KSP Weekly: Thrusting into the future

[StarStreak2109]

8 hours ago, nestor said:

Don’t take it too literal. We are open for feedback. If that wasn’t the case it would be easier not to show the parts until the release. The whole team is reading your comments every week but at the same time it’s impossible to please everyone. 

Thanks for sharing that. I think we all appreciate that it is virtually impossible to find a solution that pleases everyone. There will always be some special interests that one cannot satisfy along with the odd trouble maker that pours out salt just for the sake of general saltiness (is that even a word?).

I believe it will be a good thing if it can be shown to the forum how the community feedback has resulted in an improvement, you know, just to raise morale a bit.

Finally, if I may add to @JadeOfMaar's post, I'd also suggest you devote some time in the next KSP Weekly to share some insight about how things will progress concerning the console versions. I have the impression there are some seriously disgruntled clients of yours, who feel abandoned, because literally there is no info on how their issues are being dealt with.

Again, I have expressed some doubts about KSP's future, as based on my recent observations here in the forums, I would be extremely happy to be proven wrong. Especially since I am still enjoying KSP on an almost daily basis!

[Redneck]

4 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said:

Finally, if I may add to @JadeOfMaar's post, I'd also suggest you devote some time in the next KSP Weekly to share some insight about how things will progress concerning the console versions. I have the impression there are some seriously disgruntled clients of yours, who feel abandoned, because literally there is no info on how their issues are being dealt with.

Again, I have expressed some doubts about KSP's future, as based on my recent observations here in the forums, I would be extremely happy to be proven wrong. Especially since I am still enjoying KSP on an almost daily basis!

Well had they have listened to us back in the day (some things never change) they would not be in this predicament. There would have been no console version in the first place. We were against console version mainly because we said it would slow down PC development. Did it? Did they delay pc updates waiting for console development to catch up? Would they have all these disgruntled console players right now? It would be a non issue because it never would of happened in the first place correct? And the consoles are still having issues. I mean what do you expect? Great Joy? Oh and don't even get me started on the offering of KSP plushies...that hit a nerve there.

[StarStreak2109]

2 minutes ago, Redneck said:

Well had they have listened to us back in the day (some things never change) they would not be in this predicament. There would have been no console version in the first place. We were against console version mainly because we said it would slow down PC development. Did it? Did they delay pc updates waiting for console development to catch up? Would they have all these disgruntled console players right now? It would be a non issue because it never would of happened in the first place correct? And the consoles are still having issues. I mean what do you expect? Great Joy? Oh and don't even get me started on the offering of KSP plushies...that hit a nerve there.

TBH, I never fully understood the need for KSP on consoles - from purely technical points of view due to the limited input features as well as technical limits of consoles. I could never imagine building a rocket with an XBox controller. Same I never could imagine playing Cities Skylines on an XBox. I can understand the business decision - creating a bigger clientele.

Well the decision surely has bitten them in the backside, but is now irrevocable. And that part of the forum user base is going to continue to pour salt in liberal quantities, so something has to be done about that.

I don't know anything about the plushies, I never interested myself in those.

[Redneck]

Just now, StarStreak2109 said:

TBH, I never fully understood the need for KSP on consoles - from purely technical points of view due to the limited input features as well as technical limits of consoles. I could never imagine building a rocket with an XBox controller. Same I never could imagine playing Cities Skylines on an XBox. I can understand the business decision - creating a bigger clientele.

Well the decision surely has bitten them in the backside, but is now irrevocable. And that part of the forum user base is going to continue to pour salt in liberal quantities, so something has to be done about that.

I don't know anything about the plushies, I never interested myself in those.

I never understood the need for them either but they did it anyways. And like you said, more elegantly than i would have, the almighty dollar played a roll. Im not a console player but I totally feel and understand their pain. How many early access games have you bought on steam for example that never got fixed or had bugs. You dont like it because, well, you spent money on it right? And you wait and you wait hoping then a update comes out and it still isnt right so you wait some more. Will your next post on their forums be full of joy and excitement? What do you think that next post they make is gonna be like? I dont call it anything but a natural human reaction. But here is a plushie for your troubles. At that point do you care about the plushie or the game you paid for and have been waiting for to be fixed? See what i mean?

