Devnotes Tuesday: Two sprints down, one to go!

[m4v]

28 minutes ago, regex said:

No, I don't agree.  We need more planets.

I would rather support more distinct geological features and stuff to do in the surface of current planets, than add more of the same bland plastic looking worlds, where you visit one place and you have seen the whole thing.

[regex]

1 minute ago, m4v said:

I would rather support more distinct geological features and stuff to do in the surface of current planets, than add more of the same bland plastic looking worlds, where you visit one place and you have seen the whole thing.

I'd rather have more interesting things to do in space than trying to find random geological features that will wow me for a second before I move on to more interesting things to do in space.  vOv

[Alshain]

Why not both?

[Majorjim!]

7 minutes ago, regex said:

Nah, this argument has been going on forever.  "I think we can all agree" is what I took issue with because clearly we don't all agree.

I stand corrected. 

[HafCoJoe]

7 minutes ago, regex said:

Nah, this argument has been going on forever.  "I think we can all agree" is what I took issue with because clearly we don't all agree.

Aaaand thus an old rivaly has been uncovered?

[m4v]

5 minutes ago, regex said:

I'd rather have more interesting things to do in space than trying to find random geological features that will wow me for a second before I move on to more interesting things to do in space.  vOv

What you can do in the space and what can do in the surface aren't decoupled activities, there's a feedback between them, simply because space exploration is meaningless without a meaningful planet to explore. At this point adding another planet is just a different orbit to reach, more of the same and nothing new.

[regex]

5 minutes ago, m4v said:

What you can do in the space and what can do in the surface aren't decoupled activities, there's a feedback between them, simply because space exploration is meaningless without a meaningful planet to explore. At this point adding another planet is just a different orbit to reach, more of the same and nothing new.

And adding more surface features is just more of the same and nothing new as well.  Not sure what you're getting at...

8 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Why not both?

I don't care, really, but new planets are sorely needed.

[Majorjim!]

20 minutes ago, regex said:

And adding more surface features is just more of the same and nothing new as well.  Not sure what you're getting at...

I don't care, really, but new planets are sorely needed.

Agreed new planets would be great but I would also like to see higher resolution height maps. The old Duna was far better.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Majorjim!

[katateochi]

13 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

Agreed new planets would be great but I would also like to see higher resolution height maps. The old Duna was far better.

very much this. I feel a little sad when I go to Duna since it was assaulted by a cosmic steam roller. 

[The_Rocketeer]

New planets (well, the rest of them at least) +1
New and more interesting features and locations on existing planets +1 also

I think what @regex and @Majorjim! where you do in fact agree, and where nearly all players would agree, is that KSP eventually just needs more places to visit. Whether they're on existing planets or brand new orbital bodies makes little difference.

I get the sense that the idea of 'stock KSP' is really already very much a thing of the past. With options to toggle many features on or off in the settings menu or in tweakables, the old concept of the stock game is in reality just one combination of a vast number of possible variables within the core software. Indeed, this has been the case for much longer than we generally realise - many KSP features, such as the rewards and penalties system for one, have been fully configurable for a long time, and are in effect lite-mods, tweaking the game to a unique, tailored experience. 'Stock KSP' is in fact becoming a pick'n'mix of chosen features, functions and difficulty sliders - what you get when you start the game is like an 'approved mods list' from which you make your selection - 'feature on, feature off' - before the game starts. Granted there is still a default setting, but 'stock-default' and 'plain stock' are very different, conceptually speaking.

In other words, the core game is becoming a microcosm of the community mod library - it's the selection of options, rather than the lack of them, that now defines the core game experience.

Edited August 3, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[Curveball Anders]

50 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

where nearly all players would agree

Be very careful using such words.

We as forum using fans tends to build our picture of 'users' on other people posting on forums.

But we are a small fraction of the actual users of the game.

Squad has a much better view of their users, but they are not going to share their data since that's vital business information.

(It's also one reason why Squad employees tend to answer 'ho hum' or 'it depends', when the 'we the users'-meme is activated).

