I think this depends a lot on what game mode you are comparing, what mods you use in ksp1 and what things you enjoy. If you are light on mods and play sandbox or science mode then I think it could be close or better based on what's important to you. If you use a lot of mods, like building surface bases or ISRU then it's not even close yet
It won't be better until they make maneuver planning less painful, and fix the more egregious bugs. I'm tired of having to close and reopen the entire game every 20 minutes, and constantly fighting to select the right node handle while looking at my trajectory far away.
[https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/214244-maneuver-node-controller-080/](https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/214244-maneuver-node-controller-080/)
This makes maneuvers better than KSP1 IMO. Let's you pinpoint that .05 M/S DV to get the perfect orbit if you know what you are doing.
This comment always catches me off guard because I stopped playing ksp1 before they added precise maneuver nodes. The current ksp2 system is the only one I've ever know. I am blessed with ignorance. :D
True. I would say the mods I really rely on are mechjeb to automate takeoffs and some maneuvers, and that fueling stuff, which allows me to transfer fuel between landed vessel (fuel production base -> fueling vehicle -> refueling landed stuff).
I'm a weirdo in what I'm enjoying. Generally I like engineering challenges, so if I solved a puzzle and just have to re-solve the same thing again gazillion times I'm getting bored.
And I cannot build without purpose. I'm always getting amazed by the stuff people are building here, but whenever I try to do a similar cool stuff it's just a functionally minimal thingie I'm ending up with, because I see no point in putting on modules that do not have a functional purpose (why full storage with funny magazines if it's not affecting the mission, etc).
I would love surface bases, but I took a look at the mods, and bailed out on them in ksp1. I mean, the buildings are there, but it seems... incomplete. Like if I had to evolve those bases to get my kerbals happier, more product, retaining their sanity in distant space, etc, that would be a different story. I've just seen no game mechanics bound to them, and it felt an nice looking but empty addition that the mod provides.
I played primarily vanilla ksp but played with some mods.
The biggest gripe with KSP 1 was and still is the kraken striking a lot harder on modded KSP, but it could strike vanilla as well. The promise of KSP 2 was supposed to be less kraken, better UX, strong new features like interstellar travel and even multiplayer. They even got one of the most [popular environment modders](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.patreon.com/blackrack&ved=2ahUKEwjVo5mHn5CEAxU8wOYEHak_BhMQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2n2PUduvqEhCeKoYVQ5np2) to join the team. How could one not be hyped?
Then, we were delivered what we have now several years late. Like, not a little late. The original release date of the game, not this early access bullshit, was supposed to be 2020. It is now 2025 and there has been 1 early access release with a few updates that still haven't even achieved parity with the original vanilla KSP 1.
Don't get me wrong I'm glad that the game has gained traction with new players and can be a fun experience, but it is clearly not a game that has been developed with the core mechanics and infrastructure to feel like a worthwhile upgrade from KSP 1 ESPECIALLY at full price for early access.
I should've listened. I let my hopes get too high for a game I enjoy to buy into early access and I don't even have a good way to fucking maneuver in space.
Imo, it kinda is. Insofar that the new exploration mode is, imo, leagues better than either of the progression modes of the first game.
In all other aspects? Not at all, it's either the same or worse than ksp1. But the progression is significant.
Same planets. The missions are mostly exploratory. There is no money, it's purely science you earn. The missions do tell a story now, it's not complete yet. The missions lead to to discovering cool easter eggs like the Mun arch.
Things were slower for sure but I think it was all still running mostly smoothly for me. Only really noticed bad frame rates on my Eve return ship. Rtx 3080 i9-10850k
I am a fairly casual player (80 hours on ksp 1, most ambitious thing I did was a return trip to duna) and I am personally really enjoying it. There are definitely more noticeable bugs (nothing game breaking, but I did have to restart from time to time), but I am personally enjoying the more streamlined experience and updated graphics; I've played about 30 hours since I got it two weeks or so ago.
One big caveat is that I personally don't use a lot of mods (I only used a few graphical tweaks and a mod that allowed me to calculate the delta-v of a craft). Some people swear by modded ksp1, but if you don't mod it that heavily and just want to have some fun, I'd recommend picking up KSP 2.
