KSP Weekly: Fixing projects and making contact

[passinglurker]

10 hours ago, KSK said:

That's certainly my experience on gaming forums. The more information players get the more they demand and the louder they demand it. And no matter what the developers say, it never seems to stop players reading what they want into those statements - and then pitching a hissy fit when the finished game fails to match up to their overblown expectations. In a rational world, @passinglurker's comments would be correct - but gaming forums are rarely rational.

That varies by community there are plenty of examples of communities that enjoy more open development without unmanageable drama, and considering this isn't some big money riding e-sport I think KSP would be safe.

[regex]

1 hour ago, passinglurker said:

That varies by community there are plenty of examples of communities that enjoy more open development without unmanageable drama, and considering this isn't some big money riding e-sport I think KSP would be safe.

Squad could have averted so much forum drama pre-1.0 just by having a public roadmap.

[KSK]

2 hours ago, Mako said:

So since some people will speculate anyway, ignoring everyone and withholding information so everyone can speculate together is a better solution than attempting to prevent speculation with information and attempting to correct misunderstandings and finally just ignoring individuals who refuse to accept the truth?

Yes. And you've just identified the reason why. 

Besides, this notion that we're in any way entitled to this ongoing stream of information about an officially released product is a bizarre conceit and one that seems to be peculiar to gamers. Being given information before the official release is slightly different - it makes sense for a games company to let their early adopters know what they can expect to see once the game leaves early access.

Even then, I would always advocate buying an early access game for what it is when you buy it, rather than what you're promised / hear about on the internet / fondly imagine it's going to be at some point in the future.

 

Edited May 22, 2017 by KSK
For clarity. Garbled my sentence structure was, yes yes.

[Red Iron Crown]

1 hour ago, Mako said:

So since some people will speculate anyway, ignoring everyone and withholding information so everyone can speculate together is a better solution than attempting to prevent speculation with information and attempting to correct misunderstandings and finally just ignoring individuals who refuse to accept the truth?

If that's the way to go, why do we even have this weekly KSP Weekly?

Because they do disseminate information here. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition, they share what they are willing to in these threads.

They are under no obligation to share anything, and can withhold what they like for whatever reasons they like. I completely understand about the roadmap thing, whenever there is a change in plans a portion of the community gets out their torches and pitchforks about "broken promises" when development updates should always be taken as subject to change. Look at the reaction to the backburnering of resources or the rocket part revamp. Somebody was even talking about a class action lawsuit for false advertising regarding the latter, it's just idiocy. So they're reluctant to share things until they're pretty much nailed down, for reasons that should be obvious. A bit of speculation in the absence of concrete info is far, far preferable to the alternative.

[LoSBoL]

On ‎21‎-‎5‎-‎2017 at 3:11 PM, Tidus Klein said:

Heck even if the art pass was a DLC I would be happy..(slightly less happy then if it was just a update) but as long as it stayed in the area of 10-20 bucks I don't think I would mind that much.

we have had the same art for the rocket parts sense...lord sense when I first started playing the game some where around the .20 update.

i would not mind that so much if the new parts resembled the old ones, In the years squad as improved the game the skill and talent of the art department has only grown and it shows in there past and present work. Is a full art pass needed? No but I feel it would only add to the game at this point

I agree that it would be a good idea to make it an DLC, although 10-20 bucks would be far to much for a few textures. I would say make it 5 dollars max. It would be an incentive for SQUAD to actualy do a rocket vamp and let RoverDude go wild on it. At that pricepoint I would not give it a second thought for buying it although I don't really mind the parts how they are now. And people who bought the game early would get it for free. Guess it would pretty much make everybody happy.

[Bomaye]

Waow the drama for nothing.....I just look forward for the update.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Bomaye

[Frozen_Heart]

Not sure why people think a public roadmap would have averted any problems. Plans change and i'm sure the ideas when they started KSP and what it actually is are completely different, with features never planned being added while some things were cut.

A public roadmap would have caused even more outrage each time something on it was cut.

[regex]

35 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Not sure why people think a public roadmap would have averted any problems. Plans change and i'm sure the ideas when they started KSP and what it actually is are completely different, with features never planned being added while some things were cut.

A public roadmap would have caused even more outrage each time something on it was cut.

That's because Squad had no idea what to include or cut in KSP. The game wasn't so much designed as it was cobbled together from disparate ideas based on an overriding advertising statement that was intentionally vague. One of the things a roadmap does is outline the expected features and give an expected timeline of them arriving (not in terms of dates but in terms of discrete events, i.e. "We can expect a more realistic aerodynamic simulation to arrive in the game at some point"). Cutting something from a public roadmap does happen but it also helps dampen the PR outrage because you can then point to things that will get more time, or add other things to compensate. Roadmaps also set expectations during early access by informing the buyer what they can expect from the finished product, and also what suggestions they can make that might actually make the roadmap. Roadmaps needn't be a complicated Tarn Adams sort of affair either, but they should offer a detailed list of major features that one can expect in the finished product.

