K.E.R.B. Report Update

[PDCWolf]

19 hours ago, Mitokandria said:

From going through posts on here it seems there are two different schools of thought on sequels:

• A sequel should aim to recreate all/most of the previous game's primary mechanics in a new or updated engine utilising modern hardware, optimization techniques, and lessons learned to improve performance and stability. Then add/revise/remove features to meet story development, incorporate mechanics/tweaks from popular community mods, and to meet new player expectations.
• A sequel should aim to create a brand new game using it's predecessor as inspiration; incorporating features from the previous game that meet the vision of this new game and leaving out features that do not meet this vision. Adjust final vision to meet player expectations.

It seems most people, myself included, were lead to believe KSP 2 would follow the first school of thought. What we appear to be getting though is the second school of thought; a new game meant to bring in a wider player base while attempting to maintain the feel and essence of the original.

Neither school of thought is really "superior" as there are plenty of excellent examples of both in gaming, but I think not making it clear from the start which school of thought the devs subscribe to has caused a lot of discord, infighting, and mistrust among the playerbase. This has been exacerbated by a lack of communication, transparency, and, to some people, honesty during EA development.

 

I think KSP 2 will still end up being a good game, but perhaps not the game many fans of the original are looking for.

Hit the nail on the head really. Sure there's caveats like I don't believe anything from KSP1 should be removed, but rather reworked and expanded. A sequel is supposed to be an evolution. If you turn a space sim game into a linear storyline game where you require physics and base management to get from A to B for the story, you're not making KSP, you're making Outer Wilds with a side of base building.

KSP2 should've expanded on what 1 was, making it a deeper, more challenging, more encompassing physics and management simulator whilst also fixing the challenging onboarding of new players which was pretty much ignored in the prequel (and even then it sold 10 times what the sequel did).

I have no idea who asked for KSP2 to be what it currently aims to be, I know it wasn't me, and as it stands now, 4.5 million of original KSP1 purchasers didn't either.

[steveman0]

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions here. Is there anything that really isn't being built up above and beyond KSP1? In my reading of the plans, it definitely sounds like we are getting more of the former. I don't think it's accurate to claim the latter just because the game isn't done yet.

The only things I know appears to be changing relates to career mode with the removal of currency since it is redundant/obsolete by migration to reliance on resources. Contracts as a source of currency go with it since players will have their own goal-driven tasks for resource gathering.

[KincaidFrankMF]

21 hours ago, steveman0 said:

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions here.

Yeah, me too, although I do think Mitokandria makes some excellent points. It's hard to judge the final game based on a work in progress - it could still broadly fit into the first kind of sequel, depending how things go. We still don't know, and that's frustrating in itself.

I must admit I enjoyed the storyline in KSP2, and it did push me to get out there & explore the Kerbolar system, where I often find enthusiasm starting to wane after the early game in KSP1. But it's very, very on-rails and that fundamentally changes the feel of the game. It takes away a lot of the player's agency and that sense of building your own space program from the ground up.

We may find a lot of that gets replaced, once we're able to build our space program in space, through colonisation, rather than on Kerbin. Also, it may not be all we get. I'd love to see a tertiary class of mission added that's a little more random and optional. However many primary/secondary missions get added, the completionists among us will still want to finish them all, and we won't get a sense of choice. It also leaves every playthrough feeling similar. Equally, the flaw in KSP1's approach of all random missions is that a lot of them are completely arbitrary & they start to feel increasingly pointless as you go on. A mix of the two approaches might give us the best of both worlds.

Hell, someone's bound to mod it that way regardless, sooner or later.

[PDCWolf]

On 3/31/2024 at 12:24 PM, steveman0 said:

because the game isn't done yet.

2 hours ago, KincaidFrankMF said:

 It's hard to judge the final game based on a work in progress

We all know the game isn't done yet, but we have plenty of evidence to their timing, and the depth they're willing to go for (or rather, not go for since science was streamlined into a skinnerbox blue button and the rest is copied from KSP1 with minor changes) from what's there and the AMAs. Moreso, the foundations are set in stone. They're not gonna swap engines, they're not making the simulation deeper/better, they're not altering any lower level of the design document at this point. The project, it's market cap, the attention it garnered and most of its public image are set in stone.

 

[Mitokandria]

On 3/31/2024 at 11:24 AM, steveman0 said:

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions here. [snip] I don't think it's accurate to claim the latter just because the game isn't done yet.