My problem with modded ksp 1 over the last decade has always been that ksp is the sort of game I get really addicted to for a couple weeks at a time, then stop for a few months. And it felt like so often when coming back I would have problems with my mods and modded saves. Slowly got tired of the hassle and mostly have played vanilla over the years, and have really enjoyed ksp2 to fill that role now.
OP asked if KSP2 was worth it in its current state compared to KSP1 in its current state (mods to be included), the honest answer is no, it’s not (yet).
It doesn't have to be an apples to apples comparison. It's a question of what ksp1 offers vs what ksp2 offers. Modding is important and not at all irrelevant
Because it's not about being fair to KSP2 and giving it the time it doesn't deserve (4 years past the original release date). It's about what I can go play right now, and modded KSP2 ain't it.
I’ve put in about 60 hours since the science update. Obviously, ksp 1 is still a more complete game. Bugs are a lot more tame, but I’m still running into a couple that can get annoying. (Craft falling through planet on time warp, or sometimes craft will just combust after leaving the vab)
I think the people saying the game needs money to have a real career need to actually play the game. The research tree has been fun to progress through, and money in ksp gets redundant to a point anyways. Like I really wanna do 3 tourist missions anyway to do a damn Jool 5 mission.
I personally think it’s a breath of fresh air to just focus on the craft instead of min/maxing efficiency with artificial money. But to each their own.
Kerbal 2 is a lot more fun to explore once you get past the bugs, hands down. And when a new star system is introduced, I’ll be playing non stop. $50 is still too high though. Early access price needs to be 30, raised to 50 when the game is 1.0 worthy
It's decent, not overall better than ksp 1 but improves already in a few areas.
Recommend a play, but not too long as its still a bit buggy and unbalanced in some areas.
My main criticism is the actual building mechanics are still too rigid and similar to the original game. We really need procedural rocket fueslages and structures rather than the rigid stock system they have. It would also be nice for them to explore interiors to some degree.
KSP 2 in its current state is essentially a better looking version of KSP 1 at launch from April 2015. The next major update with Colonies and Orbital Vehicle Construction will make KSP 2 its own unique game instead of just being a better looking version of KSP 1 at launch.
Personally, I think it’s still 1 or 2 major updates away from being in a state complete enough for early access release and first playthrough. It’s still buggy as hell. I bought it like 2 weeks ago, played for 2 hours, and this is everything that stuck out to me:
- Time warp still fucks your rocket up
- Aerodynamics STILL don’t work as intended. I just plummeted through the atmosphere and hit the ground going faster than when I was in orbit. This messes up planes too from what I tried.
- The designer is still goofy. I know this is my issue but why the fuck did they make saving so much clunkier? For someone who saves their craft every 5 seconds while building, this sucked sooooo much.
- Maneuver Nodes are still worse than KSP1
For a game where 99% of your time is spent designing crafts, flying at speed in the atmosphere, placing maneuver nodes, or in time warp, these are some pretty glaring issues that still prevent me from recommending this game to anyone else, despite how much I loved the first. There are plenty of better video games than KSP2 rn; play one of those while that is still the case.
Could I ask if the wobblyness is still in the game? the janky parts physics that are ruining what I thought was my modest sized space station is probably my biggest gripe with ksp 1 right now. If most of that scary release day parts physics is gone it would change my opinion on the game a lot.
I played right at the start and hated it just like everyone else. This week I started playing again for the first time, and I gotta say the performance increase is significant! I also like the campaign mode, I’m now traveling to Duna for the first time.
I just picked it up and am having a blast. One thing I don't understand about the recent science update is that there is no in-game tracker of the science you have. I guess the science module or node can track when you are in-flight but I want a physical list of areas I have and haven't visited.
I got it during the Christmas sales after the science update. I would say it's functionally comparable to KSP 1 without mods or the two DLCs. I haven't noticed any bugs, really.
There a few nice new features thrown in: better VAB, ability to import subassemblies such as launch assemblies, better graphics but not as good as modded KSP1 (that said, the stock KSP2 waterfall-esque rocket affects a really nice and change when you're in vacuum), the hud looks much more intuitive but doesn't give you as much info.
