Snark
-
Posts
9,973 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Article Comments posted by Snark
-
-
12 minutes ago, Jestersage said:
What is weird with the new Wolfhound is that it actually have worse actual efficency when compared to Poodle
That's not possible to say as a general statement. It completely depends on the context, i.e. what ship design operating in what type of physical situation.
You might as well ask "which is more efficient, a Spark or a NERV?" Answer: the NERV is, for really big ships. And the Spark is, for really little ones.
The Wolfhound used to be way overpowered-- I basically never used the Poodle again, once the Wolfhound became available. Now, though, it's an actually interesting set of tradeoffs-- depending on the ship design, mass, and intended mission, a Wolfhound will be better for some situations, whereas the Poodle would be for others. So, IMO the rebalance is an improvement, simply because now I have a reason to use the Poodle sometimes, and also because it requires me to think about design (which is the sort of thing I like in KSP).
-
12 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:
Update your Module Manager to the latest version.
Just to save you a few mouse clicks:
-
Please keep a civil discourse, everyone. There's nothing wrong with reasoned disagreement, but name-calling doesn't help anybody. Thanks!
-
So there's been a lot of water under the bridge since my last post; this is a fast-moving topic. Rather than go back and try to quote them individually (many are making the same points), I'd like to summarize.
The gist of my original post, linked above, is this assertion:
- What Squad is doing here is a good thing.
- In fact, it's the best thing to do, given the constraints of the situation.
- Everybody wins.
- Even the people who can't participate in the pre-release.
- They win because the fact that Squad is doing this means that they will get their hands on 1.1 (the actual 1.1) some combination of earlier and better-quality than they would have done if Squad had not done this.
- That's unambiguously better for the players.
- Yay. Thank you, Squad, for doing the right thing for all their customers.
So, to address various points that have come up:
Q: I'm really unhappy about that because that's unfair.
A: Life is unfair. So?
Q: It's Squad's fault that it's unfair, and therefore I'm mad at Squad.
A: How so? KasperVld gave a pretty good explanation of the technical constraints and the reasons for what they're doing. Makes sense to me. Are you saying you have some special technical knowledge that gives you the ability to say that he's either mistaken or lying?
Q: Squad is somehow harming me by doing this.
A: How? What part of "I get the game earlier at a higher quality because of this" do you not like? How does "other people are playing it" harm you, personally, in any way?
What do you think the goal of a software company should be? I think a good goal is "make really high quality software, delivered as early as possible to the broadest number of people." And any company decision that boosts that goal is a good thing. And this decision does that. Ergo, it's a good thing. Q.E.D. (You will note that "fair" was not in the previous sentence. "Fair" is a good thing, and to be promoted where possible. But when it's a case of "fair" versus "greatest good for greatest number", "fair" comes in second, in my book, particularly when nobody is harmed in any way.)
Q: It's inexcusable because I deserve to have this and I'm not getting it.
A: No you don't. You're not entitled to anything, beyond what you paid for the game. How much money have you given Squad, in return for how many hours of blissful enjoyment? I dunno about you, but I paid Squad US$27 for this game and not one penny since. And I easily got $27 worth of enjoyment out of it in the first week alone. And beyond that, I'm not entitled to anything. The fact that Squad keeps giving me shiny new toys for free is astounding, and good for Squad, but they don't owe me that.
Q: Squad could have offered this to everyone.
A: No they couldn't. KasperVld explained the technical reasons why.
Q: But KasperVld is wrong, and yes they really could have offered this to everyone.
A: Really? You understand Squad's technical and financial constraints better than Squad does? Without any knowledge of their technical or financial constraints? Unless you can explain a way that they can offer repeated daily downloads of >1GB to a million people without requiring any additional money or manpower, you don't know what you're talking about. (in case you're wondering: I've worked on systems at this scale, and do have some idea what I'm talking about)
Q: Well, okay, but they could have just waited until experimentals are finished and then given it to everyone and it wouldn't have been riddled with bugs like you're saying.
A: Again: unless you have specific technical knowledge here, you don't know what you're talking about. Squad releases software when it's ready for release, i.e. when it reaches a certain quality bar. 1.1. is not like other releases, as Kasper took the trouble to explain in the original post. It's a much, much bigger impact than any other release they've done, so the bugs are going to be more numerous and widespread. It's not a "normal" experimentals process That means more QA. It's a basic law of physics in the software industry and you can't get around it. So either they need more testers, or they need more time. More testers = more money, if it's their own QA staff. More time = unhappy KSP players = everybody loses. By opening up experimentals to as many people as they can, they get huge testing bandwidth for free. (Well, not quite free, there's the matter of network bandwidth from people downloading stuff, but that's peanuts in comparison.) And they simply don't have the technical wherewithal to do that outside of Steam.
Q: But Snark, you're just full of it and you're spin-doctoring, so I shouldn't listen to what you say because obviously you're just defending Squad because <some unstated reason>.
A: Well, if you mean that I seem to be showing a lot of sympathy for Squad's perspective, or that I seem to be identifying with them a lot in this discussion, you're right. That's because, like them, I make software for a living. I know how hard it is, and in particular how much harder it is than people outside of the industry have any concept of. I have been a professional software engineer for a very long time, longer than many KSP players have been alive. I have worked in companies from little startups to multi-billion-dollar behemoths. I have been involved in every aspect of software, from design, to coding, to testing, to operational deployment, to maintenance and support. So I have some idea of what I'm talking about, here.
