Feedback Requested: 1.0

[briansun1]

I'd like to see something like 60-65% polishing/bug fixes/getting rid of place holders/new and better tutorials/etc. And the rest on all the new stuff that needs/wants to be added.(Ex: Resources, reentry heat, fairings,etc). The heavy emphasis on quality over quantity is due to the fact that I don't want KSP to end up being like Warframe. Which for awhile just pushed out new content with little to no bug/crash fixes.(They've gotten a bit better at it now.) This is a more extream example, but helps to highlight my meaning.

[regex]

Again: Fix memory management. Fix memory leaks. Actually manage asset loading. Fix the bugs that have been there forever. Fix the ocean lag. Move to DDS textures.

Etc...

Don't call a half-working game "1.0".

[jarmund]

I would say 75% bugfixing, balancing, and overhauling. I put this number as my priority would be to make sure 1.0 was a product that stood well on its own regardless of future upgrades.

25% features, such as bigger landing gear and wings for use with MK3, as well as engines to match in size. Mostly because these should also be considered essential to a release-worthy product considering the fact that we have a set of parts that are great, but could use some of the missing pieces.

Going forward, I would say 50/50 between the two - Half of the effort put into general fixup of existing content, and the other half adding content. Each update should then be somewhat themed so that additional content sticks to one category. For example, 1.1 could contain any overhauls and bugfixes you come up with, as well as mk4 parts. 1.2 another batch of fixes and overhauls, as well as adding another gas giant. This makes releases less messy, and it's also easier for everyone involved to connect a patch version with specific content.

[yorshee]

Why oh why must the next release be called v1.0?

its not done. its not nearly done. a blind man could see that pushing KSP to v1.0 was a bad idea.

make .91 and .92 and .93 if you have to.

with out the planned features, KSP is an incomplete game.

with the nasty bugs, KSP is an incomplete game.

you've created a great thing! you have a huge dedicated fan base. Your teaching people things, making people think. don't ruin everything you have built by slapping a *DONE* sticker on it and "shipping" KSP with massive gaping holes crawling with bugs.

get modders involved for art polish. many would live to have art assets included in stock.

• aero update v.91
  
• resource update v.92 (ISRU & life support)
  
• career and contract polish v.93
  
• art polish v.94 (replace crummy models & add detail to planets)
  
• bug fix v.95
  
• release v1.0
  
• second pass bug fix v1.1
  
• mutiplayer v1.2
  

This is how I think things should go, too. At the very least, don't jump straight to version 1.0 unless there's going to be a lot of development time put towards finding and fixing bugs.

[MGCJerry]

Bug fixes and stability improvements. I get a nice warm fuzzy feeling in my belly when I see "Stability improvements". Not seeing stability improvements while seeing new features in release notes is like slam dunking purring kittens into a running meat grinder. KSP isn't fun when its being unstable at times. If its not fun to play because of issues it doesn't matter what the features are. When you lose the "beta" title, its for real. You don't want to repeat "Big Rigs" or any other similar game titles that claims to be finished (not beta, alpha, dev build, etc regardless of version) but clearly isn't finished or lacks polish.

Personally, something I'd like to see in KSP is load parts only when flying a ship with parts to improve memory. Simple low poly previews or even animated icons for parts in the editor would suffice. Once you click that part, it loads in memory for the current session. Perhaps a "flush parts" button somewhere to clear the current memory of loaded parts that are not in use on the current craft? No need to preload EVERYTHING unless you're using it. IMO its wasting already limited memory. Make preloading all parts an option for high RAM and/or 64bit machines. I think we could all create much bigger ships this way. Whackjob could end up creating 30,000 part ships because tanks engines girders & struts are already loaded and may make a smoother launch.

Anyway, here's my order of preference... Highest to lowest.

» Bugfixes & stability (kraken takedowns, part strength, part rebalancing, SAS fixes, etc)footprint.

