Not the KSP I love...

[Kar]

I have been following the game development for around a year or so. I usually tend not to jump into "early access games". Already got some disappointments.

I decided to buy the game when 0.23 was around. For me, KSP is EXACTLY what I want the game to be. Granted, there are things that I would like to see in the game, in particular in the career mode, I do not care about sandbox other to test stuff.

I remember doing a thread about what I would like to see in game, a month before 0.90 was released, and one of the things I suggested was the development of our own space center. Imagine my surprise when 0.90 gave me that! It may be in a basic level, but it is a start, also, the importance of Kerbals now, makes every sense to me.

Of course I expect much more features and development in the game in the next year, I cant wait to see what the developers have in mind for us, but I bet it would be very cool.

I am a mod gamer, if a game can be modded, you can make sure I will use mods. I just wish I knew how to mod KSP, but I do not have the technical expertize to do it even if some people may say it is easy to learn.

The modding community have done an amazing job filling the gaps in the game. I use mods, that, in my opinion, are essential to MY KSP and to MY gaming experience to make the game much more real as possible.

For me, what needs more work in the game is the science, getting points to unlock parts, in my opinion is not enough. It gets a farming feast. Research and a more complex science should be implemented but I still have hope the developers have bigger plans to the science on KSP.

This game is not finished, and probably, it will take about 1 or 2 more years until it is finished, or until the developers say, "ok this is our final product, have fun" but, the ideas for development and implementation are huge in a game like this.

In my opinion, KSP may become one of the best space games in the next 2 to 3 years. Why? Well, because there are great space games out there, with amazing graphics and so on, (EVE Online, X series, Elite still in development,etc) but in all of the games out there, they all share on thing in common: They are Sci-Fi games.

KSP can be Sci Fi too of course, I already saw the Enterprise warping on the Kerbol system, but, KSP is a space game, with today's technology or at least, it can be done with theoretical space technology that scientists are doing today in the real world.

That's why I love KSP, it can be real as much we want, and for me, that's the holy Grail of KSP, to be real with 21st Century technology and experimental technology (NASA Asteroid Interception for ex.) and much more.

See the amazing mods for example, life support mods, that for me, is one of the biggest fails (until now) in the game, real communications satellite systems, (remote tech) and much more. I do understand that some people do not want the game to be soooo real, but for other players, like me, we want our space travels to be dangerous and real like in real life. Anyone can choose how to play KSP, is everyone right to do so.

I kinda feel upset when people start criticizing a game because it's not what they want, how the hell someone can say that of a product that is not yet finished. Ok, so maybe the Dev plans are not of your liking and the game is not going the lines you expect, so what? Go pick some cool mods out there and make your game the way you want. (This sentence is not to a single individual or a critic to one person but to the general population that might feel this way. Just to avoid some miss understanding ).

I get the feeling that every version there will be people happy and less people happy, that is just natural in any game. The developers cannot please everyone, and they should not, they have a plan lay out for the game but, and this is very important, they respect the community and check what people like or dislike in the game, suggestions and so on. For me, this is very important when I buy a game that is not finished and still in development. Developers that listen to the community and really talk and show their medium and long term plans is very important. That is what made me invest in the game because they really deserve the help (even if my 20 bucks might not make much difference, but 10.000 people buying the game like me is other thing).

KSP is doing great, less bugs, more fixes, more features (which is great because dear developers we really need much more features in the game), more ways to play and more different, bigger and harder ways to play.

So, this is the KSP I love and if my love starts getting down, I love the mods.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Kar

[darkmuminek]

There is a common misconception that early access players are testers. They're not. A tester is someone, who (presumably) does that for a living. He's getting paid to do it. He spends countless hours playing just a tiny fraction of the game and checking it for bugs. After that he fills a survey or writes a report. Then he starts playing countless hours of another portion of the game, fills a survey/writes a report. Repeat. Just because you've got 300, 600 or 2000 hours of gameplay on your Steam account and write a few suggestions on these forums doesn't make you a tester.

You bought a product called a video game. You didn't buy an alpha, nor did you buy a beta. You bought a game in development. The fact you bought a product makes you a consumer and as a consumer you have every right to have an opinion. Some of this opinions will be good, others will be bad. Moreso, Squad took our money to be able to develop KSP. Without it they'd have to find alternative ways of funding it. They'd take a bank loan or find a publisher. This is why the fanboy police shouting: "It's Harvester's game! Stop complaining! He can do whatever he likes and you have to accept it!" is, sorry for the harsh words, stupid and childish.

