Devnote Tuesday: 1.2 is getting ever closer!

[Alshain]

@Mycroft I think you are misinterpreting @KSK's concern.  He is talking about interdependence of features which in his view can not exist or can only exist in a limited capacity if the feature is able to be turned off.  This interdependence in his view would presumably enrich the feature as a whole but can not reach that potential when the other features can not depend on it being enabled. 

Personally I find this to be a very broad statement.  I do believe it could be true in some cases, but it has to be taken on a case by case basis.  In the specific I do not see how the communication network or any feature that could possibly be interdependent on it would be hindered by it's being disabling.  Perhaps if he were to provide a more specific example of a potential interdependence feature that would be affect by disabling the comm system it would help to clarify his position.

 

The other argument here is a matter of development time for what fraction of players.  I do believe this should be somewhat important in development, or at least when the development takes place.  If you have a feature that will affect most players and one that will affect a small percentage, AND assuming they both meet the creators vision of the future development of the game, the one that affects more players should be higher priority.  We were having this discussion just the other day in the life support thread.  In this case you have 3 groups of people.  Those that like AntennaRange, those that like Remote Tech, and those that like no comms at all.  Any one group that is not being serviced by this development would count together with the others. 

So, in this case the antenna system is more like a slightly more complicated antenna range.  It's definitely not a perfect match, but I have a feeling anyone who likes AntennaRange and not RT will most likely enjoy this stock implementation.  However, it's not going to be enough for RT users, and of course people who don't like the comms at all.  So without knowing the exact numbers you have a rough estimation that 33% will use and enjoy this feature while 33% will turn it off and use nothing and 33% will turn it off and use RT.  They are developing for 33%, that number seems low but in context that isn't so bad at all, in fact it's pretty good.  This of course does include some conjecture, it could be so different that a large number AntennaRange users will persist, which will drop that percentage to 25%.  It's not a perfect science but it still has to be considered, and it certainly is not the only factor... as mentioned sometimes the vision of the creator trumps all.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Alshain

[tater]

Toggles can be complicated. Take career. I think the concept and balance of career as it stands is sort of predicated on the player never using revert or a quick save as a "do over." Ever.

As soon as you "allow" that, your chances of ever having a failure are basically zero.

I only ever revert at the pad when I forgot to put the right crew on, notice I forgot something during a redesign, etc. I only use quick saves (when I remember to make any) in career play as kraken insurance.

The on/off nature of them is troublesome as a difficulty modifier given the kraken, etc. I would prefer a finite number of each allowed per career year, perhaps, then the diff level "toggle" has different numbers. As-is would be "Easy," 3 (?) per year for "Normal," and perhaps only 1 for "Hard."

Other features can also have toggles, and similarly at different levels, I suppose, and that would not mean the features were bad---though I'd tend to include all the features on "Normal" play, and require "Easy" for turning anything off.

[KSK]

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

@Mycroft I think you are misinterpreting @KSK's concern.  He is talking about interdependence of features which in his view can not exist or can only exist in a limited capacity if the feature is able to be turned off.  This interdependence in his view would presumably enrich the feature as a whole but can not reach that potential when the other features can not depend on it being enabled. 

Personally I find this to be a very broad statement.  I do believe it could be true in some cases, but it has to be taken on a case by case basis.  In the specific I do not see how the communication network or any feature that could possibly be interdependent on it would be hindered by it's being disabling.  Perhaps if he were to provide a more specific example of a potential interdependence feature that would be affect by disabling the comm system it would help to clarify his position.

Thank you @Alshain - that was exactly my concern. And yes, it is a very broad statement. As was @Streetwind's rather vehement assertion that "Having the ability to toggle game elements via the difficulty panel is a feature, an advantage, a boon to every player. It has literally no downside whatsoever. Misconstruing that into a negative aspect IMHO takes active intent to be as misleading and disingenious as possible." Which I believe to be wrong for the reasons stated.

@Mycroft, you'll notice that I was careful to keep my comments general and in fact stated from the outset: "Important note - this is directed at computer games as a whole and not necessarily at KSP." I fail to see how that can be construed as 'badmouthing the devs'. As for your comments on sandbox, given that I didn't mention Sandbox (or indeed any particular features of KSP at all), they remain unfounded speculation. But thank you for putting words in my mouth.

Edited September 8, 2016 by KSK

[Vanamonde]

Rather than arguing about whether or not optional game content is evil, how about talking about the stuff that *is* in the game? 

[KerbMav]

I sense a serious lack of chocolate in some peoples' lives.

[Mycroft]

@Vanamonde, can you please close this topic? I believe that the debate is getting too emotional and wayyyyyy off topic. I'm watching the overall positive, super nice, humorous feel of the forums just go out the window with some of the recent posts.

@KerbMav, I couldn't agree more! In fact, I'm gonna go get some.... 