[The_Rocketeer]

Of course, I'm expressing opinion only - if I were attempting to impersonate fact I would create a wiki page .

However, I sincerely doubt there are many, if any, KSP players who would turn down more quantity or quality of explorable environmental features. What reason could they possibly have for doing so, most of all if they were optional/toggleable features?

[Curveball Anders]

22 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

However, I sincerely doubt there are many, if any, KSP players who would turn down more quantity or quality of explorable environmental features. What reason could they possibly have for doing so, most of all if they were optional/toggleable features?

The issue is closely related to the jaw dropping behaviour reflected in the latest Dev updates.

Minimal new shiny stuff, almost all resources pooled into going though the back-pack, fix old sins and making already good things better,

Because every time you add a new feature to a piece of software, optional or not, you add stuff to the back-pack.

Stuff added to the list of things that will need to be kept up to date.

Adding a new gadget, planet, biome or even a new tweakable means that it also needs to be kept up to date, adding to the back-pack.

So while 'everyone' (at least me) want new shiny stuff to play with, I also want the stuff I have to work even better, and that new stuff is also kept in shape when newer shiny stuff is added.

(I'm also bloody happy that I'm not the producer (or whatever) who has to walk that line.)

Edited August 3, 2016 by Curveball Anders
gramar

[The_Rocketeer]

7 minutes ago, Curveball Anders said:

The issue is closely related to the jaw dropping behaviour reflected in the latest Dev updates.

Ah, you see I view 'finishing' (in the sense of artisanship; creating a fine finish) currently existing features and future features as a given - part of the reciprocity of my investment in the KSP product's development. The quality of worksmanship in the product overall is a point of the integrity of the producer. This is like a producer of oranges, whose oranges should always be of the same high standard even if he does start selling orange juice, apples or fruit-flavoured shower-gel as well - his reputation depends on creating all or any of those things to the same degree of quality and working always to improve them regardless of how many additional products he grows to produce. A defective product could destroy his entire brand, so it is in his own interests to refine and improve all of them. KSP is the brand, features are the products, and our producer is the dev team. However many new features they produce, I believe it is in the dev team's own interests to refine and improve them to the same high standard - an ongoing process I am happy to say has already yielded considerable improvements in the years I have been playing their game.

Edited August 3, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[Curveball Anders]

1 minute ago, The_Rocketeer said:

 This is like a producer of oranges, whose oranges should always be of the same high standard even if he does start selling orange juice, apples or fruit-flavoured shower-gel as well - his reputation depends on creating all or any of those things to the same degree of quality and working always to improve them regardless of how many additional products he grows to produce. A defective product could destroy his entire brand, so it is in his own interests to refine and improve all of them.

Exactly.

Where software once was fire and forget, it has become much more like your oranges.

The farmer needs to balance resources between maintaining all the goods/services provided and adding new ones. While being aware that every new one is added to the list of goods/services provided and also needs to be maintained.

It's very common to see producers high on getting media attention pumping out new sparkly orange shampoo, while not spending needed time back on the farm, tending the actual oranges.

[The_Rocketeer]

2 minutes ago, Curveball Anders said:

It's very common to see producers high on getting media attention pumping out new sparkly orange shampoo, while not spending needed time back on the farm, tending the actual oranges.

Perhaps, but oranges just don't deal with the dandruff.

But seriously, if the producer devotes all his time to his oranges alone, he might discover that people don't care how good they are - they're just not cheeseburgers.

Wow, that was so deep I think I literally touched bottom.

Edit: I feel a need to bring this back to point lest someone think this just a wild off-topic nonsensical tirade, but actually I think it is all relevant - the devnotes reflect the direction KSP is taking, and the metaphor here is demonstrative of the potential pitfalls. Colourful perhaps, but still pertinent (I hope).

Edited August 3, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[Curveball Anders]

2 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

But seriously, if the producer devotes all his time to his oranges alone, he might discover that people don't care how good they are - they're just not cheeseburgers.