» Finish whats in it already (experience, aero overhaul, experience)

» New features (Female Kerbals, multi-player)

» New content (moar boosters, moar engines, moar buildings, additional air/space ports to land at, more stuff to visually explore not just biomes.Maybe different ground scatter for each biome?, etc)

» Visual improvements (mach effects, clouds, ground clutter, cities, etc)

Thats my $0.02

[justidutch]

I don't think I have anything new to add, but my opinion was asked, so here it is:

1. Squash all known bugs, and squash them hard.

2. Balance. That means part attributes. A more sensible tech tree.

3. Finish the new aero model.

4. Get the MK3 parts in there, but this is tough cuz they might not be as balanced as the pre-existing parts after step 2. What I mean is, you won't have the feedback of several thousand players on this - no offence to your QA team intended, they do the best they can, but there's no substitute for the real world (inasmuch as I, and others, are 'real').

5. Make everything look as spiffy and impressive as possible, and get as many new sounds in there, perhaps even including new/more music.

Then release it.

THen continue on with everything else, and bask in the glory you all deserve!

[toril]

I am all for the snapshot idea. A kinda beta beta release it will allow for a much wider audience and you may see more bugs found. You'll definitely get more feedback on the new features, if you don't like the word snapshot at least have a few release candidates? asking for advice when the game has changed so radically from anything most of us currently have access to is, in my opinion, counter productive as we lack information and experience with the current state of the game.

[godefroi]

I will say this about 1.0. Don't make a game, make a legacy. 1.0 should be the last version you put out. It should be the end, the finally. Fix all the bugs, (This Includes placeholders) Add only what needs to be added (New landing gear and whatnot), Give everything an art pass, and release new features as a separate update (ISRU I'm lookin' at you!) With 1.0, assume the entire team is going to drop dead immediately after.

Don't let perfection get in the way of progress. 1.0 isn't the end. It's just a number. If you exit early access at that point, however, you'll be setting expectations based on how it performs (first impressions and all that).

Fix bugs, finish up the aero (/fairings/reentry), leave the ISRU for a future update if it's going to take too much time. Do a balance pass, fix bugs, and release.

[TMS]

Do whatever will minimise the 1.0 burning by the gaming press.

I'm guessing that'll be addressing the bugs, low quality textures and memory management.

Alternatively, you could just do the sensible thing...

Edited March 17, 2015 by KasperVld
slight language censor

[Ten Key]

Do a balance pass. The current tech tree doesn't "flow" so much as it lurches from node to node. Game progression is all over the place.

Do a balance pass.

If I had to zero in on one graphical improvement for 1.0, it wouldn't be clouds. . .it would be the star field. You can see it almost everywhere you go, and for a game focused on space, you kind of want the "space" part to be as awe inspiring as you can possibly make it. In my opinion, the stock star field really doesn't do that.

[Linear]

Do whatever will minimise the 1.0 burning by the gaming press.

I'm guessing that'll be addressing the bugs, low quality textures and memory management.

Alternatively, you could just do the sensible thing...

Who gives a hell what the gaming press say. Seriously.

The only time people listen to them is to laugh at their idiotic comments;

"Was poor, awful gameplay and graphics from 1985 - 9/10" - IGN

Edited March 17, 2015 by KasperVld

[Yakuzi]

Hey guys. Basically [] we need to consider [] working on polish, bugfixing and balance [] instead of some of the new features we're working in. We've decided that the next release will be 1.0 because it accomplishes the goals we've set.

This is regarding the current feature list for 1.0

Thanks for asking the KSP community Max, please take the time to also listen, as your community has the best intentions for KSP's release, its future and its developers.

Regarding your question: You have to include the core features that were confirmed for 1.0 AND have to polish/balance/optimise and bugfix, that is the definition of a game release and constitutes the whole "scope complete" thing. When the community conveyed its overwhelming concerns with the premature announcement/release plans of KSP 1.0, you yourself personally asked us to trust SQUAD:

Edited March 17, 2015 by Yakuzi
links and spelling

[Capt Snuggler]

releasing as v1.0 but saying that it's still underdevelopment is going to be baffling and won't cast it in a good light. I also fear that it could change the mindset and enthusiasm of the dev team, I've seen that happen before in projects I've been involved with and it's been crippling.

this^^^^ this is what I truly fear.

also as klgraham1013 pointed out, its nice of maxmaps to ask the question here rather than reddit. it still remains to be seen whether opinions on the official KSP forums are worth the same as opinions on reddit...

[klgraham1013]

Unfortunately, there's really nothing that can change the fact that 1.0 is coming.