Quite frankly I have no idea why I backed this game in early access without them having a public roadmap, but I most certainly will check for one before I fund another game in EA, I see Squad as a cautionary tale in early access rather than an example of "doing it right".

[Urses]

On 20.5.2017 at 1:43 AM, legoclone09 said:

Maybe we'll get the old parts redone in Roverdude's style. God, those 2.5m decouplers are AWFUL.

I think this is a interesting statement! We are adulted enough to say let the new wind come in. And not complain why this or that was better. And RoverDude has realy nice looking parts, that for true!

Funny Kabooms 

Urses 

2 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

/snip/A bit of speculation in the absence of concrete info is far, far preferable to the alternative.

And this is a good Source for ideas to come in the future. A better mindtrust you will never get elswhere, where the Internet community is not as interested as in KSP.

[Mako]

@KSK and @Red Iron Crown

My argument has never been that anyone is entitled to more information. My argument is that providing more information to the public, both current and potential customers, is a good thing. The only time it's not a good thing is when the information is that the company is choosing to do something that is not in any customer's best interest.

I believe Squad wants to make a good product. I believe they would benefit from communicating more with the public.

I fully admit people will do act in an unpleasant fashion, and they obviously do so whether you communicate or not. A company can gain something from communicating, but they gain nothing by not communicating, and since people act lousy either way why not choose to communicate and gain something?

[Red Iron Crown]

Just now, Mako said:

The only time it's not a good thing is when the information is that the company is choosing to do something that is not in any customer's best interest.

...or when the information is not finalized, and they don't want people to take it as a firm commitment. I honestly think this is why there is so little info about future plans, as I mentioned in my last post.

[regex]

15 minutes ago, Mako said:

My argument has never been that anyone is entitled to more information.

Of course not, but that's a common way to dismiss your desire to have more information as unreasonable.

[Alshain]

17 hours ago, KSK said:

That's certainly my experience on gaming forums. The more information players get the more they demand and the louder they demand it. And no matter what the developers say, it never seems to stop players reading what they want into those statements - and then pitching a hissy fit when the finished game fails to match up to their overblown expectations. In a rational world, @passinglurker's comments would be correct - but gaming forums are rarely rational.

There isn't a lot of drama on the Subnautica forums.  Want to know what they are developing... the whole thing is public.  They hide nothing.  There was only one time they made a decision that actually caused real significant issues and that was when they abandoned plans for multiplayer.

I'm not saying that is what every company should do, but you are generalizing and it isn't true.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Alshain

[regex]

Also, Wube axed a feature that was on the Factorio roadmap and there wasn't a huge fuss over it. People moved on, got excited about the things that were happening in the rest of the list.

[passinglurker]

5 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

10-20 bucks would be far to much for a few textures. I would say make it 5 dollars max.

I think you are underestimating the amount and value of work that would be involved in this. 
 

5 hours ago, KSK said:

Besides, this notion that we're in any way entitled to this ongoing stream of information about an officially released product is a bizarre conceit and one that seems to be peculiar to gamers.

Then let no one say they are buying DLC to support development. Just like calling certain parts "placeholders" Its "misinformation". It gets people thinking Squad will make kerbal better with this money but in reality there is no hard commitment.

 

[Mako]

5 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

...or when the information is not finalized, and they don't want people to take it as a firm commitment. I honestly think this is why there is so little info about future plans, as I mentioned in my last post.

You're absolutely right. When a company has very little idea what it's actually doing with its product then yes, they should not release too much information. It would not be good for sales to show that you're not really sure what you're doing but promise to keep banging on a thing for a while to an unknown end.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Mako
Squad has made it clear all along that the purchase of KSP is for the currently existing software with no guarantee of any future updates or releases. I have edited my post to be more accurate regarding this fact.

[Vanamonde]

8 hours ago, regex said:

Squad could have averted so much forum drama pre-1.0 just by having a public roadmap.

Yes, the 3 or 4 people who care about that would have been greatly relieved. 

[passinglurker]

9 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

Yes, the 3 or 4 people who care about that would have been greatly relieved. 

Citation needed. I want hard statistics.

[tater]

Generally, there is some teasing hype, and the implication that as a "forum" with reasonable dev input/commentary, that somehow players contributing might actually have an input. A fix I made to SH4 actually ended up being incorporated in one of the patches, but when they were talking about SH5, many of us pitched in to make serious suggestions that really needed to be followed (fixing fundamental gameplay failings), only to discover SH5 was already well along, and the effort to fix real problems was replaced with an ability to move around the sub and "talk" to the crew... meaningless "eye candy" that would quickly lose it's shine when the same broken gameplay was what was under the hood.

