Bought KSP2: immediate regret.

[Draslin]

I checked in and learned there had been a science update and figure maybe now it would be worth buying. It seemed so at first. No performance issues, or at least not the crazy performance problems I'd heard about, but then again I've barely gone to orbit. And I don't think I'll be playing it again any time soon. For a franchise that ostensibly made a name for itself through making something as complex and bewildering as aeronautical engineering and orbital mechanics fun, it boggles my mind how everything else about the game seems so irredeemably simplified and dull.

Science wasn't amazing in KSP1 but at least I knew how and where and why it was earned. In KSP2 it just seems to pop up. I'm mostly notified after the fact with very little notion that anything at all had happened. Its like a very slow game of Sonic the hedge hog. Complete with the loss of all my rings if I hit the ground too hard.

There is no economic incentive either to make a rocket more efficient in terms of resources. The sky is the limit so long as it fits in the VAB. Which impacts the use of the free science points as well. There is no reason to research lesser parts except as a stepping stone to the bigger more powerful and more useful parts. Its all the same once unlocked.

When I first heard of KSP2 I was convinced it would be amazing. Missions and Science could be rebuilt and improved. But no, both are far simpler, and far less motivating.

My biggest beef with KSP1 and science, was that you could complete all the science in the Kerbin SOI. It would be trivial to envision a a system of resources that would force the player further out into the system while tying that progress directly to their efforts. We could make science depend on access to rare-kerbin elements on Kerbin for tier 1. Science becomes a resource specific to a planet and the elements available on it. Parts should have a monetary cost as well as a resource cost. Those resources are the same elements science experiments are focused on. Properly researched, you mine those resources and use them and money to build rockets. Research must be unlocked per part, or group of parts, and paid for with Science associated with the materials those parts require. Bam. Now, I'm going to build a rocket with parts that require Rare-Kerbin elements which is just enough to get me to Dres or Eve. Now I start doing science at one of those to understand their Rare elements and how to use them, then how to mine them, shipping them back to KSP or building a colony to mine and refine locally, now I can unlock Tier 2 propulsion research on one planet, and Tier 2 structural research on the other. Then from those planets to the next adjacent orbits. Working my way closer to the sun or deeper into outer reaches of the Kerbol system. And it keeps going, the first interplanetary ship barely gets us to the next system. But after a while there the research makes it easier to travel and communicate between. All the while you have definable goals and objectives, purpose and a sense of accomplishment beyond just getting there.

But instead, its not much more complex than rocket goes up, science comes down. It's literally not rocket science. I haven't been this disappointed in a game since Spore. 

 

[Spicat]

It seems that most of your problems with ksp2 will be resolved in future updates, the game is still in early access and is missing its complete vision (you're mentioning colonies and resources which will be in the game):

Edited March 17 by Spicat

[Draslin]

2 hours ago, Spicat said:

It seems that most of your problems with ksp2 will be resolved in future updates, the game is still in early access and is missing its complete vision (you're mentioning colonies and resources which will be in the game):

I appreciate that it's not immediately obvious that I have some experience with games in early access or even KSP itself, but I've got about 1000 hours in KSP1 starting all the way back when the only thing to visit was the mun, and you had to eyeball it. I've read what little there is to read aboutKSP2  in the road map, and I've read more than a few articles, and watched more than a few videos about KSP2, before actually playing it for a day or so myself. What I haven't seen or heard about, is anything remotely like what I described. Excepting what sounds like a likely diluted resource gathering. The point I was making, is that what I have seen in the actual game right now seems pitifully simple, and by extension suggests any future systems will be similarly simple.