In standard game development there is a publisher and a developer. Not getting into details, the publisher funds the developer and has a great impact on the entire process of making the game and how it will look like. Now, we gave our money to Squad by buying an early access release. With this money Squad can further develop the game. What does it make us? That's right - publishers. There are differences of course. We do not share profits from sales. We do not directly participate in the development process, but we are entitled to express our disappointments, to criticize the gameplay, features, updates or Squad's attitude.

As for .90 itself. I like the direction KSP is heading, but there are many thing that need to be changed (saying "minor tweaks" just proves you are a fanboy and will take anything Squad throws at you without criticism).

The science system is completely broken since day one. Granted, there were some changes, but it's still about spamming the experiments instead of designing them and using your brain. No to mention having to do experiments that take time to give data. That would make space station, ground bases and satellites something more than a nice decoration.

More variety in contracts is nice. Too bad they're badly designed. Testing parts is a pain, especially during the first stages of gameplay. Surveys are nice but again: doing them before researching plane parts is tedious. There's also a problem with the contract propositions you are given. I just started unlocking tier 3 of the tech tree (the 90 points requirement) and done a flyby of the Mun. The game thought I'm so good that travelling to Ike, Duna, Eve and Eeloo won't be a problem for me. Well, it will be a problem and now I've got these contracts and stuff like: "Test the Rockomax Band Adapter while flying over Kerbin at 26987,75 meters with the speed of 528,9923671 m/s on a Friday, between 9:17 am and 9:22 am with the Mun being in its third quarter".

There's also the difficulty problem. You have to understand: "more difficult" doesn't equal "more grind". And, with a few small exceptions, that's what current settings are about. Sure you can set your science gain to be lower but in the end what does it change? Does it make launching rockets more challenging? No, it just makes you launch two rockets, instead of one, to get the science needed to unlock next node in the tech tree. Difficulty settings should look like the ones in proper simulator games, where you can change how the aerodynamic model works, how the craft behaves, what forces are affecting it, etc.

That said, and what Frostiken said, this game is fun to play but needs a lot of improvement and saying it's Alpha, Beta or Potato Version doesn't change the fact.

[Dreamixpl]

Things

I don't want to sound bad, but I think Squad is a little too "greedy". There is too many players, when there was only kerbin and mun, you had to know a little orbital mechanics to fly to mun, and it was challenging, you could even learn what speeds gives you orbits, so players who stayed with KSP for more than two hours, didn't leave it for years (like me).

Now KSP is more like for casual players, and thats not good. You can burn straight up, and then play with manevuer nodes, and then game even tells you where point your ship to execute maneuver, and orbit. I think Squad don't want to make game more hardcore: no reentry heat, because it will be too hard for players, no mining and resources on planets, because its too comlicated, even if it does make perfect sense (i remember old resource graph/ilustration, and it was good), no more planets, because player won't remember them, you get the idea.

Before, you needed to learn how to play, I never used wiki (i don't remember if there was wiki), I figured out nav ball (by spending some hours in orbit aroung mun, and watching where ship is rotating on navball and visually rotating on screen), planetary transfers (without maneuvuer nodes, by trial and errors), even docking (on first try), by myself.

I don't like where KSP is going... [dobrze znasz angielski, zazroszczÄ™ ]

[Boris_T_Roach]

I don't want to sound bad, but I think Squad is a little too "greedy". There is too many players, when there was only kerbin and mun, you had to know a little orbital mechanics to fly to mun, and it was challenging, you could even learn what speeds gives you orbits, so players who stayed with KSP for more than two hours, didn't leave it for years (like me).

Now KSP is more like for casual players, and thats not good. You can burn straight up, and then play with manevuer nodes, and then game even tells you where point your ship to execute maneuver, and orbit. I think Squad don't want to make game more hardcore: no reentry heat, because it will be too hard for players, no mining and resources on planets, because its too comlicated, even if it does make perfect sense (i remember old resource graph/ilustration, and it was good), no more planets, because player won't remember them, you get the idea.

Before, you needed to learn how to play, I never used wiki (i don't remember if there was wiki), I figured out nav ball (by spending some hours in orbit aroung mun, and watching where ship is rotating on navball and visually rotating on screen), planetary transfers (without maneuvuer nodes, by trial and errors), even docking (on first try), by myself.

I don't like where KSP is going... [dobrze znasz angielski, zazroszczÄ™ ]

Then try the 0.90 career mode, I've got Jeb as a pilot trying to rescue another kerbal from orbit with no manuver nodes or anything because I have'nt updated the tracking station/anything else needed to draw an orbit.