 

5 hours ago, KincaidFrankMF said:

It's hard to judge the final game based on a work in progress - it could still broadly fit into the first kind of sequel, depending how things go. We still don't know, and that's frustrating in itself.

That is my point though. For many it appears to be the latter. The game is indeed still a work in progress, but only the dev-team knows what kind of sequel they are making.  Since there hasn't been clear communication about what kind of sequel it'll be it leaves people to come to their own conclusions instead of a unified perception. It's creating a user v user v dev team atmosphere/vibe. As it is, until the game is closer to completion, no one but the dev team knows what kind of sequel it will be.

My own perception is that, once completed, KSP2's primary genre will be a colony sim  focused on resource management with space flight mechanics ('Inspired By' sequel) when what I was hoping for was a Space Flight Sim focused on science and physics with a colony mechanic ('Remake/Revised' style sequel).

 

FTR Dakota is awesome. I wish the team had a few more Dakotas.

Edited April 1 by Mitokandria
typo

[The Aziz]

Uh yeah no. They said many times in the distant past that the main gameplay will be still flying rockets. Colonies are there to supplement that and give the players new opportunities. They're supposed to expand the gameplay, rather than replace it. Colony sims focused hard on management tend to require constant attention. In KSP you should be able to leave your colony for years and nothing bad would happen in the meantime, and whatever you told it to do - extract, produce, trade - will be done without your input.

[KincaidFrankMF]

36 minutes ago, Mitokandria said:

My own perception is that, once completed, KSP2's primary genre will be a colony sim  focused on resource management with space flight mechanics ('Inspired By' sequel) when what I was hoping for was a Space Flight Sim focused on science and physics with a colony mechanic ('Remake/Revised' style sequel).

I'm getting a mix of both, which rather supports your point above

[Scarecrow71]

I find it odd and worrisome that it took everything the CM's had to tell us the KERB reports were going monthly, but made it a point to straight away tell us there would be no weekly challenge today.

[KincaidFrankMF]

4 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

(or rather, not go for since science was streamlined into a skinnerbox blue button and the rest is copied from KSP1 with minor changes)

Huh, feel like we played entirely different games there. Funny how different impressions can be. I agree the presentation of science reports is flat out 1/10 awful, but the meat & bones of it is a big step up for me. Most of the nonsense is gone (the hilarity of thermometers & goo wore a tad thin for me as the thousands of hours of gameplay went by...), replaced by mostly serious science that actually tells a story in places - like the little mystery over why Dres has an equatorial ridge, for example. I loved that stuff, it kept me wanting to explore further. And they've sprinkled in just the odd goo reference here & there for nostalgia's sake - perfect.

4 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Moreso, the foundations are set in stone. They're not gonna swap engines

I'm not seeing much from KSP1 that's been flat-out excluded at a foundational level? Other than currency? Building up the KSC, I guess, but that gets replaced by building new bases offworld. What are you thinking of? The engine certainly needs work, eep.

4 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

they're not making the simulation deeper/better

Maybe it depends what you're looking for, like Mito said. For me, building offworld colonies into the core game would add hugely to the depth. In KSP1 I never bother with that stuff - space stations, bases, it all feels pointless. I'm trying some mods now that might change my mind, but what I need is for them to have an in-game purpose beyond just looking nice. If I can make a base that eventually has its own VAB & launchpad, and if I can use that as a springboard to other solar systems... that sounds epic!

Definitely more SF though. I can see it being a step back if you're looking for more of a Realism Overhaul feel to things?

[Flush Foot]

32 minutes ago, KincaidFrankMF said:

I'm trying some mods now that might change my mind, but what I need is for them to have an in-game purpose beyond just looking nice. If I can make a base that eventually has its own VAB & launchpad, and if I can use that as a springboard to other solar systems... that sounds epic!

I’d have to boot up my computer to see what they were, but shortly after the original KSP 2 ‘lithobraking’ date came and went, I spun up a new save with mods to do more or less exactly that! Not *quite* as intense as Extraplanetary Launchpads, but it leaned heavily on it (MetalOre > Metal > RocketParts + ScrapMetal) where you could craft ‘dry’ vessels (and/or solid fuel parts) by converting RocketParts into the vessel / station add-on, which then had to be fuelled up (and recharged) from the place you just launched it from.

[Flush Foot]

I believe it was "SimpleConstruction!"