But while we are on the topic of the road map, doesn't it seem weird that something as basic as resource gathering doesn't show up until nearly the end of the road map? If those resources are used to build or research things, shouldn't that show up in the road map before those things are part of the game? Or isn't it weird that the resource gathering doesn't show up until after we crack interstellar travel? Is coming up with a convincing mining operation somehow more complicated or less important (or both) than working out interstellar travel? Seriously? I mean, this segues into one of the problems with KSP1, there was little to no reason to push out beyond the Kerbin SOI.  Nothing is materially gained. It boils down to, I went because I could. So we'll be able to build colonies, great, but why? There is no economy and no resource gathering yet, so what's the motivation? Now lets take that question and make it interstellar. It just seems nutty to make something that should feel impactful into just another cog in a machine that's dull and grindy.

But that's really just a long-winded way of saying, no, it doesn't seem like any of the problems I mention will be meaningfully resolved by future milestones on the road map.

[SomeRandomGuy]

1 hour ago, Draslin said:

The point I was making, is that what I have seen in the actual game right now seems pitifully simple, and by extension suggests any future systems will be similarly simple

I'm pretty sure that was the goal.  KSp2 wants to make the game more accessible to a new group of players, and kind of took the fact that the older player base would be around for the ride if they paid some lip service to what KSp1 veterans would have wanted.

They've been partially successful.  There is a new, small player base of fans who love capybaras and meming, and some older ksp1 player bought it anticipating an improved KSP, though I think many of them didn't keep playing it or are still in a wait and see mode.  

But hey, hope springs eternal.  Just like before 'for science!', everyone who wanted to sell you on the game said the next update would solve the lack of a game there...now the resource &colony system will solve things.  Or maybe interstellar will.  Or multiplayer.  Or full release.  Who knows, pay your $50 and join the ride, once they have your money all you can do is try to get more people on board the hype train.

[Darta01]

3 hours ago, Draslin said:

But while we are on the topic of the road map, doesn't it seem weird that something as basic as resource gathering doesn't show up until nearly the end of the road map? If those resources are used to build or research things, shouldn't that show up in the road map before those things are part of the game? Or isn't it weird that the resource gathering doesn't show up until after we crack interstellar travel? Is coming up with a convincing mining operation somehow more complicated or less important (or both) than working out interstellar travel? Seriously? I mean, this segues into one of the problems with KSP1, there was little to no reason to push out beyond the Kerbin SOI.  Nothing is materially gained. It boils down to, I went because I could. So we'll be able to build colonies, great, but why? There is no economy and no resource gathering yet, so what's the motivation? Now lets take that question and make it interstellar. It just seems nutty to make something that should feel impactful into just another cog in a machine that's dull and grindy.

You talk about the roadmap as a progression tree for players: "resources show up after we crack interstellar travel". It is not, it is a list of development steps. We won't crack interstellar travel, the devs will. And yes, interstellar is easier to implement than resources, because it consists basically in placing new stars somewhere and new planets around them. The difficulty is more in the design variations than in the game mechanics. In game development it makes sense to first implement a simplified version of the final product you want and then after to refine the game loop.

When colonies will be here, we will build them because we will want to. The game is in early access, so the colonies are implemented in order for the players to test the new game mechanics brought with it: new parts, orbital construction, maybe ground-anchoring... Sure it would be nice to have other motivations to build colonies, but it is not the main goal of the update.

 

Besides this point, I agree that KSP2 is (and wants to be) simpler than KSP1, which can be disappointing for seasoned players who seek a challenging experience. Sure the first early versions of KSP1 without maneuver tools were challenging! But the additions of tools in the game to simplify the user experience didn't make it less fun.

Maybe you thought of the current state of KSP2 as a wannabe improved version of KSP1 final state. With this perspective, the simplified science gathering game loop can be disappointing. However, I think KSP2 game loop as planned by the devs will be different from KSP1 (launch, collect science, transmit/recover, spend points in the tech tree). They talked about it but I don't remember where. I think it will be a bit closer to an automation game: resource gathering improvement, supply lines improvement, and science gathering will be used to unlock parts but will be less significant than in KSP1. Some people will like it, some people won't, but for now we have to keep in mind the game loop is not complete, hence the lack of motivation for rocket launches

[Presto200]

If we're talking about the development roadmap I would also vote for resources and delivery routes between colonies to be before interstellar travel. It would give life to the colonies that we build and would add to the challenge of interstellar. It would mean more if we have to worry about resources before just putting together an interstellar mothership instead of it feeling like a sandbox game mode and putting it together without a worry. For such a giant step for KSP players and their Kerbals, having to gather all the resources to make the interstellar ship complete and finally having a basically "complete" game after colonies, resources, and interstellar added would bring even more pride to that first voyage into the new solar system(s).

