At what point do you see yourself "committing" more seriously to KSP2?

[dave1904]

KSP2 is just not clicking for me.  I see the potential but the UI and part window just turn me away so fast.

I cannot stand the fact that there are no funds in the career mode. There is no challenge. You can add a billion planets and colonies but without an economy there is no depth whatsoever. 

For KSP2 a supply network would be awesome between colonies if you dont need to keep it running. Automatic supply lines would be a great addition then but what's the challenge in that of there is no funds to limit your craft choice.

I need to supply a Duna colony from kerbin? Great. I need to build a rocket that can get 2tons to duna for the cheapest price possible. The player is then required to play the flight once manually to record it and then the game will automatically do it at every launch window. 

Life Support is hard-core but let's be honest. It would add so much to the game. A generic resource like Supplies would do it. 

More star systems will not add anything to the game. It doesn't matter what star the planet is orbiting. Same #### different day. With funds, supply missions and basic life support you can add the fundamental game features that mods can build upon and more importantly more depth. 

 

[Flush Foot]

5 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

I cannot stand the fact that there are no funds in the career mode. There is no challenge. You can add a billion planets and colonies but without an economy there is no depth whatsoever.

There have been theories (in real life) that when [if] we reach widescale adoption of nuclear fusion as an energy source, we could become a post-scarcity society where money wouldn't really matter anymore.

I believe that fusion (energy, not just engines) might be coming in some future update (Colonies? Interstellar?), which might be why no money in KSP 2.

The constraints that will be placed on players though are regrettably 3 roadmap milestones away... Colonies > Interstellar > Resources / Exploration... With Resources, the thinking right now (I believe) is that while you could launch basically as much as you want from the KSC 'for free' (at least of the somewhat more basic/common building materials/fuel-types), once you want to start using larger and/or more exotic fuels/parts and want to produce them off-world (unconstrained by Kerbin's gravity well and atmospheric drag), then you need to have an adequate supply of funds resources at that colony in order to do so, as well as in order to start/expand new colonies.

[Presto200]

11 minutes ago, Flush Foot said:

There have been theories (in real life) that when [if] we reach widescale adoption of nuclear fusion as an energy source, we could become a post-scarcity society where money wouldn't really matter anymore.

I believe that fusion (energy, not just engines) might be coming in some future update (Colonies? Interstellar?), which might be why no money in KSP 2.

The constraints that will be placed on players though are regrettably 3 roadmap milestones away... Colonies > Interstellar > Resources / Exploration... With Resources, the thinking right now (I believe) is that while you could launch basically as much as you want from the KSC 'for free' (at least of the somewhat more basic/common building materials/fuel-types), once you want to start using larger and/or more exotic fuels/parts and want to produce them off-world (unconstrained by Kerbin's gravity well and atmospheric drag), then you need to have an adequate supply of funds resources at that colony in order to do so, as well as in order to start/expand new colonies.

I will be curious how they will make it so you can't just timewarp in order to have infinite resources after setting up supply delivery routes, money does make things more finite, I would suggest they should keep "Exploration" mode without money for people who don't care for that restriction (i.e. me  ) but they should add a career mode that does add money, I did see a good looking mod for a money system for KSP2, I'll link it below

 

 

[Hotel26]

Not before it runs on Linux.  Show-stopper.

[Scarecrow71]

44 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

but what's the challenge in that of there is no funds to limit your craft choice.

While funds were important in KSP1 in the early game, once you get about halfway through the tech tree and start taking on tourist contracts...not so much.  In fact, in my current KSP1 career game, I completed a round-trip mission from Kerbin to Duna/Ike and back that generated 3.5 million in funds.  Single launch, no orbital construction, to Duna/Ike.  I gathered science in orbit of both bodies, landed on both bodies, and returned to Kerbin.  10 total contracts (8 directly related to the trip, while 2 were related to tracking asteroids that I already had going before this trip), 3.5 million in funds.  So yeah, once you hit a certain point, funds are pointless as you can simply generate what you need quickly and easily.

Edited April 24 by Scarecrow71

[Flush Foot]

4 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

So yeah, once you hit a certain point, funds are pointless as you can simply generate what you need quickly and easily.

And even if not as quickly as with top-tier contracts, you could also park a station with a science lab in orbit above Minmus (or I suppose even just make it a science-lab-rover) and have it churn out loads of science from the data, which you've told the Administration Building to convert all/most of the science directly into funds.

[KerbolExplorer]

Once the whole transporting resources system and colony building is implemented.

I guess I'll be waiting a while thought...

[Lisias]

55 minutes ago, Hotel26 said:

Not before it runs on Linux.  Show-stopper.

Proton is doing a pretty good job on simulating the Windows API nowadays, but I agree that Linux native is, most of the time, better. Problem is, as usual, Unity support.

[dave1904]

3 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

While funds were important in KSP1 in the early game, once you get about halfway through the tech tree and start taking on tourist contracts...not so much.  In fact, in my current KSP1 career game, I completed a round-trip mission from Kerbin to Duna/Ike and back that generated 3.5 million in funds.  Single launch, no orbital construction, to Duna/Ike.  I gathered science in orbit of both bodies, landed on both bodies, and returned to Kerbin.  10 total contracts (8 directly related to the trip, while 2 were related to tracking asteroids that I already had going before this trip), 3.5 million in funds.  So yeah, once you hit a certain point, funds are pointless as you can simply generate what you need quickly and easily.

Why do you compare it to ksp1? There are plenty of games that have good economies. Snowballing is an effect that happens and the solutions are limited. Contracts and parts in KSP are not balanced. 

That doesn't mean it cannot be done right. The solution to a broken system like we have in KSP1 is not to remove it. Most games have money because it works. 