[Deddly]

I'm late to this one, but I really like the end cap and genreal texture design of these parts. Removing the "barrel lip" at the top was also a nice move. I'm not a fan of the repeated texture that makes it look like two Fleas stacked on top of each other, though, and I will miss the black bands, probably because of nostalgia

I haven't seen much from you, @passinglurker, about these. I saw that (like me) you would apparently prefer one stripe instead of two, but I'm curious what you think about the overall art quality, particularly the end cap, which I think was a big improvement over the HECS2 one?

[Mako]

I, too, am not a fan of the repeated texture. It makes the part look like it was rushed out the door with not enough time to avoid cutting corners, or not enough design direction/creativity to come up with a cohesive, full-height design.

However, the end cap is an improvement, especially after the giant, featureless black hole end cap on the probe core last week. The trade-off this week of decent end cap for repeating body texture is not a great value proposition.

And if, like a few others have mentioned, whites or other colors don't match between new and old parts, that's a problem. This, and other inconsistencies, makes me wonder if there is a style guide for part development, or if the artists are just winging it and hoping for the best.

I recall something about a new hire for the position of art director a while back; I hope they, in particular, are reviewing the feedback regarding the art this and these past weeks. Consistency amongst assets is important, but not so much that you're repeating textures...

[klgraham1013]

6 hours ago, Cassel said:

I remember the times when the developers decided how to the game should look , no one then asked the player what you wanted, and from that period there are many great games.

True.  In the 90s they probably used focus groups.  I wasn't really paying attention at the time.

 

Edited September 9, 2018 by klgraham1013

[steve_v]

1 minute ago, klgraham1013 said:

In the 90s they used focus groups.

In the '90s they also shipped the game on CD or floppy, as a finished and mostly bug-free product. I don't mind downloadable updates, I just mind when they are used as an excuse for the product being broken on release.

Speaking of '90s games, I'm replaying Quake (and all the mission packs - this is how you DLC) while I wait for a not-broken KSP release.
Unsurprisingly, the game works just as well as it did when I bought the CDs, despite a plethora of engine upgrades and graphical overhauls.

[klgraham1013]

5 hours ago, Redneck said:

We were against console version mainly because we said it would slow down PC development. Did it? Did they delay pc updates waiting for console development to catch up? Would they have all these disgruntled console players right now? It would be a non issue because it never would of happened in the first place correct? And the consoles are still having issues. I mean what do you expect?

Using "we" a heck of a lot there.  I was for it.  The problem wasn't the idea of porting to console.  It was the implementation.  They did hire a separate team.  So, hypothetically, It shouldn't have affected PC development at all.  Unfortunately, they hired Flying Tiger.  Which was so completely and obviously a misstep.  They must have really went with the lowest bidder.  And then chosen the bidder below that.  Games are ported all the time.  It almost never goes as badly as it did for KSP.

4 hours ago, Redneck said:

How many early access games have you bought on steam for example that never got fixed or had bugs. And you wait and you wait hoping then a update comes out and it still isnt right so you wait some more.

Hey.  It's my life with KSP!

9 minutes ago, steve_v said:

In the '90s they also shipped the game on CD or floppy, as a finished and mostly bug-free product. I don't mind downloadable updates, I just mind when they are used as an excuse for the product being broken on release.

This.  So much this.

Edited September 9, 2018 by klgraham1013

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, Mako said:

This, and other inconsistencies, makes me wonder if there is a style guide for part development, or if the artists are just winging it and hoping for the best.

That we aren't sure if there's a style guide is your answer on whether or not there is a style guide.

[Mako]

1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

That we aren't sure if there's a style guide is your answer on whether or not there is a style guide.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. The thing is, and this is a (mostly) rhetorical question here, but what's worse? That we're looking at the results of having a style guide, or that we're looking at the results of the lack of a style guide?

Both answers speak volumes and neither inspires hope...

[Lord Aurelius]

I'm very glad to see that the game is finally getting an art pass, but...

Honestly, those new boosters just don't look that great. Given how long it took us to get new art for these parts (over 5 years), I would hope that the art pass would be a solid upgrade over what we have now, not just swapping one set of poorly done textures and models for another. Especially since this is likely to be the one and only art overhaul these parts will receive.