That would imply they're being forced into pushing forward to 1.0, instead of a decision based on the state of the game. Seeing as Squad says it's the latter, I would think they could very much change the fact that 1.0 is coming.

[tater]

I think they have made it pretty clear the next release is 1.0. I'd take that as a given, hence my suggestion they have a few "candidate" tests, or whatever they might want to call them. Explicitly make sure people know these should not be modded, as the next patch might come out the day after the last one. "Feedback" versions. If they want to hold back some stuff, they can simply use these to test aero, and any balance/bug fixes, nothing that involves new eye candy unless it's already out there (an incorporated mod, for example).

[klgraham1013]

There is however one other scenario. There are a large number of people that buy games because they are pretty. Screenshots and videos for advertising prove this. While KSP is already very pretty, there is one proven way to make the screenshots infinitely more beautiful... CLOUDS! We need clouds. They have been proven by mods, for those with lower end computers you can have an option to not load the textures at startup, we need clouds. Nothing else, while I would like a lot more beautification I do not want to push it because of the above reasons and clouds will make the largest improvement.

http://cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/36352020317209117/891F8E44F372E6956B7AED527AE3347AED9BFB01/

It's amazing how much better Kerbin looks with this one addition.

[crusader481]

So, at first you decided to end early access and release 1.0 and then you ask which things you can leave out for the next version without the community going postal because you set yourself a deadline much too tight. What could possibly go wrong, anyway. ;-)

I just have two feature requests for the next version:

-decrease the planned version number by 0.09

-get rid of that "end of early access" notion

On a more serious note as somebody who codes a line or two a day, please divide the next versions:

• currently worked on features and parts (0.91)
  
• unity 5 (0.95)
  
• bug fixes, optimizations and rebalancing (0.99)
  
• 0.99 or a slightly hotfixed version as final (1.0)
  

Each of these updates includes much work and its own challenges. Stay in early access until after the release of 0.99 to protect yourself. After 1.0, you can easily add other content.

Why:

1. Of course, versions are just arbitrary numbers, but even users who are not software developers nowadays expect the final product with version 1.0. So this will raise the expectations quite a bit.
   
2. You created a whole universe (and a quite unique fan base) out of nothing in about 3 years. So there is in my point of view absolutely no need to increase the pressure on yourself by ending early access at this point in time. Take a step back, and a step more, and still one more. Then take a look at what you have achieved. Does another quarter of a year in early access really matter that much?
   
3. You don't want a rushed release which could seriously hurt your opus and reputation in the future (for those who are interested in german games, remember the release of "Gothic 3" in 2006 - if the developers didn't do the successful games Gothic 1 and 2 before, I bet they would not be in the market anymore).
   

I know some have already said the same, I just wanted to emphasize this.

Regards, Crusader

[basic.syntax]

I think they are reading this feedback to decide what already announced features are the most important to players for 1.0, and polish those, possibly dropping something from v1.0 to v1.1, that is lower on most people's lists. I doubt any new, unannounced feature that players are asking for here, will get added.

1. Aero and related features are a huge, necessary change to the game, and my top vote for spending "quality time."

2. ISRU would be nice, but if Squad needs more time to test and refine Aero related features, I can wait until 1.1.

[GusTurbo]

As far as features go, I'm OK with resources dropping to 1.1, but aero overhaul, fairings, new landing gear, and Mk3-sized wings are all pretty important.

Fixing long-standing bugs is probably the most important thing though.

[Yakuzi]

Why oh why must the next release be called v1.0?

its not done. its not nearly done. a blind man could see that pushing KSP to v1.0 was a bad idea.

make .91 and .92 and .93 if you have to.

with out the planned features, KSP is an incomplete game.

with the nasty bugs, KSP is an incomplete game.

you've created a great thing! you have a huge dedicated fan base. Your teaching people things, making people think. don't ruin everything you have built by slapping a *DONE* sticker on it and "shipping" KSP with massive gaping holes crawling with bugs.

get modders involved for art polish. many would live to have art assets included in stock.

• aero update v.91
  
• resource update v.92 (ISRU & life support)
  
• career and contract polish v.93
  
• art polish v.94 (replace crummy models & add detail to planets)
  
• bug fix v.95
  
• release v1.0
  
• second pass bug fix v1.1
  
• mutiplayer v1.2
  

+1 This post perfectly sums up the current situation. The list above would be a great approach for option 2 posted on the previous page.