[Draslin]

Quote

You talk about the roadmap as a progression tree for players:

Unless they are making the game open source, no I'm not. Its a development road map which would, by definition, be a roadmap for the developers.

Quote

We won't crack interstellar travel, the devs will.

Obviously? To be fair, it's hard to make the sarcastic inflection obvious in the written word.

Quote

And yes, interstellar is easier to implement than resources, because it consists basically in placing new stars somewhere and new planets around them.

No, I don't think it would be easier. Not if they are planning to maintain the illusion of orbital mechanics based on Newtonian physics. The distances involved would require huge numbers that I suspect would severely strain the engine without some kind of abstraction layer. Where harvesting is concerned, they can make up the rules that govern it and tie it to whatever visuals work best for that.  Where as inter stellar travel has to emulate the real thing and can be judged accordingly. The stakes are much higher because the universe literally sets the bar on what it should look like and how it should behave.  They can't simplify interstellar travel for ease of development or dumb it down to increase the player base without sacrificing the very thing that brought people to the game in the first place.

Quote

When colonies will be here, we will build them because we will want to.

Fair.

Quote

so the colonies are implemented in order for the players to test the new game mechanics brought with it

No. It doesn't really add any game mechanics if these things don't add game mechanics. Your talking about visuals. After all, whats the difference between a rocket in space and a colony on the ground? One moves. Sure, there are some mechanics in terms of making sure the colony doesn't move and snaps to the ground properly. But what gameplay does that add for the player?

Quote

Sure it would be nice to have other motivations to build colonies, but it is not the main goal of the update.

That may be true, and if so I can't argue with it if that's the direction they want to go. My point is, that's not a game mechanic, it's just a kind of lego set. A glorified cosmetic. I didn't buy KSP2 to build pretty things. I bought it to play a space agency sim game with real physics.

Quote

Sure the first early versions of KSP1 without maneuver tools were challenging! But the additions of tools in the game to simplify the user experience didn't make it less fun.

Ok, this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. There is a difference between overly simplified game play, and clarifying the knobs and dials necessary to play the game effectively. Those tools didn't make the game simpler to play, it made it less frustrating and more fun by minimizing the guess work and uncertainty in the equation. It allowed you to plan, evaluate and understand what you were doing.

Quote

Maybe you thought of the current state of KSP2 as a wannabe improved version of KSP1 final state

Well call me crazy or unreasonable, but yes. It seems entirely reasonable to expect a sequel to a game to improve upon and add to what made the original successful. But also no, I'm not comparing KSP1 final to KSP2 as is. I'm comparing KSP1 science to KSP2 science, and while I was at it, calling it out the problems with the KSP1 science as they compare to KSP2 science. KSP1 science mechanics were better, though the progression of science goals were not. KSP2 science might as well not be there at all since it doesn't seem like I need to do anything to get or manage science beyond build a rocket and go somewhere.

Quote

but for now we have to keep in mind the game loop is not complete, hence the lack of motivation for rocket launches

But its not a single lone game loop. A single hamster wheel sounds like a complete waste of time. KSP1 consisted of at least a few. Run missions to make money so you could pay for rockets and unlock parts. Build rockets so you could go out and get the science to unlock research. Arguably a communications network was another game loop though an optional one, also seemingly present in KSP2. Likewise building a refueling infrastructure in KSP1. So KSP2 has at least one game loop right now. Build rockets to get science, and the point is it might as well not be there. If instead I simply unlocked parts for visiting planets and moons, would it be materially different somehow? Just call it crew reports instead. Science right now doesn't feel like a game loop much less like actual science, its feels more like steam achievements.