Maybe it would be a good idea to follow some of Nertea's suggestions and do things correctly the first time instead of continuing with what appears to be quite sloppy work. I'm not calling for super high res/high poly models or anything, just clean, optimized models and textures without amateur mistakes that follow a consistent style. This game is supposed to be a released product made by a professional company after all.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Lord Aurelius

[Mr. Peabody]

I absolutely hate the new srb textures. They are hideous.

[HansonKerman]

@The Dunatian ah yes, I must agree.

[StarStreak2109]

57 minutes ago, The Dunatian said:

I absolutely hate the new srb textures. They are hideous.

Can you elaborate? You know, we talked about constructive criticism...

[RealKerbal3x]

1 hour ago, The Dunatian said:

I absolutely hate the new srb textures. They are hideous.

Just my opinion here, but I actually prefer them to the old ones, as they look a bit more streamlined and aerodynamic (in other words, more space-y). My only complaint is that the texture is identical on the top and bottom segments of the RT-10, which looks a bit strange. Otherwise, I quite like them.

Edited September 9, 2018 by RealKerbal3x

[ThirdOfSeven]

There definitely some logic in design for new textures, I mean RT-10 is obviously "two times RT-5", so they definitely can be just two RT-5 stacked together by Kerbals. I don't care much about variation between these two and like them like they are done. And IRL SRBs don't have any strange thingies like old ones had. We also miss 2 other pictures "without stripes" and they may look even more similar.

But if somebody has better idea about it, I'd like to look at them.

[Redneck]

9 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said:

Can you elaborate? You know, we talked about constructive criticism...

yeah i agree. They are at least trying. @The Dunatian what do you not like about them. Give them some ideas

[RealKerbal3x]

8 minutes ago, ThirdOfSeven said:

There definitely some logic in design for new textures, I mean RT-10 is obviously "two times RT-5", so they definitely can be just two RT-5 stacked together by Kerbals.

I didn’t think of it in that way, and it’s a good explanation for the duplication of the textures on top and bottom. It seems like a very Kerbal solution to make an RT-10 by stacking two RT-5s together.

Edited September 9, 2018 by RealKerbal3x

[dvader]

My personal gripe about the 1.4 parts overhaul was the reduced visual distinguishability between parts. Before the overhaul, it was much easier to tell the small decoupler from the medium or large because they had different colors/textures. Now, they all look the same and I either have to sort by mass or "hover" with the mouse every time to find the right one. Same with the fuel tanks. It is MUCH more difficult to find the right tank now when they are all white with similar textures.

I have a solution though which does not impede on Squads artistic freedom, let the background behind the part be different colors for different sizes. Light blue for 06, light red for 12 etc. This way, the parts can be as visually similar as you like but much easier to find.

I value visual practicality much more than visual appeal since I spend more time making rockets than prettifying them. I do value pretty environments a lot but that is a different story.

P.s. I would also very much recommend a career overhaul. My career games end when I run out of motivation which is long before I've seen all planets or done the cool things. A set of story missions would be great. Something like "The Tylo orbiter we asked you to build showed unusual readings at this spot. Please send a rover to take soil samples. Oh, look! You found unobtainium. Send a mining team". Give me a reason to fly through the Mun canyons or send a glider to Eve. Before mission builder release, I thought it could probably be used to build career missions but since it is a completely separate thing, a career overhaul is still needed.

[HansonKerman]

37 minutes ago, Redneck said:

@The Dunatian what do you not like about them.

Well, I can't speak for @The Dunatian, but the overall thing... this is going to sound weird, looks like ugly striped candy. It's much too bright. And this:

31 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

I didn’t think of it in that way, and it’s a good explanation for the duplication of the textures on top and bottom. It seems like a very Kerbal solution to make an RT-10 by stacking two RT-5s together.

makes total sense, but the new RT-5 Flea and RT-10 Hammer look just much to weird and bright, overall.

