those numbers could be wrong, and I could be remembering them incorrectly.  But that's 80% of the KSP1 player base (assuming the numbers are right) who have never had a probe, lander, rover, etc., land on a celestial body outside of Kerbin's SOI.

Also consider for a moment that there are some KSP1 players who have landed on Duna, or Dres, or Moho...but who have never landed a Kerbal on Eve.  Or who have sent probes to Jool, but have never landed on any of its moons.  Or who have never even been to Jool.  Or Eeloo, due to its distance and inclination.  Even with being able to spam science points in KSP1, and being able to unlock the entire tech tree without ever leaving Kerbin's SOI, some experienced KSP1 players have never been to the outer planets (or landed on one of the inner ones).  I can accurately state this, because I'm one of them.  In KSP1, I have never landed a Kerbal on Eve, I've never even attempted to launch a landed probe from Eve, and I had never been to Jool (although I have been to Eeloo).

So you want to talk about a challenge to experienced KSP1 players?  For starters, you can't just spam science points in Kerbin's SOI any more, so now you have to go farther than Minmus if you want to unlock the entire tech tree (or even just get better parts).  Sure, there's some local missions you can get some science points out of.  But you are never going to even sniff Tier IV until you've gone interplanetary and back.  And for those KSP1 players who never left the local SOI, that's going to be a challenge.

Take myself, for instance.  I mentioned above how I've never even been to Jool in KSP1.  In KSP2, I've not only been to Jool, but I've gotten a probe in orbit AND I've landed on and returned from Pol.  Things I've never done in KSP1.  And I can tell you that it was certainly a challenge.

I guess that an answer to your question lies in what someone really thinks a challenge is.  Are experienced players going to have an easier time of things in KSP2 than new players?  You bet your booties.  And that's because they already understand builds, launch windows, gravity turns, transfers, and all the good things that come from having played the previous game.  They already get the physics part of it, which is a pretty decent learning curve.  But that doesn't mean that there aren't challenges for experienced players.  It just depends on what they did in KSP1, and what they expect out of KSP2.

I seem to be perpetually stuck between Duna and Kerbin in KSP 1

I'm hoping that since now I'm playing with SCON, I'll finally get past that roadblock.

I imagine that when we see the introduction of off-Kerbin VABs and OABs, we're going to see a whole lot more players getting past the rut that I'm stuck in lol