In any event. If the objective is to make a simpler, easier, dumber game, then they aren't really making KSP2. There making a new game in a KSP2 skin. At least for me. I've never played a sequel to a game for long when that sequel stripped away complexity from the first.  Its one thing to make a game simpler to play, and another thing to make a game simpler. If that distinction isn't obvious, then I think I'm wasting my time trying to explain. Which is probably true regardless.

Edited March 17 by Draslin

[SomeRandomGuy]

Makes no sense to me at all that interstellar is before resources, unless the goal is to delay having anything like.new gameplay visible for as long as possible, and just stick with cosmetic development.

[Meecrob]

12 hours ago, SomeRandomGuy said:

KSp2 wants to make the game more accessible to a new group of players, and kind of took the fact that the older player base would be around for the ride if they paid some lip service to what KSp1 veterans would have wanted.

Mark my words, this is where KSP2 will fail. They are so focused on getting new players, they didn't notice the old playerbase ablate away at alarming speed. I've said a few times before, I put a bunch of money away figuring we, as a community, are going to have to make a true successor to KSP ourselves. All told, I bet we can make the game in 10% the budget KSP2 was given because we will hire people who know how to make games, not memes.

 

[mattihase]

KSP1's campaign mode always kinda sucked for anything but challenge runs. It's built around encouraging people to waste time on busy work instead of encouraging them to fly missions to new/varied places.

Could 2's progression system do with a bit more fleshing out or expansion? probably, and I expect it will, but at its core it's a lot better thought through from a "what behaviour does this encourage in the player" perspective than what got tacked on to the first game in 0.24.

[moeggz]

Gotta love the ever moving goal posts of “wait for the first patch” to “wait for For Science!” To now “wait for Colonies, wait no that won’t even have resources so wait for multiple major updates down the road” and that those will fix the game and make it great. Not may but will and you are unfairly negative if waiting that long after an already greatly delayed game that you paid near full price for isn’t something you’re interested in.

I want KSP2 to succeed. It’s becoming tiring waiting while all feedback (the devs entire reason for EA) is met without any response. How resources/colonies factor into the gameplay loop is the reason for the game. It’s what differentiates it from the first.
 

The fact that this far into the release and we can’t even be told in broad strokes how they will work tells me that those are still being decided. Which is frankly absurd and greatly different to the nearly finished game that they just want to get some feedback and tuning from the user base on in an EA launch.

Also I don’t know how anyone could’ve read your post and gotten the impression you just didn’t understand how EA games work, your criticism was quite clear. This game so far has fixed KSP1’s janky complexity by just removing complexity entirely. Critiquing that doesn’t show a misunderstanding of the roadmap or EA in general, it shows your familiarity and appreciation for KSP1 and your worry about where KSP2 is headed.

[calabus2]

On 3/16/2024 at 8:59 PM, Spicat said:

It seems that most of your problems with ksp2 will be resolved in future updates, the game is still in early access and is missing its complete vision (you're mentioning colonies and resources which will be in the game):

There it is....the "it's in EA" excuse. I'm surprised it took about 3 hours after OPs post to show up. Then again I've seen how poorly this IP has been handled and understand that hardly anyone pays attention to it or bothers to comment. The engagement here and on the official reddit sub is a very clear indicator of how poorly this game is supported or cared about. 

I've said it in the sub and here....this game would be better served if it failed and was sold to competent developers. I had hopes before EA that the game would be something to grow into like KSP1, but after the excrements take2, Nate and IG pulled it is blatantly obvious that it simply isn't going to happen. 

[Fizzlebop Smith]

On 3/17/2024 at 8:01 AM, Draslin said:

Unless they are making the game open source, no I'm not. Its a development road map which would, by definition, be a roadmap for the developers.