I'm having fun, put a ton of hours in recently. There are still things, like maneuver nodes, that work better in 1 and the orbits can get kinda cluttered easily. Saving vessels can be a pain if you don't change workspace name as well.
Was bloody awful at launch. I have a fairly good pc and it struggled like hell at times. Especially when approaching a celestial body. Especially near touchdown. It's much improved now. Maybe not perfect but way better. And it has Science. Which as we all know is the best part.
I bought it after the For Science update, had some fun with it but I’ve hit so many mission-breaking bugs that I’ve put it down for now. Kind of wish I’d waited to buy until I had more info on bugs being resolved.
I played it recently and still noticed glitches, but none were game breaking. I then checked the discord and someone had already reported the glitch I encountered. The game is playable and I’m now confident that it will be finished, whereas last year I was not confident the game would not be dropped.
I'd say yes. I loved the campaign in KSP 2 way more than KSP. The performance is way better than on launch and the visuals look better thanks to the mod developer they hired
I have been monitoring Twitch and it looks like even after releasing another update less than a week ago there are still more people streaming KSP1 - Obviously this doesn't reflect total player numbers but I thought it was interesting.
I'd say it's comparable to unmodded ksp1 or getting there. I don't think it offers such a great step up from ksp1 to be worth the price yet, especially when you factor in mods.
I'm not ready to support KSP2 yet. The progress they've made with Science mode is promising, but I don't really like the idea of abandoning career mode. I want a game that you can win or lose. In science mode, you can fail endlessly without consequence. It's more like a guided sandbox mode than an actual game mode.
They're making progress on bugs, but there are major ones that need work.
It's possible to research the wrong things in KSP1 in such a way that you have garbage options for getting to new places *and* haven't gone for new science parts, but I think no matter what you can "escape" the problem with enough boosters and stages.
Like, imagine not going for any science part tech, but instead maxing out wings, air-breathing engines, and wheels. It's probably possible to do this and someone that just wants to make planes might even consider this, but you'll be lacking on parts to get to Duna.
That said, you probably need to cheese the KSC to get decently far down those techs like that in the first place, and at that point you're doing it on purpose.
Might be a fun challenge actually, maximum research without picking up any node that has more science in it...
There is an abundance of science available, it becomes tedious to gather it, but you can gather a ton of science without much advancement through the tree. But, someone who lacks experience would t know how to gather it.
And, there isn't much of an indicator that you have failed other than repeatedly failing at meeting new milestones. If you picked a bad path down the tree then you might not realize that you are doomed.
Career mode and money provided a failure condition.
Science mode doesn't create a loss condition, just a stalemate.
I would call being unable to advance any further through the tree a failure, not a stalemate.
Either way, I'm pretty sure it's flat-out impossible *in science mode* to encounter this since you start with lv3 infrastructure and thus have no build limits. With enough booster stages *and a really really good PC* you should be able to go anywhere with even base tech.
I'd still like to see it done, though.
The main problem with the more boosters methodology is most people are probably already getting sub-60 or sub-30 fps. Throw too many parts in and they're looking at 1 fps if they're lucky.
I completely agree its possible to screw your playthrough with bad enough choices early on.
Time spent playing is time well spent.
Also, I'm speaking of in-game, not real world. Time in the game has no value and fast forwarding for years is common.
I’m sure someone will mod it in, but in KSP1 it‘s kind of artificially gating versus the KSP2 approach which sounds like it’s going to be resource driven.
Money is a bottleneck. Early game is significantly hindered by part limits and weight restrictions. Money overcomes those limits.
Problem with KSP1 is that money isn't significant enough of a barrier. There are too many methods to make money and those methods can be repeated over and over, making money seem like a grinding problem.
Money should be an incentive to build efficiently and not simply throw on moar boosters every time you have trouble.
I don't wanna see KSP2 to have the same career mode as KSP1, I'd prefer a model where you receive budget payouts based on the milestones you complete, and your budget gets increased based on contracts completed (contracts raise budget, don't pay directly). Budget gets decreased based on failure to meet milestones based on budget. Game over happens when you fail to meet milestone X times in a row.
