Am I the only one who kind of likes the bugs?

[LittleBlueGaming]

I absolutely love the kerbals and their shenanigans. I don't think I'd have nearly as much fun with a serious, ultra-realistic simulator.

When I first put a Science Jr inside of a service bay, landed it on minmus, and ran the experiment, I just about died laughing as I watched the service bay start to try and tear my base apart. To me, that actually makes the game better. It's an actual manifestation of the fact that kerbals are doing the construction of the rockets with cheap parts found in junkyards and dumpsters. I don't exactly expect precision engineering from them.

After all, have you watched those silly little guys in the VAB just hammering on the ground for no apparent reason?

I mean, I get the frustration, if you've designed and built this huge mission, and the kraken just eats it after all your hard work, but I try to make lemonade whenever I find lemons. It's a fun thought to me that space in the kerbal universe has monsters and mysteries and new challenges to work around that I wouldn't expect in real life(I bet NASA doesn't have to worry about a probe sinking through an asteroid).

Anyway, I'm just curious if anybody else is like me in this regard.

[Starhawk]

I was tempted to vote 'No, seriously. Are you off your meds or something?'.

However, I've already seen a few people using exploits they've found. I'm sure they also like the bugs.

As for me, not so much.

Happy landings!

[Robotengineer]

I don't like bugs, unless you're a video game entomologist, you shouldn't like them either.

[Nookos]

Two very distinct topic in there. In my opinion:

Yes, those cute and goofy kerbals add a lot of appeal to the game where realistic humans wouldn t most likely.

No, bugs are never funny or enjoyable.

[katateochi]

I don't mind quirks and exploitable things (like being able to generate thrust using a ladder), things that you can choose to abuse but which otherwise don't really get in the way.

But bugs that break the game (the NAN bug being my current nemesis), NO!! What's to like about that!?

[LittleBlueGaming]

I was tempted to vote 'No, seriously. Are you off your meds or something?'.

Yeah, the presence of that option ruins any real analytical value of the poll, but who cares?

I don't mind quirks and exploitable things (like being able to generate thrust using a ladder), things that you can choose to abuse but which otherwise don't really get in the way.

But bugs that break the game (the NAN bug being my current nemesis), NO!! What's to like about that!?

I must be lucky, I haven't experienced any game-breaking bugs yet, not even sure what the NAN bug is. I agree that anything truly game-breaking is not enjoyable.

[Curveball Anders]

I don't like bugs, but I prefer Squad to spend some time QA:ing patches instead rushing out patches that breaks just as much (or more) than they fix.

[Zild]

I see the funny side of them when they happen, but if I was further along in a hard campaign I might be a little more frustrated - doesn't the default hard setting prohibit being able to load any but the latest save (like an iron-man mode) or something? Honestly I'm not certain, because I keep restarting long before that ever becomes an issue. (I just can't go on without Jeb...)

(And yeah, I know the settings are fully customisable anyway, so there really is not much reason to complain in either case!)

[LittleBlueGaming]

You're not weird at all LittleBlue...

I'm going to have to stop you right there... I don't agree with that in the slightest

I'm living my Space Program the same way you do. It's all about goofy little green men who dream they will conquer space and are relentlessly trying to build absurd rockets with unstabe technology. About failing gloriously and succeeding miserably, improbably or unpredictably.

The scenario Squad has set is simple and brilliant. It's that constant paradox between humility and dreams of grandeur that makes it so enjoyable.

I'm more focused on my kerbals than on any technical aspect of the game. I've already mentioned how much I'm not into even knowing the sacrosanct Delta-V of my rockets.

I privilege that intimate and nostalgic experience, inner storytelling, playing with each kerbal's personality, like a child taking possession of his fur toys.

For that, bugs can help, yes. I've answered your poll with a loud "I agree, I wish Squad would market them as actual features.", on principle.

Now sure, it also depends on the bug... A crash to desktop is a bit different.

But without the bugs, we wouldn't have funny stories like this one, just to name a single and recent example on the forum.

and I guess the spirit is :

Cheers

I've really enjoyed my career that I'm logging now, specifically because I'm paying attention to my individual kerbals, making new stories with each of them, developing their characters. I mean, it's not much, just a short snippet for each mission, but it makes the game feel much more alive than when I was just ignoring everything except their specialization.

And as I mentioned in the OP, that spazzy Science Jr/Service bay combo I had on minmus is one of my favorite moments in the game so far. As it was happening, I could just imagine the conversation at the VAB:

Bob: Hey Bill, where's my materials study on this lander? I don't see it anywhere?

Bill: You'll love this. Look, I stuck it inside this compartment.

Bob: That doesn't seem like it would fit... how did you even get it in there?

Bill: We hit it, with a hammer, a lot.

Bob: You what? Don't you know how delicate this equipment is?

Bill: Don't worry, I'm sure it will be fine.