OK Jeb's been around the mun by the tried and trusted technique of 'aim and hope' I used to use in 0.13, but I'm pleasently surprised by the limitations imposed on me in career mode by the limited facilities available.

No more throwing a bunch of batteries and sensors and parachutes on a ship and gaining 500 science on your 3rd mission around the mun... not when you're limited to 30 part ship.

Its making me think how I want to achieve stuff, which aint bad considering the main way I play is building outlandish craft in sandbox and seeing if they can get to another world/orbit/off the ground.

KSP aint right yet, should be some sort of life support module available (with limited life support in the capsules) and the re-entry effects need to generate some heat (so no more plunging into Laythe's atmosphere at 9Km/sec and coming out the other side into a 100*10 orbit without melting your ship)

The tech tree needs tweaking, but I can now make custom groups in the VAB for the rocket parts I tend to use all the time, and leave the spaceplane parts hidden

ALl in all.... as someone who started off on KSP 0.12, the beta update has been a bloody good update

Boris

[Rusty6899]

Stuff

Yes, we are consumers. However we are not consultants. We bought a game, with the price reduced to compensate the fact that the game is in development. Yes, the game needs some improvement. No, there aren't any elements that are "completely broken".

Squad are, quite rightly, not going to have a team meeting and say "well, we have a well thought out, long term development plan for this game, but on the forums Spaceboy96 said "I want Deadly re-entry in stock in the next update" so drop everything you're doing and work on that now."

I think it is fairly nonsensical to claim that anyone who thinks tweaks are needed rather than complete overhauls are happy to "take anything that Squad throws at them without criticism".

I would also love to see a screenshot of your contract to "Test the Rockomax Brand Adapter at 26987,75m at a speed of 528,9923671m/s on a Friday between 9.17am and 9.22 am with the Mun in it's third quarter".

This sort of inane exaggeration undermines your attempt to make "fanboys" (roughly translated as "people who are satisfied to some extent with the last update") seem like the unreasonable party in this discussion.

We bought a game where there was uncertainty over the final product. Everyone has a different impression of what the final product "should" look like. Squad are making the game that they want to make. They obviously do take feedback in the forum into consideration, but it can't override their development plan.

I dare say that there are plans in place to change some of the elements that you are unhappy with, but it's not as if you have made any useful suggestions either. Constructive criticism is helpful, suggestions are more helpful, making mods to solve the problem (which could possibly be implemented if they work well) are even more helpful. Angry, straw man strewn rants, aimed at disparaging people who don't share your opinions are none of the above.

[djnattyd]

I don't want to sound bad, but I think Squad is a little too "greedy". There is too many players, when there was only kerbin and mun, you had to know a little orbital mechanics to fly to mun, and it was challenging, you could even learn what speeds gives you orbits, so players who stayed with KSP for more than two hours, didn't leave it for years (like me).

Now KSP is more like for casual players, and thats not good. You can burn straight up, and then play with manevuer nodes, and then game even tells you where point your ship to execute maneuver, and orbit. I think Squad don't want to make game more hardcore: no reentry heat, because it will be too hard for players, no mining and resources on planets, because its too comlicated, even if it does make perfect sense (i remember old resource graph/ilustration, and it was good), no more planets, because player won't remember them, you get the idea.

Before, you needed to learn how to play, I never used wiki (i don't remember if there was wiki), I figured out nav ball (by spending some hours in orbit aroung mun, and watching where ship is rotating on navball and visually rotating on screen), planetary transfers (without maneuvuer nodes, by trial and errors), even docking (on first try), by myself.

I don't like where KSP is going... [dobrze znasz angielski, zazroszczÄ™ ]

You've always been able to burn straight up, that was the first thing I did when I downloaded the demo and that was version 0.13.

Resources are coming, Maxmaps confirmed that in a tweet yesterday. The reason they were pushed back was because they weren't fun, they were grindy.

Even Orbiter, THE hardcore sim has transfer MFDs because in reality, NASA & ESA use computers to plot out trajectories, they don't just wing it.

[djnattyd]

Also, and I can't believe I'm having to point this out, KSP has never been about 'YOUR vision', it has always been Harvesters vision. The ONLY way it could possibly be your vision is if you yourself were making the game.

Now, if you think that because you paid money for KSP that means you get to make decisions on its development, I'll make a point of mentioning the now scrapped offline single player mode of Elite: Dangerous. Those backers paid a lot more than any of us did and David Braben pulled a promised game mechanic.