I wonder if Jeb likes chocolate...  

Edited September 8, 2016 by Mycroft
Grammar. Oopsie.

[Pthigrivi]

Or we could just chill out a bit and not get so worked up about armchair game development. 

[Vanamonde]

I will not close the thread, but I will glare at it sternly. 

[Terwin]

So, anyone else excited about the re-worked biomes?

It sounded like Lathe at the very least now has more than the 5 indicated by the Wiki.

 

Anyone else excited about the improvements in the intercept tracking?

I know I have had a few problems with that of late(Missions where I had to set the alarm on the intercept so I could then set up my capture burn from inside the SOI as the shaky intercept would not let me create it before hand.  This even forced me to re-direct a Moho mission to Eve for refueling(once a refuler gets there as it did not have enough dv to get to Gilly where it could self-fuel), because I did not have enough fuel to capture at Moho, and did not realize it until I was inside the SOI)

[Alshain]

3 minutes ago, Terwin said:

So, anyone else excited about the re-worked biomes?

I'm hoping for a few on Duna.  There are plenty of geological oddities that should be biomes there, like the canyon.  Not to mention the nearly impossible to find Duna Craters which isn't craters.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Alshain

[Superfluous J]

45 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Anyone else excited about the improvements in the intercept tracking?

It's what I'm most looking forward to, as it's the thing I've bumped into the most over the years.

[KerbMav]

6 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

It's what I'm most looking forward to, as it's the thing I've bumped into the most over the years.

I actually had more trouble with orbits being unclickable for setting maneuver nodes.

[Bandus]

I'm excited for the new patch. I didn't use RemoteTech, but I'm still eager to give KerbNet a shot! I'm also very eager for wheels to be fixed!

On the other hand, I also worry about future dev notes. The way I see it, dev notes from Squad are a luxury we receive and not an obligation on Squad's part. One can't help but wonder if it'll hit the point where Squad stops posting dev blogs due to overhead costs of people seemingly slicing and dicing every word and their possible contextual meaning, then over analyzing them until the thread becomes unrecognizable.

[Superfluous J]

46 minutes ago, KerbMav said:

I actually had more trouble with orbits being unclickable for setting maneuver nodes.

Probably here too, but you find out about that before it's a problem. Time warping to your Minmus intercept and suddenly flying out of Kerbin's SOI due to a Mun encounter is NOT the time to realize you've not hit F5 since the last mission.

32 minutes ago, Bandus said:

slicing and dicing every word

OMG this means cooking will be in 1.2! Chef Jeb! I'm going to be SO MAD if they botch this one.

[Alshain]

I'm looking forward to the maneuver enhancements as well.  I mentioned the biomes earlier.  I'll probably never use the advanced tweakables, I don't use the console we have now, though I may test re-entry on planes with the new HyperEdit like tool.  I'll probably give the Com system a go in my first career game, but I am a pretty big fan of RemoteTech, so I don't know for how long.  I honestly can't see the difference in the VAB/SPH internals... I'm not sure what that is all about.  Of course the thing I want most is Unity 5.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Alshain

[Padishar]

10 hours ago, Bandus said:

On the other hand, I also worry about future dev notes. The way I see it, dev notes from Squad are a luxury we receive and not an obligation on Squad's part. One can't help but wonder if it'll hit the point where Squad stops posting dev blogs due to overhead costs of people seemingly slicing and dicing every word and their possible contextual meaning, then over analyzing them until the thread becomes unrecognizable.

I don't recall a single devnote thread that didn't have an aspect of this about it and they haven't stopped doing them yet...

[Wallygator]

I don't know whether to be excited or not regarding this update. It's hard to get a grip exactly what is in or out. 

I'm not a modder, so I'm unclear what bits I'll get at release and what bits I'll get trickled down via mods. 

Squad opened this most recent can of ugly so they might best consider clearing it up with a good clear concise clarification minus any snark.

Or not. It's their right and privilege to use a communication channel to communicate unclearly.

I remain optimistic (really!) about the potential and capability of this newly formed Dev team, but in regards to their ability to clearly communicate.. not so much at the moment. 

[smotheredrun]

Wow.  Big jump in topics between page 1 and page 7.  Haha.  Looks as if the passion we fans have is strong.

I do get a kick over the fact that I believe I have just finished upgrading my mods to 1.1.3, and now there will be another new release.  Oh well that is life and this is a game, and a great one at that.  Sooo... I will happily look forward to this update; if for no other reason than to see if the landing gear "issue" has been fixed*...

Coffee break over as stain is now dry.  Great work as always Devs.  

 

* My poor landing ability  (great ability to create Rapid Unplanned Disassembly Upon Touchdown)  may also be a factor in my post runway impact spin outs.  Further testing (Kerbal sacrifices) required.

[Bandus]

7 hours ago, Padishar said:

I don't recall a single devnote thread that didn't have an aspect of this about it and they haven't stopped doing them yet...