I've seen this in numerous games that I've been an alpha and beta tester for as well. The thing is that the devs in those cases HAD a roadmap, it just wasn't shared, and wasn't the same as the one in the heads of many players/testers. We thought we had input, when  the path was long since chosen.

[KSK]

6 hours ago, Alshain said:

There isn't a lot of drama on the Subnautica forums.  Want to know what they are developing... the whole thing is public.  They hide nothing.  There was only one time they made a decision that actually caused real significant issues and that was when they abandoned plans for multiplayer.

I'm not saying that is what every company should do, but you are generalizing and it isn't true.

Incorrect. I clearly said 'in my experience'. That is, I deliberately wasn't generalising. If you can point to counterexamples then good for you - you've been luckier than me.

5 hours ago, passinglurker said:

Then let no one say they are buying DLC to support development. Just like calling certain parts "placeholders" Its "misinformation". It gets people thinking Squad will make kerbal better with this money but in reality there is no hard commitment.

No arguments from me on your first sentence. Like I said in my last post - buy something for what it is now, rather than what you hope it might be some day.

Although this notion that they're still paying for development (as I recall) is a creation of the playerbase rather than anything Squad has said. Especially with regard to 'placeholder's' - one of the development team (I forget which, apologies) plainly stated that Squad are well aware of their game assets and do not regard them as placeholders. Again, this term seems to be a creation of the playerbase as a shorthand for 'old art assets that we wish would be improved'. Which isn't quite the same thing.

7 hours ago, Mako said:

The only time it's not a good thing is when the information is that the company is choosing to do something that is not in any customer's best interest.

Not aiming this at you directly - and yes I am generalising here - but gamers as a community are notoriously self centred in this regard and have very little appreciation of the realities of implementing their 'best interests' and even less appreciation for other people's time and effort. 

[LoSBoL]

10 hours ago, passinglurker said:

I think you are underestimating the amount and value of work that would be involved in this. 
 

 

You are absolutely right, I haven't got a clue.

 It's good you point that out though, since there is so much critique on the parts as they are right now and people demanding it as free development within the base game while it is a big and expensive job to actually do. I just thought it would be a bit of incentive for SQUAD to do a vamp if it was financed a bit, might just speed it up a little and make people happy.

[passinglurker]

2 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

I just thought it would be a bit of incentive for SQUAD to do a vamp if it was financed a bit, might just speed it up a little and make people happy.

Another reason I push for development transparency is that given the controversies, desires, and expectations surrounding the "vamp" I think squad would have an easier time selling unrelated DLC while advertising that this pays for them implementing the vamp gradually as a series of free updates. Personally if I were to buy in I'd want these better assets to be for all not just dlc buyers. 

EDIT: Also I'd be less reflexively picky about the art that's included in a free update
 

6 hours ago, KSK said:

one of the development team (I forget which, apologies) plainly stated that Squad are well aware of their game assets and do not regard them as placeholders. Again, this term seems to be a creation of the playerbase as a shorthand for 'old art assets that we wish would be improved'. Which isn't quite the same thing.

Personally I found this clarification deeply offensive as if players and @NovaSilisko can't recognize excrement when they see it. Most users certainly aren't as picky as me but with every art preview the common response is "This looks/sounds great! Can you please please please please please apply these same looks and ideas to the old rocket parts?"

The developer created notion that the old parts are fine and aren't a priority only feeds the speculative frenzy because a unified production quality and aesthetic is such a fundamental and obvious step in development its hard to fathom what they could possibly consider a higher priority after 1.3

Edited May 23, 2017 by passinglurker

[klgraham1013]

3 hours ago, passinglurker said:

 a unified production quality and aesthetic is such a fundamental and obvious step in development its hard to fathom what they could possibly consider a higher priority after 0.90.

Fixed.

[basic.syntax]

10 hours ago, passinglurker said:

The developer created notion that the old parts are fine and aren't a priority ...

"not a priority" is the only conclusion I can draw from the current development focus on new parts for the Expansion. Roverdude carefully did not say that he approved or did not approve of the condition of older parts last week, when he said they are "aware" of their art asset inventory, only that the term "placeholder" did not apply to them. The current state of being "released parts" does not mean they never get an overhaul. I personally believe that Squad will refresh the older parts, given enough time and the doors not closing at Squad's offices.

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by basic.syntax

[Alshain]

2 hours ago, basic.syntax said:

"not a priority" is the only conclusion I can draw from the current development focus on new parts for the Expansion. Roverdude carefully did not say that he approved or did not approve of the condition of older parts last week, when he said they are "aware" of their art asset inventory, only that the term "placeholder" did not apply to them. The current state of being "released parts" does not mean they never get an overhaul. I personally believe that Squad will refresh the older parts, given enough time and the doors not closing at Squad's offices.

 

I think it's more likely they will move onto KSP 2 than re-do the parts at this point.