[ThirdOfSeven]

32 minutes ago, dvader said:

P.s. I would also very much recommend a career overhaul. My career games end when I run out of motivation which is long before I've seen all planets or done the cool things. A set of story missions would be great. Something like "The Tylo orbiter we asked you to build showed unusual readings at this spot. Please send a rover to take soil samples. Oh, look! You found unobtainium. Send a mining team". Give me a reason to fly through the Mun canyons or send a glider to Eve. Before mission builder release, I thought it could probably be used to build career missions but since it is a completely separate thing, a career overhaul is still needed.

I remember my first play through in vanilla KSP when I had no reason to fly anywhere beyound Kerbin SOI cause you still get science and contracts here to unlock everything. So you can afraid to visit Duna forever and you will not suffer in any way (other than not seeing awesomeness of other planet), which is completely wrong.

I think main problem is ability to just grind required science points amount by flying to the Mun/Minmus and around Kerbin. You can, of course, reduce science income, but it will eventually let you grind anyway through contracts and by visiting more biomes (or even by using some strategy through administration). Solar system already has some difficulty progression between different planets which can be used in some way to encourage flying to other celestial bodies and their points of interest to progress in some way through technology and funding. I don't know what exactly can be done as it has to be tested first on focus group, but it can be even some different kind of science you can get with different instruments in different places to progress through different tiers or branches so you can't just collect it all in single place. Or even more significant drop in contract income for bodies/biomes you already visited multiple times (depending on how far it is, so you still have reason to build bases around distant planets).

Other way may be adding some story with clues behind all these anomalies scattered around so you can be driven by pure interest. Some pre-defined set of contracts/missions with interesting story can be nice also (but, of course, they are hard to make them procedurally generated and have to be made by people).

Edited September 9, 2018 by ThirdOfSeven

[HansonKerman]

36 minutes ago, dvader said:

P.s. I would also very much recommend a career overhaul. My career games end when I run out of motivation which is long before I've seen all planets or done the cool things. A set of story missions would be great. Something like "The Tylo orbiter we asked you to build showed unusual readings at this spot. Please send a rover to take soil samples. Oh, look! You found unobtainium. Send a mining team". Give me a reason to fly through the Mun canyons or send a glider to Eve. Before mission builder release, I thought it could probably be used to build career missions but since it is a completely separate thing, a career overhaul is still needed.

Ah, yes, this would be very cool.

[HebaruSan]

Just now, ThirdOfSeven said:

So you can afraid to visit Duna forever and you will not suffer in any way (other than not seeing awesomeness of other planet), which is completely wrong.

I think main problem is ability to just grind required science points amount by flying to the Mun/Minmus and around Kerbin.

What if a player wants to stay in Kerbin's SOI, though? SQUAD takes criticism when they make decisions that limit play styles. There are players who just want to fly planes, for crying out loud. If someone out there doesn't have the time to devote to planning interplanetary voyages, should they really be locked out of advancing the tech tree?

Career mode puts the onus on the player to decide what kind of play style they want. In my current career save, I build missions around contracts, and I only accept contracts that aren't overly repetitive of things I've already done (and I force myself to time warp hundreds of days once I've got a couple of ships en route). Build a station around Duna, fine, expand that station, OK, but keep expanding it or build another? Nah. (I especially don't do biome grinding, though I will hop a few times if an opportunity presents itself.)

It's been surprisingly fun so far. I've stayed engaged with the core gameplay loop of build/launch/fly/return/recover that I enjoy, each craft I launch is unique, and the challenges have increased gradually as contracts have opened up for each SOI. I'm heading out to Eve now, and I still have the motivation of a few tech tree nodes left to unlock. This is how I always wanted career mode to play, and it turns out it was hidden in there somewhere among the plethora of viable play styles, waiting for me to find it.

[ThirdOfSeven]

4 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

If someone out there doesn't have the time to devote to planning interplanetary voyages, should they really be locked out of advancing the tech tree?

Good point, but on other hand you don't need to advance through entire tree to fly planes on Kerbin. Same with other tech which is mostly useful for interplanetary travel like high-ISP ion thrusters or NERVA. But, of course, letting people to play their way is not something I want to remove. I just don't want this option to be common pitfall.

I'm not alone stopped around Kerbin (i know people who did also and I had to persuade them to just fly somewhere else with cheap probe to not lose much! :)), that's why I thought it can be nice to make sure people don't miss 90% of KSP content this way.