Do those backers who wanted offline mode have a right to complain? Yes. Do they have a right to demand it be reinstated? No.

Are those backers who don't care about whether it exists or not Fanboys? Of course not.

All that b**ching will do is p**s the devs off, it won't change things and will probably cause them to just walk away from the game. I've seen it happen to a friend who works for a major developer.

Constructive criticism on the other hand works wonders.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Greetings,

I been with KSP since about v18 - I liked v18 immensely once it took me 3 months to play sandbox - since then I played career mode only.

Yes the game as is is kool for casual gamers - now it is even easier to make the game what you want it as far as difficulty goes - they did ALOT of work to provide this for us in my opinion - why - not because the players wanted it - but because the players were playing difficulty modes from the get go at least from v18+ as far as I know.

Now 1300 Science for all the nodes (?); WOW just one of my node lines is 1000 on the last node - I have probly about 20,000 more or less to do all the nodes and they have to be done a certain way - now with more funds it adds a new challenge - I still had to wait to add science but at least I can still collect it (I think!).

Now wouldnt it be a challenge if you not only cant get past the nodes due to building restrictions 'AND' cant get any more science when the nodes are shut down due to building restrictions !!

You would have to really plan here; I suppose one could just not do a last node in a tier set; or honorably not get any more science until the buildings are upgraded; ie like gathering more science in other biomes if the nodes are maxed out for a tier level.

In these senses KSP can be whatever we want it to be; you dont get that flexibility in too many games; ie playing the game but not losing for awhile but not winning either; just 'grinding' for awhile; but with the so many varied missions and achievements, it isnt a grind anymore; and the MODDERS are half the game as well; players adding content that other players can pick and choose; how awesome is that !

Thank you Kerbal Space Program ...

Cmdr Zeta

[bigred]

Career mode is screwed, all SQUAD needs to do to make amends is add another career mode button choice when creating a new career game. Call it "Career Mode (a la 0.25)" or something like that. I'll be happy then. I don't care for upgrading buildings or flying without nodes in the beginning. I want a fully functional KSC with navigation nodes as in 0.24 and 0.25. I'm not here to reinvent the wheel or "grind through" pointless little contracts just to "upgrade" a building to restore functionality that was always there prior (at least for the time I've played).

I'm not interested in sitting there with pad/paper/calculator and an Excel worksheet crunching calc's about my future missions, I'm there to play. Get it?

[Red Iron Crown]

Career mode is screwed, all SQUAD needs to do to make amends is add another career mode button choice when creating a new career game. Call it "Career Mode (a la 0.25)" or something like that. I'll be happy then. I don't care for upgrading buildings or flying without nodes in the beginning. I want a fully functional KSC with navigation nodes as in 0.24 and 0.25. I'm not here to reinvent the wheel or "grind through" pointless little contracts just to "upgrade" a building to restore functionality that was always there prior (at least for the time I've played).

You can have that quite easily by adding enough money at the start to upgrade all facilities.

[bigred]

You can have that quite easily by adding enough money at the start to upgrade all facilities.

Nope, adding extra finds only allows you up to 500000 credits. If you know of another way to add even more money please do tell. Cost for upgrading facilities is very high.

[Red Iron Crown]

Nope, adding extra finds only allows you up to 500000 credits. If you know of another way to add even more money please do tell. Cost for upgrading facilities is very high.

Through the debug menu. Alt-F12, press and hold Alt for 5 seconds, use the buttons that appear to add as much as you want.

Or just edit the persistence file, if you'd prefer.

[bigred]

Through the debug menu. Alt-F12, press and hold Alt for 5 seconds, use the buttons that appear to add as much as you want.

Or just edit the persistence file, if you'd prefer.

Thank you.

While this helps its not enough, I want a return of the FORMER career mode. No restrictions on weights and parts and other silly things like that.

[Rusty6899]

Career mode is screwed, all SQUAD needs to do to make amends is add another career mode button choice when creating a new career game. Call it "Career Mode (a la 0.25)" or something like that. I'll be happy then. I don't care for upgrading buildings or flying without nodes in the beginning. I want a fully functional KSC with navigation nodes as in 0.24 and 0.25. I'm not here to reinvent the wheel or "grind through" pointless little contracts just to "upgrade" a building to restore functionality that was always there prior (at least for the time I've played).

I'm not interested in sitting there with pad/paper/calculator and an Excel worksheet crunching calc's about my future missions, I'm there to play. Get it?