Of course, it's true that I don't actually know what's going on inside Squad any more than you do, since I don't work there. But I can look at them from the outside and gauge the symptoms. I've been in smart, successful organizations that did well, and I've been in badly-run stupid and/or evil ones that went down in flames. So I have some idea of what "stupid" and "evil" look like, and neither of those apply to Squad. As far as I can tell, they're doing everything exactly right. I've seen a lot of software organizations, and they're batting it out of the park, here.
They're astoundingly spectacularly great. They're incredibly customer-focused, they're doing this as a labor of love and the degree of passion they show is nothing short of astonishing. The individual developers routinely jump on forum threads to answer individual users' questions. They provide an unprecedented amount of transparency into their internal operations and what they're doing. Do you read Devnote Tuesday? What other software company takes the trouble to give you, the customer, a frequent and thorough glimpse into their internal workings so you can see what they're doing? Tell me, why do you even play KSP? You like it, right? Do you think a product that amazingly cool happens by accident, is made by people who don't know or care what they're doing?
They're Doing It Right™. In a way that very few companies do.
And doing things right, that way, takes incredible focus, determination, and passion. It's hard work that is often tedious or emotionally draining. And it's largely unappreciated work, since almost nobody outside the industry has any clue how hard it is or what they go through to give you these shiny toys. For free. Again and again.
So yeah. I like to show a little appreciation.
Q: Blah blah blah, rant rant rant, can you just boil it down to one simple perspective?
A: Well, even if you don't believe a single word I've said above, consider this. Everybody does things for a reason. Might be a good reason or a bad one, but there's a reason.
Therefore, Squad has some reason for what it's doing. They've told you, in quite generous and considerate detail, what they assert the reasons to be. And there's their presumed higher-level meta-reason, specifically: that they sincerely want to do what's best for the player base as a whole. That they have constraints that they know about and you don't. That they've looked at all their options. And they've chosen (or, at least, honestly tried to choose) the least-bad one.
That makes total sense to me. It seems to me that that's overwhelmingly the simplest and most likely explanation. And if they're honestly trying to do what's best for the player base, I really have trouble faulting them for that.
(Does that mean they never make mistakes? Of course not, everyone goofs. But if someone makes an honest mistake, seriously, spare the vitriol, huh? And if you think it's mistaken, how about being constructive? i.e. say it as "I would like it better if ___" rather than "you suck because ___"? And give actual, specific suggestions that would work better than what Squad is doing?)
So if you don't believe that "do what's best for the players, given the constraints" is their reason for what they're doing... what do you think the reason is? What other plausible explanation? Why would they do this, or anything, other than for that reason?
-
I'm trying to understand the rationale behind people being unhappy with Squad for doing what they're doing.
Put yourself in Squad's shoes. Here are your options.
-
Don't do any pre-release at all. Ship on target date. It has lots of bugs in it. Result: Everybody loses.
- Players get hammered with bugs.
- Then they yell at Squad for the bugs.
-
Delay the release until the small number of experimental testers can generate the same degree of coverage that this pre-release does. Result: Everybody loses.
- Players have to wait additional weeks to get their hands on 1.1.
- Then they yell at Squad for "why is this so late."
-
Offer pre-release to the most generously wide distribution that is technically possible, given their networking and financial constraints. Result everybody wins.
- The players who can download it, win. They get their hands on 1.1. They're okay with it being buggy because they've gone into it with their eyes open.
- The players who can't (or don't) download it, also win. They get 1.1 earlier and with a lower bug count than they would have if Squad had gone with option #1 or #2.
- Then they yell at Squad for being unfair.
I understand that it's not ideal. I understand that we'd all like to be able to participate, and if that's not possible for technical reasons, that's unfortunate. It may seem "unfair", but that's simply what the technical reality is. Life is unfair.
If you can't participate, that's too bad... but the fact that other people do participate in no way diminishes your own game experience. And you personally are better off than you would have been if Squad hadn't done this. Framed a different way: would you prefer that "everybody has to wait longer to get 1.1, at a lower quality bar, so that someone else can't get it before me"?
I think this is a great idea, and bravo to Squad for doing it. I think the decision shows thoughtful consideration for their player base. It's a way for them to release their product promptly and at a high quality bar.
So they can give us the next shiny new toy they've made for us.
For free.
Again.
So maybe cut them a little slack, here?
-
Don't do any pre-release at all. Ship on target date. It has lots of bugs in it. Result: Everybody loses.
Tuning changes in 1.6
in Developer Articles
Posted
In that case, why would anyone ever use it? Ever? It would have nearly the worst Isp of any LFO engine in a vacuum, and not much in the way of thrust, either. Heck, a Swivel would beat it (higher Isp, higher thrust, much lower on the tech tree).
As @Aegolius13 points out, KSP is a game, significantly simplified from IRL, and game balance matters. So if you tweaked the Wolfhound as you describe, then what reason would players ever have to use such an engine in their designs?