If You are not...

[RayneCloud]

An Engineer

An Aerospace Engineer

A Game Designer

A Programmer

Or a developer of your own game or project...

You have no right to speak about this update from those perspectives. NONE. You do however have a right to give constructive, logical, calm, and THOUGHT OUT feedback to the team based on your "feelings" and "Personal Experience" with the update. If you say "aero model is broken!" and you're not an actual aerospace engineer? You have no clue what you're talking about. Period. Instead, you should say that it "feels" broken to "you" and stop making all these over arching statements lumping people in with you as though everyone MUST agree with your assessment. Spaceplanes feel broken? Maybe that's because you were used to an aero system that..well...was crap and you can't "cheaty plane" your way to orbit without some thought anymore. Heating feels broken? Turn on the thermal overlay and thermal data in action menus and study the data like the rest of us so that you can give honest and thought out feedback to the devs...such as..

"Cub Octag struts seem to be acting as heat insulators and while they seem not to increase the overall thermal mass of the part they are attached to, they seem to assist that part with absorbing and radiating heat" Maybe this was intended, maybe it wasn't. But it's feedback that doesn't have a single bit of "I am engineer, I know more than squad, squad sucks!" in it. Oh and if you provide some screenshots? Well boy howdy...now you're talking their language. So hows about we all calm down, and give them actual empirical data they can use to fix things that are ACTUALLY broken, instead of spending time telling them what we THINK is broken yeah?

[Tweety]

Agreed...seems so simple, yet also appears to be illogical to many, many people.

Tweety

[harbingerdawn]

If you say "aero model is broken!" and you're not an actual aerospace engineer? You have no clue what you're talking about.

If you use words and you're not an actual linguist? You have no clue what you're talking about.

Edited April 29, 2015 by harbingerdawn
forgot quote

[RayneCloud]

If you use words and you're not an actual linguist? You have no clue what you're talking about.

Nice, so you're going to use your 7th post to be a troll. Good job.

[Linear]

Hi I count for 2 of those, would say 3 but I don't think it constitutes as a 'game'.

Anything I shout about is with reason. Just want to be off of your little list you got going here.

[pandaman]

Good point, well said. Have some rep!

[Linear]

Nice, so you're going to use your 7th post to be a troll. Good job.

That was uncalled for. He pointed out a good flaw in your argument, the math behind said system is actually not too difficult for many and they don't need to be an engineer to understand it - a long way infact.

[harbingerdawn]

Nice, so you're going to use your 7th post to be a troll. Good job.

I'm not trolling, I'm highlighting a glaring flaw in your logic. It is not necessary to be a professional at something to have a sufficient understanding of it to offer a critique. I'm not a chef, but I can tell when food is burned or meat is undercooked. And the reason I only have 7 (now 8) posts on this forum is precisely because of things like this.

[Frybert]

This will end well.

[NovaSilisko]

I agree, with reservations. I don't think not being one of those roles should invalidate feedback entirely, given that makes up the extreme majority of players. It's of course equally unhealthy to take suggestions from the masses at 1:1 face value but there's a balance to be found.

Certainly more people need to learn how to be constructive though, and conversely, many need to acknowledge that complaining/criticising does not mean that you "hate the game" (even when done in a polite way). I think on the whole (there are always exceptions) everyone just wants the game to be all it can be - engineers, developers, or otherwise.

As an aside, some things that are "wrong" are hard to quantify with data. It's certainly possible for something to "feel" wrong - for example the wobbly camera - without there being direct information explaining why.

Edited April 29, 2015 by NovaSilisko

[Daze]

... and give them actual empirical data they can use to fix things that are ACTUALLY broken, instead of spending time telling them what we THINK is broken yeah?

This

/10char

[Sandworm]

"An Engineer

An Aerospace Engineer

A Game Designer

A Programmer

Or a developer of your own game or project..."

That's a pretty narrow list. There are plenty of people deeply ingrained in game/software development who do not fit those categories. Security architects, modelers, legal (me) ... Squad's errors are not confined to coding. I take issue with squad's development process. The bugs are just a symptom, a symptom I've seen with clients from social media to security software. Those sort of issues are beyond a bug bashing release. They require an alteration in mindset that does not necessarily impact individual coders or engineers. You don't need to be a coder to recognize mismanagement. In fact a focus on coding or design probably makes spotting it all the more difficult.

[Starwhip]

I believe I qualify for four out of five of those things, and am hopefully going to be an Aerospace engineer in the future, but I completely agree that even if something in the game goes against your opinion, it is wise and respectful to voice your concerns with constructive criticisms instead of ranting about it.