[Prepper-Jack]

Eh, well - no, I don't like bugs. But, your point about things failing is well taken.

If I were to make a mod (or a suggestion for the game), it would be to have people to be able to engineer the parts themselves, with various components that have a number of properties, some of which are hidden. The hidden properties would only come out during testing - some being positive (like more efficiency from a particular nozzle), with some being catastrophic (instant destruct at a particular low temperature). If a bad property is found, it can be rectified by expending some science points - and the positive characteristic can be taken advantage of the same way. Once the components are assembled into a final rocket part, it too will get assigned some random issue and positive trait that should be explored before actual use.

Of course, such things could often be comical - like science goo occasionally escaping and making the rocket glow green. Others could be a mission hindrance, like a hatch not being able to be opened in a vacuum. Others, of course, would be disastrous - turning rockets into tiny bits.

[GusTurbo]

Bugs can sometimes be funny, but they really should be eliminated where feasible.

[Hotaru]

Depends on the bug, and my mood at the time. Some of them are infuriating, some kind of amusing, most neutral. I'd like to see them all fixed in the end, of course, but in the meantime I'm giving some serious thought to playing a career save where I try to incorporate them into the Kerbal universe, rather than F5/F9'ing every time something glitchy happens. Krakens kind of remind me of the ubiquitous "space-time anomalies" in Star Trek, or the "chrono-synlastic infundibula" from Sirens of Titan.

[Great General Kaboomsky]

Actually, yeah. A lot of the time I kindof like them.

I always felt that my missions (in stock,) once they reached orbit, were too safe. No software glitches, not leaking fuel tanks, no "Houston we have a problem" moments, etc. I made it my goal to take the KSP glitches in stride, and just assume they were the result of something gone wrong in the mission.

That said, since Ippo and Coffeman put together the great Dang It! mod to introduce random failures to the missions, the KSP glitches have become slightly more annoying to me.

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

I had one twice in 0.90 that kinda seemed like a feature. It was when a small rocket in space just started spinning rapidly. I always viewed it as a DangIt-like feature.

[Lord Aurelius]

In general, the #1 bug I frequently run into are those incredibly annoying memory leaks. CTDs are not fun.

For non-crashing bugs, I've had some fun messing around with some of the bugs (kraken drive, claw planet destroyer), but Squad really needs to fix them at some point. Although I saw one video by Scott Manley where he summoned the Kraken trying to build a massless rover with KAS that was hilarious.

Still, bugs in general should be fixed, although I could forgive them for leaving in a few extremely situational, hilarious bugs that you have to intentionally work at to activate (so long as they aren't gamebreaking). Such things tend to result in quite entertaining youtube videos and design challenges to find the most elegant/most awesome way to activate them.

[r4pt0r]

How far we have fallen, for this thread to even be real.

[regex]

When I first put a Science Jr inside of a service bay, landed it on minmus, and ran the experiment, I just about died laughing as I watched the service bay start to try and tear my base apart. To me, that actually makes the game better. It's an actual manifestation of the fact that kerbals are doing the construction of the rockets with cheap parts found in junkyards and dumpsters. I don't exactly expect precision engineering from them.

I have a lot more respect for Kerbals and their engineering prowess, and feel that this sort of thinking is detrimental to the game as a whole. bac9 makes the point much better than I can:

For some reason some people like to think Kerbals are sloppy engineers only capable of producing inherently broken designs held together by duct tape. To them, proposing something prim and proper like a NASA VAB could be built by Kerbals is ridiculous. Well, I disagree. Take a good look at the parts: at the LV-N engine, at 3-man pod, at the landing legs, at ion engine. Those are cleanly executed pieces of impressive technology. Kerbals are indifferent to safety precautions and are very excited about explosions, yes, but they make an impression of extremely capable and very competent engineers. Sure, we know they probably turned a construction crane into a vomit carousel or raced on bulldozers in the process, but I don't doubt for one second they can build buildings similar to real ones, and I don't think it would be out of character for them. Plenty of other stuff like engines is fairly close to how our human rockets look. It's unfair to mistake Kerbals for Orks from a “Certain Universe With 40k In The Name,†or to expect them to build sloppy duct-taped huts.

Overall, I'm convinced the obsession with disasters and perception of Kerbals as worthless engineers only caring about explosions is destructive for the game. KSP deserves much more than being a glorified disaster simulator where rockets falling apart and crews being killed is the prime entertainment and the only expected result. The achievements of players who strive to be successful, who create beautiful, well-engineered, reliable designs, should never be devalued, and the opinion that going to space is impossibly hard deserves to be crushed and disproved over and over again. Kerbals are capable engineers and it's up to the player to utilize their technology well.