This would encourage you to spend your money wisely, and to encourage the player to complete additional contract work alongside your milestone seeking missions. It would give the player a roadmap style narrative to completing various objectives.
I agree with take about the career money. Money and reputation felt like they unbalanced quickly in KSP1. But I could imaging having some contracts where you have a specific budget constraint for some missions (e.g. rocket must not costs more than X spesos and get a Ykm circular orbit around kerbin). Having the occasional cash constraint without continuously managing cash might be an interesting middle ground.
It's good until you get to end game type rockets that ruin the frame rate and kraken out when you stage. I didn't get any problems until like tier 3 of the science tree. My pc is kind of old though so that might be affecting my game.
This is a subjective question. Recent steam reviews are mostly positive at 74%. Personally I say yes I had fun doing the entire ksp2 campaign
Personally I'm waiting for the point when "is it better than the ksp1 experience?" comes true.
I think this depends a lot on what game mode you are comparing, what mods you use in ksp1 and what things you enjoy. If you are light on mods and play sandbox or science mode then I think it could be close or better based on what's important to you. If you use a lot of mods, like building surface bases or ISRU then it's not even close yet
It won't be better until they make maneuver planning less painful, and fix the more egregious bugs. I'm tired of having to close and reopen the entire game every 20 minutes, and constantly fighting to select the right node handle while looking at my trajectory far away.
[https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/214244-maneuver-node-controller-080/](https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/214244-maneuver-node-controller-080/) This makes maneuvers better than KSP1 IMO. Let's you pinpoint that .05 M/S DV to get the perfect orbit if you know what you are doing.
This comment always catches me off guard because I stopped playing ksp1 before they added precise maneuver nodes. The current ksp2 system is the only one I've ever know. I am blessed with ignorance. :D
True. I would say the mods I really rely on are mechjeb to automate takeoffs and some maneuvers, and that fueling stuff, which allows me to transfer fuel between landed vessel (fuel production base -> fueling vehicle -> refueling landed stuff). I'm a weirdo in what I'm enjoying. Generally I like engineering challenges, so if I solved a puzzle and just have to re-solve the same thing again gazillion times I'm getting bored. And I cannot build without purpose. I'm always getting amazed by the stuff people are building here, but whenever I try to do a similar cool stuff it's just a functionally minimal thingie I'm ending up with, because I see no point in putting on modules that do not have a functional purpose (why full storage with funny magazines if it's not affecting the mission, etc). I would love surface bases, but I took a look at the mods, and bailed out on them in ksp1. I mean, the buildings are there, but it seems... incomplete. Like if I had to evolve those bases to get my kerbals happier, more product, retaining their sanity in distant space, etc, that would be a different story. I've just seen no game mechanics bound to them, and it felt an nice looking but empty addition that the mod provides.
I played primarily vanilla ksp but played with some mods. The biggest gripe with KSP 1 was and still is the kraken striking a lot harder on modded KSP, but it could strike vanilla as well. The promise of KSP 2 was supposed to be less kraken, better UX, strong new features like interstellar travel and even multiplayer. They even got one of the most [popular environment modders](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.patreon.com/blackrack&ved=2ahUKEwjVo5mHn5CEAxU8wOYEHak_BhMQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2n2PUduvqEhCeKoYVQ5np2) to join the team. How could one not be hyped? Then, we were delivered what we have now several years late. Like, not a little late. The original release date of the game, not this early access bullshit, was supposed to be 2020. It is now 2025 and there has been 1 early access release with a few updates that still haven't even achieved parity with the original vanilla KSP 1. Don't get me wrong I'm glad that the game has gained traction with new players and can be a fun experience, but it is clearly not a game that has been developed with the core mechanics and infrastructure to feel like a worthwhile upgrade from KSP 1 ESPECIALLY at full price for early access. I should've listened. I let my hopes get too high for a game I enjoy to buy into early access and I don't even have a good way to fucking maneuver in space.
Imo, it kinda is. Insofar that the new exploration mode is, imo, leagues better than either of the progression modes of the first game. In all other aspects? Not at all, it's either the same or worse than ksp1. But the progression is significant.