So you don't want to upgrade buildings, or play through contracts? Why not play sandbox? We have been playing the game in early access at the final tech level, which makes your complaint understandable, but you don't start a game on XCOM and complain about having limited satellite uplink or power supply.

This is a common game mechanic, implemented fairly well, and if you don't like it, play custom settings and give yourself enough cash to upgrade everything.

[bigred]

I have no issue playing through contracts, those are great. They should just pay more by default. Some just payout so little it isn't worth it.

I like having a career mode but the new rejigged one isn't to my liking, just an opinion.

Edited December 19, 2014 by bigred

[eddiew]

Re, the OP; yeah, I agree. Admittedly, 0.90 has kind of reset my expectations on how to kick off the game - I've gotten used to 20% science and 40% funding, and now I think the latter is better left at 80-100%, but ultimately... that's not a game breaker, that's a rebalance of something that was so out of whack it was laughable.

I still suspect science gain is too high, but that's what the option sliders are for! And maybe it isn't after all, can't say for sure, only had a couple of sessions on 0.90 so I'm not a good judge. What I can see is that Squad have left us with all the tools we need to essentially fast-track back to something very similar to 0.25, if we choose to use them. Worst case, the save file is plain text - just tweak it! Single player game, rules as defined by a single player

Also it's making me think about things like economically small ships, and prioritising multi-man missions - anything that broadens the way players use the game's features seems like a good call ^^

[djnattyd]

Thank you.

While this helps its not enough, I want a return of the FORMER career mode. No restrictions on weights and parts and other silly things like that.

That's like saying you want to play Skyrim but only if your character starts out at level 50 and has access to all the dragon shouts.

What's the point in playing career mode if you want it easy?

[Red Iron Crown]

That's like saying you want to play Skyrim but only if your character starts out at level 50 and has access to all the dragon shouts.

What's the point in playing career mode if you want it easy?

I think it's valid to want to play career without facilities limitations. All the other career mechanics would still be in play.

While I don't think such a mode will make it into stock, it's good that it's fairly easy to set up a career save that way.

[djnattyd]

I think it's valid to want to play career without facilities limitations. All the other career mechanics would still be in play.

While I don't think such a mode will make it into stock, it's good that it's fairly easy to set up a career save that way.

Career is supposed to be the challenging mode and by having size restrictions it sort of represents how our own space industry started out. With the exception of having manned flights first of course.

[Red Iron Crown]

Career is supposed to be the challenging mode and by having size restrictions it sort of represents how our own space industry started out. With the exception of having manned flights first of course.

And? If someone wants to play without having to upgrade facilities in career mode, why shouldn't they? No one cares what it the game is supposed to be, they care about what makes the game fun for them.

[djnattyd]

And? If someone wants to play without having to upgrade facilities in career mode, why shouldn't they? No one cares what it the game is supposed to be, they care about what makes the game fun for them.

And the ability exists for them to make it that easy, which makes all the complaining even more confusing.

[xcorps]

Career is supposed to be the challenging mode and by having size restrictions it sort of represents how our own space industry started out. With the exception of having manned flights first of course.

Our own space industry started with regular funding provided for RnD purposes and then from a specific agency created with political willpower and a practically open budget. Facilities were built and provided without regard to cost, with a few notable political backroom deals (that happened to work out favorably) In KSP you are limited by accomplishing contracts that don't pay out the cost of the launch.

Your argument is not valid. Our space industry is not and will never be self sufficient fiscally.

Edited December 19, 2014 by xcorps

[djnattyd]

Our own space industry started with regular funding provided for RnD purposes and then from a specific agency created with political willpower and a practically open budget. Facilities were built and provided without regard to cost, with a few notable political backroom deals (that happened to work out favorably) In KSP you are limited by accomplishing contracts that don't pay out the cost of the launch.

Your argument is not valid.

Actually no, it didn't. Not unless NACA/NASA was formed before 1926 when Goddard launched his first liquid fueled rocket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard

[xcorps]

Pedantry will not support you here. Goddard was not an industry. Neither did he send anything to space.

Industry:

the aggregate of manufacturing or technically productive enterprises in a particular field, often named after its principal product:

Edited December 19, 2014 by xcorps

[djnattyd]

Pedantry will not support you here. Goddard was not an industry.

Industry:

the aggregate of manufacturing or technically productive enterprises in a particular field, often named after its principal product:

And the kerbals aren't (weren't) supposed to be an industry either, hence the barn that we were supposed to start off with.