...and then, after 0.90 was released, they decided, somehow, that the next version would be 1.0. The official version. The one that will get heavily scrutinized and, for the first time, be considered a "completed game" in the public's minds.

I don't know why they did this. It seems as if there's more going on here than a mere "Okay, we've decided that KSP is good enough for sale."

That does strike me as strange, though.

Does anyone know why they seem to be rushing through the development process? (Sorry, some people might have covered this already, but I'm afflicted with a classic case of "I Should Be Writing a Paper Right Now, so I Don't Have the Time to Look.")

Have a look at this 2014 article on the birth of KSP at Squad (thanks Streetwind), which mentions that Squad founders Adrian Goya and Ezequiel Ayarza would move from the original marketing division to the KSP division sometime later in 2014 to "assume a larger role in leading KSP to bigger and broader success" (under the aptly named "Go For Launch" section). Note that Goya and Ayarza gave Felipe Falanghe (HarvesteR) the chance and starting capital to develop the game.

So maybe the reason why KSP development has experienced such an extreme change of pace and mode of operation lately is because Squad the marketing company wants Squad the game company to move on...

Edited March 17, 2015 by Yakuzi

[Seyvern]

Hey guys. Basically looking at the current feature list we need to look at our work in general and consider working on polish, bugfixing and balance in certain areas of the game instead of some of the new features we're working in. Going specific instead of going wide. We don't plan on stopping work at 1.0 at all, so we're maybe better off leaving some stuff for 1.1 and getting to work on the specifics of what can make the existing stuff in the game truly shine.

We've decided that the next release will be 1.0 because it accomplishes the goals we've set up with the development of KSP from the very beginning, my question to you is whether you'd prefer we try and add more features, or focus more on things like the aero overhaul, bugfixing and balance?

My input - first you are already adding some new features - e.g. aero overhaul, that are pretty big (fairings and resources being the others that have been mentioned). If I were you guys, i would polish these new features along with balancing the existing parts list, science list, tech progression tree, and economy system down to a 'release polish'. This is the game that the reviewers will review. Add more new stuff in v1.1.

-G

[Thnd3r]

I've been playing since December when 0.9 came out. I've logged roughly 180 hours in that amount of time. I will admit to having to Google just about everything when I first started, so for newer players to get enjoyment, I would say make sure the tutorials are up to date and easy to follow. The second thing for me is how career mode is balanced. The first thing most new players want to do is start a new career mode. Early career is super grindy, and the contract system is slightly flawed in the way that it tracks achievements. I think the first few contracts should be more generic so that if you exceed your goal of 12500M and hit 46000M, you should get points for hitting all of the goals in between. After early career mode, the game starts to get super easy to progress through the tech tree. I think I managed to finish it before leaving Kerbin's SOI.

Priority Summary: Tutorials, Career Mode Balancing.

After that's good to go, bug fixing would be my next step. Not minor bug fixing though, since you seem to be concerned with time. Focus on the game crashing bugs as those are the most frustrating, especially to new players.

Then, the new features. Aero seems to be the MOST important of these as it will affect everything else. It also seems from the dev notes I've read over the past little while that procedural fairings, ISRU, and Valentina seem the most ready to be included in a 1.0 release.

While I'd love to see a deltaV number in the VAB for new players as well as an explanation of what kind of number you might need to go somewhere, the tutorials should suffice at this point to get people up and running if they've gone through them.

Thanks again for asking us Max

[SkyRender]

From a purely release-oriented standpoint, it's best to fix what you have before you go adding in new content. From a development-oriented standpoint, those fixes are liable to break as you add new content. It's a tough line to walk, but seeing as 1.0 is a major release milestone, I'd personally say that focusing on fixing bugs and updating existing systems should be the top priority.

[Lhathron the Elf]

I'll be fine with whatever happens, but I think the best course of action would be polishing what we have now. Then whatever you need to add later you can add and then polish afterwards. But for now, make the game smoother and minimize the number of bugs. It would be better to squash them as they come out of the cracks then try to reach through the floorboards to get them or just letting more and more come out before you exterminate them.

[Caelib]

My vote would be to add polish, such as clouds, a new skybox, etc.