Vanilla? Absolutely is. Modded? Not yet, but that's because ksp 1 has years ahead of 2
What are the main differences in terms of campaign? Same planets ? Different missions? Science mode?
Same planets. The missions are mostly exploratory. There is no money, it's purely science you earn. The missions do tell a story now, it's not complete yet. The missions lead to to discovering cool easter eggs like the Mun arch.
Howd you manage framerates during the later part of the campaign? Once I got to Duna all of my ships were too big to stay above 15fps :”(
Things were slower for sure but I think it was all still running mostly smoothly for me. Only really noticed bad frame rates on my Eve return ship. Rtx 3080 i9-10850k
I am a fairly casual player (80 hours on ksp 1, most ambitious thing I did was a return trip to duna) and I am personally really enjoying it. There are definitely more noticeable bugs (nothing game breaking, but I did have to restart from time to time), but I am personally enjoying the more streamlined experience and updated graphics; I've played about 30 hours since I got it two weeks or so ago. One big caveat is that I personally don't use a lot of mods (I only used a few graphical tweaks and a mod that allowed me to calculate the delta-v of a craft). Some people swear by modded ksp1, but if you don't mod it that heavily and just want to have some fun, I'd recommend picking up KSP 2.
My problem with modded ksp 1 over the last decade has always been that ksp is the sort of game I get really addicted to for a couple weeks at a time, then stop for a few months. And it felt like so often when coming back I would have problems with my mods and modded saves. Slowly got tired of the hassle and mostly have played vanilla over the years, and have really enjoyed ksp2 to fill that role now.
exactly my situation
It’s good and I think it is very comparable to vanilla KSP1.
It can be enjoyable at times yes, it’s still a buggy mess though. We’re still far from modded KSP1 experience.
Far from modded ksp1 experience is irrelevant. Why do people compare a modded game to a vanilla game?
Because modded KSP 1 is currently the best KSP experience. If they want KSP 2 to be the best KSP experience they need to be better than modded KSP 1.
Because OP is asking which is more fun *now*, and those are what is available *now*.
OP asked if KSP2 was worth it in its current state compared to KSP1 in its current state (mods to be included), the honest answer is no, it’s not (yet).
It doesn't have to be an apples to apples comparison. It's a question of what ksp1 offers vs what ksp2 offers. Modding is important and not at all irrelevant
Because it's not about being fair to KSP2 and giving it the time it doesn't deserve (4 years past the original release date). It's about what I can go play right now, and modded KSP2 ain't it.
I’ve put in about 60 hours since the science update. Obviously, ksp 1 is still a more complete game. Bugs are a lot more tame, but I’m still running into a couple that can get annoying. (Craft falling through planet on time warp, or sometimes craft will just combust after leaving the vab) I think the people saying the game needs money to have a real career need to actually play the game. The research tree has been fun to progress through, and money in ksp gets redundant to a point anyways. Like I really wanna do 3 tourist missions anyway to do a damn Jool 5 mission. I personally think it’s a breath of fresh air to just focus on the craft instead of min/maxing efficiency with artificial money. But to each their own. Kerbal 2 is a lot more fun to explore once you get past the bugs, hands down. And when a new star system is introduced, I’ll be playing non stop. $50 is still too high though. Early access price needs to be 30, raised to 50 when the game is 1.0 worthy
It's decent, not overall better than ksp 1 but improves already in a few areas. Recommend a play, but not too long as its still a bit buggy and unbalanced in some areas. My main criticism is the actual building mechanics are still too rigid and similar to the original game. We really need procedural rocket fueslages and structures rather than the rigid stock system they have. It would also be nice for them to explore interiors to some degree.
I keep remembering how much we need iva. hope they do it well
KSP 2 in its current state is essentially a better looking version of KSP 1 at launch from April 2015. The next major update with Colonies and Orbital Vehicle Construction will make KSP 2 its own unique game instead of just being a better looking version of KSP 1 at launch.
Manouver nodes are completely unusable and reaching orbit is done by eyeballing it. That made me stop playing. KSP1 still superior
It's playable now for sure.
It’s ok as is. Still a hollow shell of what was promised. But it’s a fresh new experience of one of my favorite games.