[Fizzlebop Smith]

The mighty Foot is indeed correct.

The current GU career I just started is using Simple Construction, OSE, Civilian Population & Kerbal Konstructs to achieve the particular content scope I am wanted. 

Among the 85+ other QOL, Parts & Contract Packs. I am super excited to try a Extraplanetary Launchpads that's slimmed down.

I had so much fun with EP for the last 600+ hours but felt completely overwhelmed by the thought of how much infrastructure I am going to need to build. Combined with Kerbalism was more than daunting.

 

Has anyone used Kerbal Health? I had some problems but now find myself wondering about a less stringent life support approach.

 

Perhaps Snacks.

[PDCWolf]

2 hours ago, KincaidFrankMF said:

Huh, feel like we played entirely different games there. Funny how different impressions can be. I agree the presentation of science reports is flat out 1/10 awful, but the meat & bones of it is a big step up for me. Most of the nonsense is gone (the hilarity of thermometers & goo wore a tad thin for me as the thousands of hours of gameplay went by...), replaced by mostly serious science that actually tells a story in places - like the little mystery over why Dres has an equatorial ridge, for example. I loved that stuff, it kept me wanting to explore further. And they've sprinkled in just the odd goo reference here & there for nostalgia's sake - perfect.

I'm not seeing much from KSP1 that's been flat-out excluded at a foundational level? Other than currency? Building up the KSC, I guess, but that gets replaced by building new bases offworld. What are you thinking of? The engine certainly needs work, eep.

Maybe it depends what you're looking for, like Mito said. For me, building offworld colonies into the core game would add hugely to the depth. In KSP1 I never bother with that stuff - space stations, bases, it all feels pointless. I'm trying some mods now that might change my mind, but what I need is for them to have an in-game purpose beyond just looking nice. If I can make a base that eventually has its own VAB & launchpad, and if I can use that as a springboard to other solar systems... that sounds epic!

Definitely more SF though. I can see it being a step back if you're looking for more of a Realism Overhaul feel to things?

I'd much rather have the granularity of designing my own payload with the experiments I want, because that's how it works in real life. You don't get a bulbous 7 meter long "science thing" that you have to take to space, but rather payloads are designed with mission and more importantly launcher constraints in mind and that's why we don't have two probes of the same shape unless they were purposefully twins. That's failure zero of KSP1 and 2 when they wanted to become tycoon games, a basic misunderstanding of how spaceflight works in any aspect outside astrodynamics: launchers are hard to design, they take time, you can't just make a new launcher to hurl rover-2 to Mars, you make rover-2 as close as rover-1 because rover-1 almost worked and the rocket it'll ride there is still the same. At the same time, rover-1 was already designed to be as efficient as possible in its mission.

I couldn't care less about experiment text in 1, had the same problem in 2. It's inconsequential for absolutely everything game-side just like pressing a button whilst orbiting Dres has nothing to do with making a better engine back home.

When talking foundations, I mean the core concepts of how physics are built and simulated, how well the game was coded, how scalable the save system is... Again, as much as they can optimize, your KSP2 save is more or less doomed to be much smaller than a KSP1 equivalent given how they decided to "simulate" things. It's also why the heating system has been oversimplified, and why logistics for base building are magic numbers that replay proof-of-concept missions and not actual ships moving about.

I was looking for a better space sim game, I'll seemingly get someone's KSP fanfic but tied to a barebones base-building mod... in a building and save system that still has all the limitations KSP1 had plus new ones on top.

 

[KincaidFrankMF]

56 minutes ago, Flush Foot said:

I believe it was "SimpleConstruction!"

That sounds AWESOME. I've just started a playthrough based on this -> https://youtu.be/UKbWx-bTOw0?si=bD_Sd9QOdEjK8ojX but haven't got far enough to see how the bases work. Wonder if it would be compatible...

[KincaidFrankMF]

12 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

That's failure zero of KSP1 and 2 when they wanted to become tycoon games,

Agreed, neither is realistic. Honestly don't know if it's possible to gamify a more realistic approach.

14 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

launchers are hard to design, they take time, you can't just make a new launcher to hurl rover-2 to Mars

Absolutely. KCT took a more realistic approach there IIRC. Redesigning launchers is fun though... It's that balance between sim & game, hard to get right at the best of times and impossible for everyone at the same time.

17 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Again, as much as they can optimize, your KSP2 save is more or less doomed to be much smaller than a KSP1 equivalent given how they decided to "simulate" things.