This same mindset is harming the game in many other areas as well. The bugs of the physics system aren't there because we thought they would be fun and don't deserve to be defended as some players surprisingly do. The achievements of reaching orbit, landing on another body or even establishing a permanent base somewhere should not be perceived as something impossibly hard and unreachable for anyone but hardcore players. Everything is possible if you are willing to learn and there is no reason to restrict yourself to playing a disaster simulator with rocket cars or insta-exploding space planes. Justifying that to yourself by creating a certain mental image of Kerbal engineers competency might make the game better for you but I’m striving for a greater Kerbal good.

Basically these bugs are crap and should be stomped, if possible.

[Alberto De Beni]

As someone who lost months of work in a matter of seconds because of a corrupted craft file, no, they are not funny.

[Mister Dilsby]

Quirks, yes. Bugs, no. The difference is whether or not it the 'feature' keeps the fictional universe self-consistent.

A hypothetical example. As far as I know neither situation actually occurs in any version of KSP.

Bug: Any time a structural intake touches an FL-T100, the ship it's on accelerates prograde at the speed of light. Also, your computer chooses a new default printer at random.

Quirk: If you leave a structural intake open in any non-oxygen atmposphere, the next time you try to use your jet engine it explodes.

ETA: Apologies in advance if anyone from SQUAD notices the above and does it... OK not really

[LittleBlueGaming]

I have a lot more respect for Kerbals and their engineering prowess, and feel that this sort of thinking is detrimental to the game as a whole. bac9 makes the point much better than I can:

Basically these bugs are crap and should be stomped, if possible.

That's a valid viewpoint to have on the game, but it doesn't invalidate the viewpoint some people want to have that kerbals are dreamers, prone to antics, and still manage to get to space with parts from Jeb's Junkyard. I prefer to view the game more through the latter viewpoint. To me Kerbals simply aren't serious, nanometer-precision types. They are more simplistic, good-natured, and like to wing it. After all, the official flavor text in the game paints that kind of picture.

The bits about 'My way is the right way and other viewpoints should be squashed' I can't agree with at all. It's a sandbox game, trying to define how others should play it is misplaced, and that is the kind of thing that does the community real harm.

Keep in mind I'm not saying these bugs shouldn't be fixed, I'm just saying I enjoy them. Obviously game-breaking bugs should be fixed ASAP.

[TMS]

One of the down sides of open alpha development is that people will canonise bugs and flaws into community-developed lore. That's great, as long as it doesn't legitimise incomplete development.

[BlueCanary]

I like a few of the bugs, not the crash-to-desktop-y ones or the "Can't ignite while stowed ones" but the ones like the service bay thing I kind of think of as a more entertaining alternative to things-just-not-working type random failures.

With regards to the whole "are kerbals dumb or not thing", I kind of think of them as being incredibly intelligent and capable of engineering, but really easily distracted in a sort of ADHD type way, forgetting things like parachutes and strapping on boosters just to see what happens. Maybe a bit like David Tennant doctor who I guess.

[Plume & Akakak]

... and feel that this sort of thinking is detrimental to the game as a whole.

And then in bac9's blog entry, it goes on with "destructive for the game", "harming for the game"...

Now that's a bit exaggerated, don't you think ? It's getting cold in here.

About considering kerbals as sloppy engineers, and this idea being "ridiculous", it is a severe statement as well, and there's something unclear here, given our little green men have their trademark dumbness stat, or how kerbals are portrayed in the

.

There's no wonder why people use Kerbals' silliness in their personal scenarios. It's how the game is advertised and why it appeals to many. In fairness, it can't be swept aside so easily.

Again, it is a simple and brilliant, very touching background, that opens up to many gameplay options.

Anyway, I felt enthusiastic about this thread, because it raised questions that I haven't seen a lot on the forum (for the short time I've been here). Bugs as comical effects, why not ? It's fine. Above all, it was nice to read someone generously sharing his personal story telling. In the past month (again, I might be wrong as I'm relatively new here), I've had the impression that on the forum, it's mostly tech-talk. Since the notion of creativity is involved, it sometimes reminds me of forums dedicated to photography, video, or sound works, where most messages are about tools and tech, and only a few about poetry and sense.

Not that they are irreconcilable, or that I don't understand modesty is implied when one thinks of sharing the most intimate of his gaming experience.

But yea, it started as a refreshing thread.

Cheers

[regex]

Now that's a bit exaggerated, don't you think ?

Not in the least.

given our little green men have their trademark dumbness stat, or how kerbals are portrayed in the

.

I know. I have a feeling that's why bac9 isn't on the KSP team anymore, ideological differences and such (may also have something to do with the art direction). Like him, I think it's a real shame that the game takes on that tone, that Kerbals are "expendable" fodder for the player to simply destroy, that they're classified by how stupid they are, and that all the media hypes up the explosions and failures of the Kerbals. It seems to make what could be a brilliant, silly game of exploration just another disaster simulator.

[sal_vager]

I'd like to see the support section and bug tracker closed as no longer needed, so no bugs please.