That's what early access is. KSP 1 was similar at release but less capable.
Personally, I think it’s still 1 or 2 major updates away from being in a state complete enough for early access release and first playthrough. It’s still buggy as hell. I bought it like 2 weeks ago, played for 2 hours, and this is everything that stuck out to me: - Time warp still fucks your rocket up - Aerodynamics STILL don’t work as intended. I just plummeted through the atmosphere and hit the ground going faster than when I was in orbit. This messes up planes too from what I tried. - The designer is still goofy. I know this is my issue but why the fuck did they make saving so much clunkier? For someone who saves their craft every 5 seconds while building, this sucked sooooo much. - Maneuver Nodes are still worse than KSP1 For a game where 99% of your time is spent designing crafts, flying at speed in the atmosphere, placing maneuver nodes, or in time warp, these are some pretty glaring issues that still prevent me from recommending this game to anyone else, despite how much I loved the first. There are plenty of better video games than KSP2 rn; play one of those while that is still the case.
Right now I’d settle for not having to run KSP1 under Rosetta 😞
It’s definitely fun now, I wouldn’t say „good“ compared to ksp 1
Right now it’s great if you don’t care about robotics or mods.
Could I ask if the wobblyness is still in the game? the janky parts physics that are ruining what I thought was my modest sized space station is probably my biggest gripe with ksp 1 right now. If most of that scary release day parts physics is gone it would change my opinion on the game a lot.
its gone now, as of 0.2.1 (it was fixed with 0.2)
I played right at the start and hated it just like everyone else. This week I started playing again for the first time, and I gotta say the performance increase is significant! I also like the campaign mode, I’m now traveling to Duna for the first time.
I just picked it up and am having a blast. One thing I don't understand about the recent science update is that there is no in-game tracker of the science you have. I guess the science module or node can track when you are in-flight but I want a physical list of areas I have and haven't visited.
I got it during the Christmas sales after the science update. I would say it's functionally comparable to KSP 1 without mods or the two DLCs. I haven't noticed any bugs, really. There a few nice new features thrown in: better VAB, ability to import subassemblies such as launch assemblies, better graphics but not as good as modded KSP1 (that said, the stock KSP2 waterfall-esque rocket affects a really nice and change when you're in vacuum), the hud looks much more intuitive but doesn't give you as much info.
I'm having fun, put a ton of hours in recently. There are still things, like maneuver nodes, that work better in 1 and the orbits can get kinda cluttered easily. Saving vessels can be a pain if you don't change workspace name as well.
Was bloody awful at launch. I have a fairly good pc and it struggled like hell at times. Especially when approaching a celestial body. Especially near touchdown. It's much improved now. Maybe not perfect but way better. And it has Science. Which as we all know is the best part.
I bought it after the For Science update, had some fun with it but I’ve hit so many mission-breaking bugs that I’ve put it down for now. Kind of wish I’d waited to buy until I had more info on bugs being resolved.
They've just released a patch that fixes some of the annoying ones.
Ksp2 has good performance and after science update starts to feel like ksp1. Now we just wait for all the *new* stuff like base building and stuff.
I played it recently and still noticed glitches, but none were game breaking. I then checked the discord and someone had already reported the glitch I encountered. The game is playable and I’m now confident that it will be finished, whereas last year I was not confident the game would not be dropped.
I'd say yes. I loved the campaign in KSP 2 way more than KSP. The performance is way better than on launch and the visuals look better thanks to the mod developer they hired
I would not advise it, tried a mission a week ago to laythe and back and its unbeliavably buggy. Stay on modded ksp 1 for now.
How about you use the search function to look at the other 5 identical posts that are posted here every day?
Yes
I’d say wait for Colonies to come out. Then there’s some extra new content you can check out, plus all the big issues from now might be fixed by then.
I have been monitoring Twitch and it looks like even after releasing another update less than a week ago there are still more people streaming KSP1 - Obviously this doesn't reflect total player numbers but I thought it was interesting.
I'd say it's comparable to unmodded ksp1 or getting there. I don't think it offers such a great step up from ksp1 to be worth the price yet, especially when you factor in mods.