Eep, that doesn't sound encouraging at all. I don't know a thing about the technical side of things, was hoping optimising would eventually do the trick... That sounds bad.

On the plus side, KSP1 isn't going anywhere. At least there's now a single game version for modders to work with, rather than everything going out of date constantly.

[Flush Foot]

33 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Has anyone used Kerbal Health? I had some problems but now find myself wondering about a less stringent life support approach.

 

Perhaps Snacks.

I’ve not played with KH, but in my Simple Construction playthrough I did have Snacks (but I forget if I tweaked the configs on it / other parts so Stockalike Station parts like Greenhouses and Aquaculture tanks could convert Ore to… I *think* I chose to Soil as it felt more logical, at which point my habs’ 40% recycle-rate on existing snacks could replenish the Snack-supply in-situ, as long as I had a surplus of habs, anyways)

16 minutes ago, KincaidFrankMF said:

That sounds AWESOME. I've just started a playthrough based on this -> https://youtu.be/UKbWx-bTOw0?si=bD_Sd9QOdEjK8ojX but haven't got far enough to see how the bases work. Wonder if it would be compatible...

I suspect that creator’s mod-pack off-Kerbin construction capacity comes from Artemis Construction Kit (only one that doesn’t ring any bells in my head) but I don’t know how it works.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Superfluous J]

On 3/30/2024 at 11:57 AM, PDCWolf said:

KSP2 should've expanded on what 1 was

You are talking in the past tense as if KSP2 is complete.

On 3/30/2024 at 11:57 AM, PDCWolf said:

deeper, more challenging, more encompassing physics and management simulator

How exactly do you want the physics to be more encompassed and deeper? Do you want n-body simulations or relativity taken into account or do we need to mix our own fuels or what?

[KincaidFrankMF]

9 minutes ago, Flush Foot said:

I suspect that creator’s mod-pack off-Kerbin construction capacity comes from Artemis Construction Kit (only one that doesn’t ring any bells in my head) but I don’t know how it works.

I'm starting to think it doesn't have off-Kerbin construction at all, just bases that look pretty but do nothing. Screw it, I'm going to try & combine them (waits for the entire install to collapse in a heap...)

[Superfluous J]

On 3/30/2024 at 11:57 AM, PDCWolf said:

I have no idea who asked for KSP2 to be what it currently aims to be, I know it wasn't me, and as it stands now, 4.5 million of original KSP1 purchasers didn't either.

I didn't ask for KSP2 to be anything. In fact I was shocked that it got a sequel at all.

However, I'll happily raise my hand as someone who thinks pretty much every change they've made or are planning are positive ones, when the whole is taken into account. And KSP2 1.0 as currently described sounds perfect to me. It's basically KSP1 with some unneeded stuff gone and a whole bunch of stuff that wasn't in KSP1.

[Flush Foot]

15 minutes ago, KincaidFrankMF said:

I'm starting to think it doesn't have off-Kerbin construction at all, just bases that look pretty but do nothing. Screw it, I'm going to try & combine them (waits for the entire install to collapse in a heap...)

Yeah… I just got to Artemis in the video and it wasn’t to do with building off-world. 

They look pretty and take effort to keep long-term residents alive… that’s… something, right?

[PDCWolf]

3 hours ago, KincaidFrankMF said:

Honestly don't know if it's possible to gamify a more realistic approach.

It's that balance between sim & game, hard to get right at the best of times and impossible for everyone at the same time.

I'm definitely not saying any of this is easy to do or get right. At all. Just wanted to clear that up.

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

You are talking in the past tense as if KSP2 is complete.

How exactly do you want the physics to be more encompassed and deeper? Do you want n-body simulations or relativity taken into account or do we need to mix our own fuels or what?

KSP2 is out. The first mainline feature is out after a painful year. That it's an Early Access gives it a couple more shots at getting publicity but most of the people that could possibly ever be interested... probably already checked it out by now. The cat is out of the bag and the credibility of time-traveling positivity marketeers talking about an amazing 1.0 is at its lowest.

