Jump to content

Devnote Tuesday: Optimistic Goals


SQUAD
 Share

Recommended Posts

Take your time! 1.0.5 was a super nice fix in my eyes.

Also, as a software dev I can appreciate how passion can cause overly optimistic goals. You're in good company and we understand the great lengths you're going to to make 1.1 awesome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='AbhChallenger']This is why 1.05 should not have happened at all...[/QUOTE]

1.0.5 happened because 1.1 is still so far away. Skipping 1.0.5 really wouldn't have sped up 1.1 at all. Definitely not to the point where it would be hitting at Christmas time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 1.0.5 may hold out long enough for me to make it to the next patch. Take your time :)
I know I've said it before, but even when I first started playing this game in 0.18 (i think) it was like a complete game to me, so anything new is just a bonus. Not that I don't look forward to the upgrades though. Keep up the good work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised that 1.1 has been pushed back. I thought a pre-christmas release was being a bit optimistic.

Anyway, I have a question/concern about the new contract weighting system:

At the moment, I hold off of accepting contracts, because I don't necessarily have everything I need to do them easily (due to mods) - I hope the weighting will never push them down so far that they won't appear at all! I may not be accepting them right now, but that doesn't mean I'm not doing them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm ok even if 1.1 will release in Dec 2016 and SQUAD will charge for that patch as much as for 1.0 :)
Because KSP is the best space game. Ever. Period.
I've started to play since 1.0 And I dropped all other games (including Elite Dangerous despite the fact I'm a really big fan - I've not started it once since KSP happened to me)
My 3 years old son really love to launch rockets and planes with me. Especially he loves destructive staging :) For now he can only have skills to press the spacebar and pull the flightstick, but eventually... he will play KSP me think.
I'm simply have no right words to tell what you've gave to all space|rockets|planes (boats? submarines?) fans already...
And you keep going. Even for free. Guys, you are amazing. Take all the time you need.

Anyway, I'm only preparing for my first Mun landing in my new KCT career (with TONS of parts mods, and lots of gameplay mods, total >120 mods), so I'm pretty busy in KSP for a LONG time :)
Yeah, sometimes (may be 30%) game fails to start, but it does on another try. I'm happy enough with 1.0.5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Arsonide : Why not instead of random contract, allow the player to create it's own contract with it's own objectives (parts from existing contract system). KSP would after that set a reward based on the chosen objectives, and the reputation and maybe the already don contracts. (Landing at tylo a second time would be less rewarding than the first).

I know the contract interface would need a total rework, but that could be more RP and more like existing space exploration works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still would like [I]maximum communication range[/I] to be an option in the stock game.

[quote name='Threadsinger']As for "Bob (Roverdude) implemented new mechanics that will encourage developing robust relay networks with buffs, [I][B]instead of nerfing the current mechanics[/B][/I].", I thank you for this progressive approach to new gameplay elements. Keep it simple for those who want it (as it was), reward those who want an expanded scope or greater gameplay challenge.[/QUOTE]

As far as I remember this mechanic was intended as an additional obstacle (with its own switch in the difficulty menu) for the players that wished to use it.

[quote name='SQUAD']Bob (Roverdude) implemented new mechanics that will encourage developing robust relay networks with buffs, instead of nerfing the current mechanics. A good relay system will for example allow you to return more science from instruments than is currently possible but it will require a lot more work to set up. Think of how the Curiosity rover uses the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter to send signals home, or how Philae uses Rosetta to do the same.[/QUOTE]

[SPOILER=From wikipedia for reference]
"Curiosity is equipped with significant telecommunication redundancy by several means – an X band transmitter and receiver that can communicate directly with Earth, and a UHF Electra-Lite software-defined radio for communicating with Mars orbiters. Communication with orbiters is expected to be the main path for data return to Earth, since the orbiters have both more power and larger antennas than the lander allowing for faster transmission speeds."[/SPOILER]

The way I read this, it now has been changed to something that is just "nice to have" instead, there will be no requirement for a relay system to establish contact with KSC or command probes than originally planned?

Also, does "allow you to return more science from instruments than is currently possible" mean that the maximum portion of science attainable by only transmitting experiments (instead of returning the data to KSC) will be boosted? Or will every experiment receive a bonus, an extra (> 100%) amount of science points that can be gained in total?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey devs, thanks for the update and your honesty!

I know this has been said multiple times already, but please take your time and make sure 1.1 is the best it can be! We already have a great (albeit flawed) game with 1.0.5 and I personally can see myself to do a lot of fun things with it for many months.

Make it great, take your time!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a choice between 1.1 for xmas but full of bugs, or next year and working perfectly... yeah, I'd choose the latter too. Not an easy decision, thank you devs for being candid about it and making the call early :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi devs, congrats for everything you did. You're doing a really good job so take your time.

I only have one question that really matter to me : Do you have any performances comparison to share between 1.0/1.0.5 and 1.1 ?
What about IPS gained on big bases/structures since KSP moved on unity 5 ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='SQUAD']Releasing the update with minimal testing is going to leave a lot of bugs unsolved and will ruin the experience of everyone who plays the game. As a result, we’ve decided to swallow our collective pride, drop the internal pre-Christmas release deadline and push the release for update 1.1 into 2016 meaning that 1.0.5 will have to hold you over until then. [/QUOTE]
Good decision guys! Thanks for not rushing things. Now take your time and enjoy your holidays as well. A well rested team creates better quality software ;)

[QUOTE]The antenna relay system is still being worked on: Bob (Roverdude) implemented new mechanics that will encourage developing robust relay networks with buffs, instead of nerfing the current mechanics. A good relay system will for example allow you to return more science from instruments than is currently possible but it will require a lot more work to set up. Think of how the Curiosity rover uses the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter to send signals home, or how Philae uses Rosetta to do the same. [/QUOTE]
Does this mean that the player will always retain control of the craft, regardless of whether he has a connection or not? So there is no reason anymore to set up antenna networks except for a "boost"?