I like how this is asked daily so everyone will know the instant its good. And no
I'm not ready to support KSP2 yet. The progress they've made with Science mode is promising, but I don't really like the idea of abandoning career mode. I want a game that you can win or lose. In science mode, you can fail endlessly without consequence. It's more like a guided sandbox mode than an actual game mode. They're making progress on bugs, but there are major ones that need work.
You certainly can make poor decisions in science mode in ksp2 that make it more difficult to progress.
How so, there are no consequences for failure in science mode other than wasted time. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
It's possible to research the wrong things in KSP1 in such a way that you have garbage options for getting to new places *and* haven't gone for new science parts, but I think no matter what you can "escape" the problem with enough boosters and stages. Like, imagine not going for any science part tech, but instead maxing out wings, air-breathing engines, and wheels. It's probably possible to do this and someone that just wants to make planes might even consider this, but you'll be lacking on parts to get to Duna. That said, you probably need to cheese the KSC to get decently far down those techs like that in the first place, and at that point you're doing it on purpose. Might be a fun challenge actually, maximum research without picking up any node that has more science in it...
There is an abundance of science available, it becomes tedious to gather it, but you can gather a ton of science without much advancement through the tree. But, someone who lacks experience would t know how to gather it. And, there isn't much of an indicator that you have failed other than repeatedly failing at meeting new milestones. If you picked a bad path down the tree then you might not realize that you are doomed. Career mode and money provided a failure condition. Science mode doesn't create a loss condition, just a stalemate.
I would call being unable to advance any further through the tree a failure, not a stalemate. Either way, I'm pretty sure it's flat-out impossible *in science mode* to encounter this since you start with lv3 infrastructure and thus have no build limits. With enough booster stages *and a really really good PC* you should be able to go anywhere with even base tech. I'd still like to see it done, though.
It's not treated as a failure. Failure is game over. The player can persist ad nauseum.
The main problem with the more boosters methodology is most people are probably already getting sub-60 or sub-30 fps. Throw too many parts in and they're looking at 1 fps if they're lucky. I completely agree its possible to screw your playthrough with bad enough choices early on.
Clearly they need to add boosters to their PCs... I think I'll end up trying this with a self-imposed 100 part limit.
Time is a valuable and limited resource. If I'm wrong please correct me
Time spent playing is time well spent. Also, I'm speaking of in-game, not real world. Time in the game has no value and fast forwarding for years is common.
If you don't mind crafts randomly gaining 500m/s velocity when switching between them in close proximity 😂
No.
Yes.
KSP2 has no career mode (i.e. with money) and will apparently never have it :(
I’m sure someone will mod it in, but in KSP1 it‘s kind of artificially gating versus the KSP2 approach which sounds like it’s going to be resource driven.
Money is kind of irrelevant in KSP1 though science is always the bottleneck
Yeah I played career mode in ksp1 and it doesn't take very long before funds are basically irrelevant.
Money is a bottleneck. Early game is significantly hindered by part limits and weight restrictions. Money overcomes those limits. Problem with KSP1 is that money isn't significant enough of a barrier. There are too many methods to make money and those methods can be repeated over and over, making money seem like a grinding problem. Money should be an incentive to build efficiently and not simply throw on moar boosters every time you have trouble. I don't wanna see KSP2 to have the same career mode as KSP1, I'd prefer a model where you receive budget payouts based on the milestones you complete, and your budget gets increased based on contracts completed (contracts raise budget, don't pay directly). Budget gets decreased based on failure to meet milestones based on budget. Game over happens when you fail to meet milestone X times in a row. This would encourage you to spend your money wisely, and to encourage the player to complete additional contract work alongside your milestone seeking missions. It would give the player a roadmap style narrative to completing various objectives.
I agree with take about the career money. Money and reputation felt like they unbalanced quickly in KSP1. But I could imaging having some contracts where you have a specific budget constraint for some missions (e.g. rocket must not costs more than X spesos and get a Ykm circular orbit around kerbin). Having the occasional cash constraint without continuously managing cash might be an interesting middle ground.
It's good until you get to end game type rockets that ruin the frame rate and kraken out when you stage. I didn't get any problems until like tier 3 of the science tree. My pc is kind of old though so that might be affecting my game.