Obviously? To be fair, it's hard to make the sarcastic inflection obvious in the written word.

No, I don't think it would be easier. Not if they are planning to maintain the illusion of orbital mechanics based on Newtonian physics. The distances involved would require huge numbers that I suspect would severely strain the engine without some kind of abstraction layer. Where harvesting is concerned, they can make up the rules that govern it and tie it to whatever visuals work best for that.  Where as inter stellar travel has to emulate the real thing and can be judged accordingly. The stakes are much higher because the universe literally sets the bar on what it should look like and how it should behave.  They can't simplify interstellar travel for ease of development or dumb it down to increase the player base without sacrificing the very thing that brought people to the game in the first place.

Fair.

No. It doesn't really add any game mechanics if these things don't add game mechanics. Your talking about visuals. After all, whats the difference between a rocket in space and a colony on the ground? One moves. Sure, there are some mechanics in terms of making sure the colony doesn't move and snaps to the ground properly. But what gameplay does that add for the player?

That may be true, and if so I can't argue with it if that's the direction they want to go. My point is, that's not a game mechanic, it's just a kind of lego set. A glorified cosmetic. I didn't buy KSP2 to build pretty things. I bought it to play a space agency sim game with real physics.

Ok, this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. There is a difference between overly simplified game play, and clarifying the knobs and dials necessary to play the game effectively. Those tools didn't make the game simpler to play, it made it less frustrating and more fun by minimizing the guess work and uncertainty in the equation. It allowed you to plan, evaluate and understand what you were doing.

Well call me crazy or unreasonable, but yes. It seems entirely reasonable to expect a sequel to a game to improve upon and add to what made the original successful. But also no, I'm not comparing KSP1 final to KSP2 as is. I'm comparing KSP1 science to KSP2 science, and while I was at it, calling it out the problems with the KSP1 science as they compare to KSP2 science. KSP1 science mechanics were better, though the progression of science goals were not. KSP2 science might as well not be there at all since it doesn't seem like I need to do anything to get or manage science beyond build a rocket and go somewhere.

But its not a single lone game loop. A single hamster wheel sounds like a complete waste of time. KSP1 consisted of at least a few. Run missions to make money so you could pay for rockets and unlock parts. Build rockets so you could go out and get the science to unlock research. Arguably a communications network was another game loop though an optional one, also seemingly present in KSP2. Likewise building a refueling infrastructure in KSP1. So KSP2 has at least one game loop right now. Build rockets to get science, and the point is it might as well not be there. If instead I simply unlocked parts for visiting planets and moons, would it be materially different somehow? Just call it crew reports instead. Science right now doesn't feel like a game loop much less like actual science, its feels more like steam achievements.

In any event. If the objective is to make a simpler, easier, dumber game, then they aren't really making KSP2. There making a new game in a KSP2 skin. At least for me. I've never played a sequel to a game for long when that sequel stripped away complexity from the first.  Its one thing to make a game simpler to play, and another thing to make a game simpler. If that distinction isn't obvious, then I think I'm wasting my time trying to explain. Which is probably true regardless.

 

Inwant to add that the current maneuver toolsets as they exist in a vanilla capacity are sorely inadequate for any real in depth maneuver planning.

 

You cannot plan multiple maneuvers through other SOIs

You cannot attempt to plan advanced (future) maneuvers that would exceed current fuel capacity

 

This is not a quibble over *yet to be* features like DV maps, & translation / launch planners

I think interstellar will be more difficult than just plopping another system down. It might not be though.

Edited March 21 by Fizzlebop Smith

[Flush Foot]

Just now, Fizzlebop Smith said:

You cannot attempt to plan advanced (future) maneuvers

... on later orbits

[Superfluous J]

If your disappointment was so immediate, you should have gotten a refund. Then you can try to buy it again when it has the features you find fun.