As for the rest, KSP2 is still using all the same tricks KSP1 was. The visible scene is still 2.5km max, physics is even less than that, it's still tree-based so you have the exact same limitations with building, the very obvious step-up that procedural fuel tanks would've been was skipped, rockets would've behaved like wet noodles but we gladly talked them out of that. Yes, we could've had n-body too, or at least asteroids with their own gravity, or proper Lagrange points, and we still have to see what they come up with for the binary system (even though we can all imagine it's gonna be a magic mess of SOI interactions) since the obvious solution was chucked out the window. Even something basic like ring collisions has been pushed to the backburner whilst they figure out how to deliver on a basic promise.

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

I didn't ask for KSP2 to be anything. In fact I was shocked that it got a sequel at all.

However, I'll happily raise my hand as someone who thinks pretty much every change they've made or are planning are positive ones, when the whole is taken into account. And KSP2 1.0 as currently described sounds perfect to me. It's basically KSP1 with some unneeded stuff gone and a whole bunch of stuff that wasn't in KSP1.

That's you. The community always dreamed with a proper sequel, and that's where commonly heard phrases like "reworked codebase", "better physics" and so came from, and that's part of the expectations the launch failed to meet.

KSP2 1.0 doesn't exist, won't exist for a loooooooong while, so using it as an argument is kinda meh, specially after months of telling people that they shouldn't buy the EA because of what devs promise... which isn't actually a thing because another argument is that the devs never really promised anything... which contradicts your future perfect game argument. But hey, people twisting their brain into a torus to defend this project ever made much sense anyways. If you like it you like it, welcome to the minority.

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

But hey, people twisting their brain into a torus to defend this project ever made much sense anyways

Just to be clear: I'm not defending anything. I'm stating facts. That those facts are contrary to what people want is not really my problem.

To also be clear: Of course I want a perfect game delivered 12 months ago with no bugs and a $10 price tag. However I live in the real world and understand that in the vast majority of cases I will never ever get what I want. So, I determine if what is offered is worth what I'm willing to pay and if it is, great. If not, oh well maybe I'll leave a bad review and then I'll move on.

Complaining about obvious things over and over is such a useless exercise it frustrates me that so many enjoy it. Talk about twisting your brain into a torus, that's the idea that after the first 300 times, the 301st complaint will make some sort of difference.

Edited April 2 by Superfluous J
Really? 301th? That's what I typed?

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Raising your voice to attempt and affect change in something they are passionate about is a "such a useless exercise"

Using blatant hyperbole to deliver veiled condescension is of course awesome though, right?

And repeating the verse same talking point in defense of a game is also acceptable? No those were *facts*.

I fear much of the world feels this way... about a GREAT number of things. 

I notice some facts too.. the community is disaffected, divided, and disappointed. (Because the vision of our devs was not well defined).

Thank goodness some can continue to raise their voices.

I have grown tired of defending the amazing marvel of the first. 

Another fact... not giving up and continue to beat a dead horse is how people change the things that no bdy thought could be changed. 

Whether it works in this case remains to be seen.

 

Edited April 2 by Fizzlebop Smith

[KincaidFrankMF]

1 hour ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

I notice some facts too.. the community is disaffected, divided, and disappointed. (Because the vision of our devs was not well defined).

Which is where the discussion started, with Mitokandria's excellent post.

This is starting to get heated though, and it doesn't need to be. It's really, really obvious why a lot of folks are disappointed. And let's face it, even a "perfect" sequel would have split the community because we all want different things from it - again, why Mito is right to say expectations needed to be managed from the get-go with a razor sharp definition of what KSP2 was/is supposed to be.

Personally, I just finished a very thorough 50% science playthrough, collecting every scrap of science in the Kerbolar system except for a couple of spots on Eve (and any discoverables I missed), and enjoyed it enormously. It's the most thorough game of KSP I've managed in ages, and the first for years that ended in achieving my goal rather than eventually getting bored and drifting off. By the standards of any other game, KSP2 has already achieved full VFM for me. For other people it is and always will be a bitter disappointment, and that's just as valid.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

My point is.. 

If you did not pay for this product you have no right to really complain about anything.

However, if you purchased a product... you have every right to complain. As much or as little as you like.

 

If different people are voicing the same issues the become a chorus. This is how change occurs. 

 

I get sick of what I (personally) perceive as fan service for a title I feel is not in touch withfan base.

When I try to counter that fan service I do it with my views and feelings.

Not snide remarks, and pointed assault on intelligence. 

*I want a perfect 10$ game that's the most amazing thing ever*

Does that not feel disingenuous to anyone?

 

People are entitled to complain regarding things they purchased. No one is entitled to be an @ss or mean.