[QUOTE]On the contract side of the game, Brian (Arsonide) has written a new system which he’s been looking forward to for quite some time now: instead of the current behavior where the game generates new contracts in a random way within the restraints of player progress, the game will now attach a weight to every type of contract, and use that to learn the player’s preference of contracts, making those contracts that the player prefers more likely to show up.[/QUOTE]
That's really great, but is there a toggle option for this? Or a reset button, maybe in the Debug menu or something? I can see myself clicking away some contract types, but then wishing them back later on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='razark']Wow. The community [I]can[/I] handle Squad slipping on a previously announced release date.

It's amazing what happens when you don't treat your users like children, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

To be fair I think a somewhat realistic space simulator draws in a more intelligent and patient crowd than the average empty your gun into people fest. But still this forum is a welcome change from the whine and rage I've encountered on others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pixely']To be fair I think a somewhat realistic space simulator draws in a more intelligent and patient crowd than the average empty your gun into people fest. But still this forum is a welcome change from the whine and rage I've encountered on others.[/QUOTE]

I have to agree, Rockstar delayed the PC release of GTA V not once, but twice. Their forums were full of hate and vitriol. Yet those extra months resulted in what I would call one of the best, if not the best console ports ever. A huge turnaround from GTA IV, which was regarded heavily as one of the worst at release. Their forums though, didn't seem to care that this was in their own best interest. I hoped that it might set a new precedent in game development, but alas, I fear all they heard for making the right choice was bitterness and accusation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='pslytely psycho']Yet those extra months resulted in what I would call one of the best, if not the best console ports ever.[/QUOTE]

OT-Rant:
The Best?! How bad were/are the others??
Long loading times, crazy GUI and usability etc ... and that on top of their idea to force players to go to open multiplayer sessions instead of making every feature available on private (crew/friends) servers as well - you can open these, but you miss out on many open world events, just because reasons ... (yeah, I know, to prevent from crews letting their friends win and stuff, big deal, as if GTAV was that secured against cheaters and as if you could not do this on open servers as well if you really saw a need for it ... )

Back to KSP:
So, no range limits for antennas as previously advertised in a dedicated blog post?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely understand the delay, and agree entirely with it.

But as far as contracts go, while weighted contracts are an improvement, could we possibly get something more user controlled? It would suck to do 200+ part contracts early game for funding because your broke, then get spammed with them long after you start pressing further out, and actually have cash.

Something like, "We are interested in capturing an asteroid! Will anyone fund our endeavors? You get to pick the asteroid!" Or "We plan on landing on the mun. Taking bids on stuff involving the mun."

Being able to advertise what we want to do and actually get some relevant contracts would be sweet. By contract type, body, or both.


Something i was honestly hoping strategies would introduce, not the "Meh" feature we have currently.


*Edit* after reading the rest of the thread i see the weighted contracts wont be as potentially punishing as i feared they might. But i would still appreciate some hands on control. Edited by Chyort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='KerbMav']
The way I read this, it now has been changed to something that is just "nice to have" instead, there will be no requirement for a relay system to establish contact with KSC or command probes than originally planned?

Also, does "allow you to return more science from instruments than is currently possible" mean that the maximum portion of science attainable by only transmitting experiments (instead of returning the data to KSC) will be boosted? Or will every experiment receive a bonus, an extra (> 100%) amount of science points that can be gained in total?[/QUOTE]

Telemetry is still very much a thing. You will still have to get a connection back to Kerbin to to transmit science and have full control over your probes. But now you have another incentive - better science. Currently, some experiments can only get you to 100% if you bring back data (you get *some* from transmitting, but not all). With a relay in place, you can get a lot more of that science back, to the point where (for data based experiments) it may be on par with a physical return of the experiment.

[quote name='Kobymaru']
Does this mean that the player will always retain control of the craft, regardless of whether he has a connection or not? So there is no reason anymore to set up antenna networks except for a "boost"?[/QUOTE]

Not quite. You will still need to establish a connection back to Kerbin (directly or via a relay) to enjoy 100% instantaneous control of your craft (i.e. what you have today), but now there are more reasons to have a network in place - i.e. the optimum path pushes players down the direction of 'doing the right thing'.

Usual caveat, all things subject to change based on feedback and testing during QA/EXP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='RoverDude']With a relay in place, you can get a lot more of that science back, to the point where (for data based experiments) it may be on par with a physical return of the experiment.
[/QUOTE]

Like, oh just for example, a temperature? Our labrats will no longer have to analyse the thermometer after its experienced the heat of reenrtry to gain max science for the surface temp reading of Duna?


Blessed Talos, thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<sigh>
"Releasing the update with minimal testing is going to leave a lot of bugs unsolved and will ruin the experience of everyone who plays the game." - This is what half the community was telling you guys regarding version 1.0. I'm glad you are at least willing to do that now.
Keep up the great work, the new improvements sound amazing. We'll all be eagerly awaiting to try them in 2016.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...