[calabus2]

On 3/21/2024 at 9:09 PM, Superfluous J said:

If your disappointment was so immediate, you should have gotten a refund. Then you can try to buy it again when it has the features you find fun.

It's almost like they made the tutorials long enough to get around Steam's return policy? Nahhh. Can't be 

Edited March 23 by calabus2

[Spicat]

1 hour ago, calabus2 said:

It's almost like they made the tutorials long enough to get around Steam's return policy? Nahhh. Can't be 

Good reminder that you can refund a game well above those 2 hours and 2 weeks. This is not an excuse. It's just a different process and will be reviewed manually so it's less easy to have a refund the more hours and time after the purchase you have. (Like I've seen people got a refund with x10 the limit and months after release)

So no, they didn't make the tutorials long enough so you can't refund.

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, calabus2 said:

It's almost like they made the tutorials long enough to get around Steam's return policy? Nahhh. Can't be 

I returned Hitman after 4 hours in. I had a good reason. If you feel yours is good then give it when you put in for the return.

[m4inbrain]

5 hours ago, Spicat said:

7 hours ago, calabus2 said:

It's almost like they made the tutorials long enough to get around Steam's return policy? Nahhh. Can't be 

Good reminder that you can refund a game well above those 2 hours and 2 weeks.

Good reminder that "game sucks" is guaranteed to result in a denial. You have to have a good reason - be it technical issues (not random ones, but visibly and widespread ones), or scummy behaviour by a developer (bait and switch etc).

 

I'm reasonably certain that nothing here is news to anyone including you, so i'm not sure what the point of that argument is supposed to be. Your personal annecdote of people with 20+ hours getting a refund for being disappointed? I believe it when i see it. The actual refund, not some guy claiming it. Until then, no. Under normal circumstances, you can NOT refund the game after 20+ hours.

[allanp11]

On 3/17/2024 at 4:29 PM, SomeRandomGuy said:

Makes no sense to me at all that interstellar is before resources, unless the goal is to delay having anything like.new gameplay visible for as long as possible, and just stick with cosmetic development.

From a gameplay perspective you could be right. But I don't think the items in the roadmap are in the order they are for the sake of what makes sense to us players, but to what makes sense for developing the game. Take your example of having interstellar before resource gathering. It could be that they plan to have a resource that isn't available in the Kerbol system, you have to go interstellar to get that recourse. If that's the case, then it wouldn't make sense to have resource gathering come before interstellar if there isn't already the other star system in which to put that resource. That is all speculation of course, just a (probably very poor) example of why things could be in the order they are.

[allanp11]

3 hours ago, m4inbrain said:

I'm reasonably certain that nothing here is news to anyone including you, so i'm not sure what the point of that argument is supposed to be. Your personal annecdote of people with 20+ hours getting a refund for being disappointed? I believe it when i see it. The actual refund, not some guy claiming it. Until then, no. Under normal circumstances, you can NOT refund the game after 20+ hours.

I had a MASSIVELY frustrating game session yesterday. I spent a few hours googling how to deal with this bug or that bug, another few hours trying to design craft and play in such a way as to avoid said bugs or other instances of "working as intended", and probably about 20 minutes of actually playing the game as it was intended. I posted a thread yesterday, large landing legs exploding at 2m/s out of sheer frustration, getting a refund was also hinted at. Exploding landing legs is only one thing but yesterday it was the straw that broke the camels back. You are right that getting a refund after 20+ hours of gameplay is unlikely, but kerbal is a game that takes a long time to play, especially if you spend most of that time googling how to get around bugs, is that really time spent playing the game?

I have calmed down since yesterday. I'll hold off on trying to get a refund now and hope that after a few months or even years the game will become worth the purchase. I want to like the game, I am really trying to, but it seems better for me to just put the game down and not play until the next update. My time with this game seems better spent on this forum, attempting to give some constructive feedback. At least that's something the devs can work with, better than staying silent.