 

[KiwiShark]

Personally I've been committed to KSP 2 since day 1. I had a personal send-off to KSP 1 and was ready to jump in to the new experience and stick with it. Truth be told I wasn't playing KSP 1 super actively at the time and I play plenty of other games outside of KSP so I've been enjoying things feeling fresh at times and I do other stuff while waiting for even more freshness. I had been playing KSP 1 for at least a decade and moving on to KSP 2 felt like a reflection of the rest of my life at the time, moving on to new things. I got to ride the KSP 1 roller coaster and and now its like I get to ride it all over again. It's been fun to be totally engaged with the game growing and becoming more realized over time. I like KSP 2.

That being said...

When I think the game is really going to click will be colonies, which seems to be a common sentiment. The interstellar and exploration updates also seem like major draws. The appeal of the game is going to escalate as features synthesize with each other. Not just new content but content interacting with other content. There's only so much that meshes right now because there isn't much to mesh with. That's when I think I'll go from liking KSP 2 to truly loving it.

Maybe I'm an optimist to a fault, but I've been having fun.

[Donster]

On 4/15/2024 at 2:45 PM, RileyHef said:

For me, I really share Nate Simpson's dream of going to a planet, establishing a small colony, and sending a rover to collect/return resources for the very first time. I want more of a substantial reason to visit celestial bodies other than collecting science points and the nice view. I want to have a true reason to build space stations and explore uncharted territory.

That right there sums it up perfectly for me with the addition of many of the realism additions we had in v1 mods most notably life support requirements.

[dr.phees]

For me it is mainly a result of KSP 2 being art driven.

 

Fleshing out all the planets, the large parts catalogue etc. before you know the core mechanics work seems unbelievably wrong to me. Having a "Testing" star system of a star, two planets with two moons each would have provided everything one needs for proper systems development. The biggest problem are the many many hours spent into the assets. It raises the bar to throw something over board and redevelop if it does not work. It feels, like KSP 2 is already trying to cope with a bad systems foundation, just as KSP 1 did all the time, but this time many people expected to first learn from KSP 1 and have a rock solid base with better physics (wheels for example) to build on. It was clear from KSP 1, that Unity's physics system was simply problematic - but KSP 2 uses it again. With the same bugs, again! That's also why the spaghetti rockets with the "struts" solution simply killed all my expectations - it is just the same process again, the same old bugs, this time with higher hardware demands.

I say it again: A KSP 3 should start with systems. Small start, a star, a planet a moon, then work with the community on the systems, multiplayer etc. until it is rock solid, perfectly moddable and performant. Then widen the scope.

Another thing that really disappointed me: Why play in the same setting as KSP 1? Same planets, same maps? Why did no one have the idea to have a new setting/background story?  My idea was that of a stranded Kerbal Mission in another Star system - the first Kerbals having left Kerbol system. Now they must develop technology and a civilization, starting from some data and basically mission scraps, to get home - a great reason for interstellar travel and possibly the absence of money.

That is a pretty standard sequel-setting, but so much more imaginative than the current - Let's do it all again. And it could also have been a tutorial setting, being stranded on a small and resource poor moon, having to get down the potential well to the planet would have been a great setup for beginners.

To me it seems all thoughts went into art, none into story, and only a few into systems, but too late.

 

Edit: I think that much frustration is a result from that weird decision to basically turn back the game calendar and clock to the exact same start setting of KSP 1, which makes KSP 2 not a second KSP game, but a remake. A remake must have to be better than the original to be a success. A second game can do things differently. Now they are locked into remake mode, not finding a way out of it. (They can have my idea of the stranded mission and turn back the EA release to build from there, but only if they really start systems first )

They could have sold a limited KSP 2 with a small test star system at a lower price as the "Foundation" version, built on that and finally sold the KSP 2 full version again. I would have happily paid for both. But now they have to work with the money that came in with not a big chance to get much more. Bad decisions all around.

Edited April 30 by dr.phees

[Dakitess]

All the opposite for me. I expected KSP2 as a massive technical upgrade of an existing game, KSP1, with all the same gameplay and mechanics, and then only, the content would evolve to get new kind of gameplay : colonies, interstellar, etc. And why not a revamped Science mode indeed, even if I only play Sandbox.

But we all know how it ended up : a massive technical disappointment. No new tech inside, the very same game engine that had already proven all its limits, with only some correct upgrade at the cost of performance, while adding some weird artifact and art choices that are actually less enjoyable than a slighltly modded KSP1.

Oh, and, all of this while not getting the core gameplay of KSP1 during a loooooooong time, and even now, we are facing bugs or incomplete tools that are very irritating.

So, when am I going to "invest" more in KSP2 ? When it will be beautiful enough (probably thanks to mods) to not look like a 2015 game, while having all the core gameplay. I don't care much about Colonies, Interstellar, Multiplayer, I just want to play the KSP that I know but on a strictly better version, by a Pro Team, 12 years after the first indie game. That's it. But I would gladly welcome any new content AFTER the core being complete and functional. And aesthetic. And running OK on a gaming computer (which has improved a lot, a good thing, while still something like 3x not enough to allow for big crafts that we were advertised.).

Edit : well... Regarding the date of the day... I won't hope for more. I've always been very pessimistic (realistic ?) and I don't enjoy being proving right on the KSP2 destiny. But, well, it's the end I guess. I'll commit more when KSP2 will be restarted from the ground I guess.

Edited May 2 by Dakitess

[AtomicTech]

Not today, certainly.

[Jacke]

Likely never, all things current now considered.

[Meecrob]

20 hours ago, AtomicTech said:

Not today, certainly.

You kidding me? Take two just proved they are SO in that they will straight up stop development! I mean how could I NOT go all in?