That's why I pointed out the need for balance between maintenance and invention

Getting it wrong and you end up with a great orchard that no one knows about, or a one time hip shampoo and a bunch of rotting trees.

[Superfluous J]

8 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

Do you know if it will apply auto strutting between vessels that dock? That could be very helpful indeed. Aside from that and also given that it does not enhance part joints and struts will still be needed I see very little use for such a mechanic.

PleaseSayYesPleaseSayYesPleaseSayYesPleaseSayYes

7 hours ago, Claw said:

It will only autostrut if you told it to autostrut. By that, I mean if you had a part autostrut to the "heaviest part," then docked to a vessel that has a heavier part, then the autostrut would move the joint. If you did not have an autostrut active, then it will not autostrut.

YES. That is good enough for me.

3 hours ago, Alshain said:

I know, but that was just strange the way he said that.  I didn't think it would affect RemoteTech until just now.

As the maker of the stock feature in question, I suspect he was speaking for himself.

"I made this great new thing!"
"Great, as long as your new piece of garbage doesn't break my pristine thing."
"But... It's really cool."
"Shut it. Unless I never ever have to see it, it's garbage forever."

[Astrofox]

Aw man, Whack-A-Kerbal has been renamed to Object Thrower?!

But @Mr. Fusion loves his Whack-A-Kerbal!

We must have it changed back, otherwise the Kraken will doom us all!

[cfds]

5 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

"I made this great new thing!"
"Great, as long as your new piece of garbage doesn't break my pristine thing."
"But... It's really cool."
"Shut it. Unless I never ever have to see it, it's garbage forever."

Not my exact words, but my fear is that the same happens as with the fairings: Something is implemented that is literally worse than every alternative that already exists in the modding community.

On the other hand, RoverDudes last big project resulted in a highly flexible framework for resource extraction and transformation so not all hope is lost, yet. 1.2.4 will answer these questions, I guess.

[Alshain]

6 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

As the maker of the stock feature in question, I suspect he was speaking for himself.

"I made this great new thing!"
"Great, as long as your new piece of garbage doesn't break my pristine thing."
"But... It's really cool."
"Shut it. Unless I never ever have to see it, it's garbage forever."

I never said anything like that.  I'm very interested in the new system... but I also like RemoteTech.  I have no doubt I'll be using both depending on the mood I'm in when I start a new career.

[RA3236]

Has anyone else noticed that you can give the Veteran attribute to the Kerbals in that picture?

[Alshain]

3 minutes ago, RA3236 said:

Has anyone else noticed that you can give the Veteran attribute to the Kerbals in that picture?

I saw it, wasn't sure if that was something new or something I didn't know existed.

[WhereAmI]

17 hours ago, Claw said:

It will only autostrut if you told it to autostrut. By that, I mean if you had a part autostrut to the "heaviest part," then docked to a vessel that has a heavier part, then the autostrut would move the joint. If you did not have an autostrut active, then it will not autostrut.

I personally think auto strutting between vessels that dock (or auto strutting between two connected docking ports) is a very good idea because vanilla docking ports do not provide strong enough connection. As the result, they shrink under load and that just look weird.

[Gasofidas]

16 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Also - there's a clear difference between 'something new to do' and 'a point on the globe you will probably never visit because it's a pain to get to, and you will likely only ever go there once - maybe twice'.

Related to this, I want to explain my take related to encourage "stuff to do" and "places to go" just one (more) idea.

It would be some (not all) career (hard mode?) tech nodes locked by some experiment(s), which are needed to be done on a specific set of places (meaning tempereture+bio-sample+whatever that can be done on X biome(s) on Kerbin or X on Mun or X on wherever, a set of places not just an unique place to let the player have choices in where to get them).

I think something like that would encourage exploring (all) the planets an their diversity and also set some kind of milestones, so it is not about just farming the Kerbin system to unlock all the tech tree and then "consider the save complete".

PD: could be also done with for example "a special contract" that will award you with just one part you haven't unlocked yet instead of a full tech node, so it is optional but also a nice contract to fulfill if you want that part.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Gasofidas