That's basically my point. If they are always so contentious and cause more problems then they solve, it would only be a matter of time before someone asks: "Why are we doing these?"

[Temeter]

1 minute ago, Bandus said:

That's basically my point. If they are always so contentious and cause more problems then they solve, it would only be a matter of time before someone asks: "Why are we doing these?"

What problem do they cause? People read them, can follow the development process closer and are happy to get news.

Imagine we didn't have these and would need to wait 4 month for an update, as with many other indie games? I think the community would've lost interest a lot faster. Yeah, sometimes we squabble about them, some people overdoe it a bit, but at least they are doing it out of passion for the game, and not for trolling.

[regex]

20 hours ago, Bandus said:

On the other hand, I also worry about future dev notes. The way I see it, dev notes from Squad are a luxury we receive and not an obligation on Squad's part. One can't help but wonder if it'll hit the point where Squad stops posting dev blogs due to overhead costs of people seemingly slicing and dicing every word and their possible contextual meaning, then over analyzing them until the thread becomes unrecognizable.

This is a damn sight better than what we had before about 0.90, where the devs wouldn't say anything at all about what was going on, or just drop vague hints of something and never mention it again until a release happened. Nowadays they are clearly trying to communicate with the fanbase, offering detail. So what you're seeing is small potatoes.

Edited September 9, 2016 by regex

[Bandus]

3 hours ago, Temeter said:

What problem do they cause? People read them, can follow the development process closer and are happy to get news.

Imagine we didn't have these and would need to wait 4 month for an update, as with many other indie games? I think the community would've lost interest a lot faster. Yeah, sometimes we squabble about them, some people overdoe it a bit, but at least they are doing it out of passion for the game, and not for trolling.

 

44 minutes ago, regex said:

This is a damn sight better than what we had before about 0.90, where the devs wouldn't say anything at all about what was going on, or just drop vague hints of something and never mention it again until a release happened. Nowadays they are clearly trying to communicate with the fanbase, offering detail. So what you're seeing is small potatoes.

I'm not sure I'm communicating it well. I'm not saying that I am opposed to dev notes. I like them and read them regularly, for sure. However, more and more often (as can be evidenced by earlier posts in this very thread) it seems as though they cause conflict and people end up getting aggressive towards Squad for "not being clear enough" or "being too vague" or "not including information about X feature." 

My point simply is I appreciate the dev notes and don't want to see them go away. However, I wouldn't blame Squad if they decided to stop, considering it has to be frustrating to constantly get aggressive push back when they try to provide information and communicate. I mean, constructive feedback on how communication is happening is one thing. But in several cases, that isn't what was happening.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Bandus

[Wallygator]

My fingers want to complain further about the tone and context of this dev note, but my brain has control at the moment and is preventing me.  This is a good thing.

[Temeter]

48 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

My fingers want to complain further about the tone and context of this dev note, but my brain has control at the moment and is preventing me.  This is a good thing.

Restraint is a virtue, and I'm sure constructive criticism would be just fine.

And see the positive side: We'll get a beta patch anyway, you'll get your hands onto it 'prerelease', and if you don't care about it, at least all changes documented by nice forum goers.

[Wallygator]

2 minutes ago, Temeter said:

I'm sure constructive criticism would be just fine.

OK then unleash the hounds...

The salient points of the dev note are as follows (in my perception):

1) 1.2 is in experimentals (although this was covered in a separate announcement so it is not really news)

2) typical last minute stuff added - reminders about who does what (not really news)

3) Patcher work STILL underway- no guarantees...

4) Fixed long standing biome issue (News! because there are likely a few new biomes)

5) Still working on new kerb net features (Assume it was finished prior to experimentals lockdown? but this is not explicitly stated. so is it news?)

6) Patched conics bug fix work (Again, was this completed prior to lockdown?)

7) Kerbnet, Quality of Life improvements (not fully specified) and a targeting bug fix. (News! - but same again, was it included in lockdown?)

8) Console work underway (non specific) ("We won't stop until THESE ports are perfect..." Yea,right... don't make promises you can't keep boys)

9) The"Exciting News" is that the parts we might have been expecting will not be included in 1.2.  Also, Chris was working on them "previously", which intimates that he is not working on them now.  Also, we can add them to our "creative inventory" (What the heck is that?). "3D assets" means they are models only? Guess so. Why is this exciting news for us all?  I'm having an Orwellian moment...

10) some stuff about streaming 

11) a poem

12) the many channels you must follow

13) 36 likes

After reading it all I let my head fall back and sighed.  I felt that these notes (most of them lately to be honest) are written by a comms person with no real understanding of dev activities but rather parroting what is passed on by Devs - watered down, de-specified, over-hyped, with that last lovely Orwellian hyperbole to create opposite meaning that sent me over the edge.

You've lost me guys. seriously.