[m4inbrain]

Nice, so you're going to use your 7th post to be a troll. Good job.

He's right though. Some things a broken and i don't need to be an engineer to know that. If a single small parachute is enough to decelerate my 10 ton craft at 35g from 2000m/s to 200m/s, with nothing bad happening, i know something's broken.

Or, nice example which i can actually prove (by uploading the craft if needed), i'm trying a new SSTO design, which admittedly failed just 20 minutes ago - it stalled, so far so good. It fell towards the ground at roughly 40m/s. All the way from 40km to the ground. The craft at that point had to weigh roughly 40 tons (half fuel, 80odd tons to start with). Wanna go and ask an engineer if that's "normal", or would you agree that that is definately not what is supposed to happen?

[EtherDragon]

If you use words and you're not an actual linguist? You have no clue what you're talking about.

See Straw Man, informal falacy

[Tex]

With respect, OP, I feel that this is sort of going around the point. All the feedback I've seen is purely from a gameplay perspective, one of a gamer, of course not by an actual engineer or what have you. Granted, we've likely seen different feedback, but I'm going off of what I've seen. And what I've seen is people talking and discussion amongst themselves what has changed in 1.0, and there has been a fantastic response from users about how to work around these problems. This feedback process, the one you're attempting to defend SQUAD for, is all a part of the learning process of Kerbal Space Program. I've already learned tons from threads here, and I hope I can continue to do so. It doesn't matter if someone's a game developer, an engineer, or just some average joe with a computer. Every bit of feedback is useful information, slamming on the part of SQUAD or not.

I happen to adore the game, and play it every single day. I know that it may seem as if people are just complaining, but in my opinion, and this is something I feel strongly about, they're simply trying to learn. Unless they actually make good on their threats to stop playing (which, by the way, I haven't seen any such threats) due to the problems, then it is wonderful to assume that responses from fellow players and forumgoers have helped them how to understand the problem, fix it, and move on.

It's just a learning wall people are smacking into, that's all.

[Robotengineer]

While I agree with the general sentiment of the OP, I think that making a blanket statement of if you aren't X, then your opinion doesn't matter is wrong. I am not a professional software developer, but I know enough from books and experience that debuggers and testers are supposed to try and break the game, not just play it. I know that it makes no sense to test a part that is anchored to the launchpad on the Mun, yet I'm not an engineer. I know that parachutes don't instantly stop your craft in real life, yet I didn't write a thesis on the behavior of supersonic parachutes. You don't have to be an 'expert' to know and voice your opinions on some very basic concepts in any given field.

[riles]

Of course it will, From this point on we will not talk about the original issue of people offering feedback on the new update and that's OK!

[RayneCloud]

The list is not "all inclusive" as should be obvious to everyone. This was about making a point, that people need to give them data they can USE to fix real problems and not perceived problems.

[WinkAllKerb'']

when your on top of the K2 you can stay there and wait the next climber, or you can go down and watch thoose attempting to climb, or you can go do something else also ; )

i think right now i'm going to click on the "post a quick reply button" who know what everyone is going to do after that ; )

[harbingerdawn]

See Straw Man, informal falacy

I don't think it is a straw man, it seems a reasonable comparison to me. If you think otherwise, please explain.

[Tex]

The last is not "all inclusive" as should be obvious to everyone. This was about making a point, that people need to give them data they can USE to fix real problems and not perceived problems.

I am of the opinion that SQUAD does glean a whole bunch of useful information from our discussions. I mean, they fix more and more stuff with every update

[Robotengineer]

This was about making a point, that people need to give them data they can USE to fix real problems and not perceived problems.

I think everybody agrees that we should give real data they can use. It's the way you go about making your point that riles people.

[RayneCloud]

They do, agreed. But more people need to go the proper direction with feedback. Feedback is videos, screenshots, showing broken CFGs, giving them math and data that can actually be looked at. "space planes is broke yo, rage!" is not feedback, at all. Regardless, I've said my peace and gotten it off my chest what I wanted to say. Take it or leave it. Think what you will.

[KatzOhki]

I have noticed a lot of wording being tossed around like "broken," "needs to be fixed" and "when they fix it." Particularly with respect to things that could definitely be intended function. (e.g. "Rockets are broken because I can't turn 45° at 10km anymore" or "aero is broken because my 0.90 and pre SSTO doesn't work anymore") I think a BIG part of the problem is that this update was such a major one that things have changed in huge huge ways compared to almost any previous update. There definitely are some assumptions being thrown around with how things are supposed to work.

OP's post is a little rant-y perhaps, but yeah there's a lot more use of wording like "broken" and "fix" and a lot less use of wording like "I don't like" or "doesn't feel right."