Devnote Tuesdays: The "Almost Forgot to Title This Post" Edition

[StainX]

Some details about the mission pack would be nice

@danRosas: What happened to those awesome animations that were floating around before the forum crash?

[NoMrBond]

From a engine tech standpoint, it seems like several additional functional elements will require implementing to make the mission possible

You're going to have not-on-rails system bodies and some (possibly KAS-like) non-docking ways (net/bag/line/anchor) of influencing them

So apart from the inescapably cool fact that KSP is doing a collaborative missing pack with NASA, the necessary tech additions to the game could/should open up some interesting game mechanics

[EuSouONumero345]

These are AMAZING news SQUAD!!!!!!!!!

KSP+NASA= Astronauts with Kerbal masks+SCIENCE ON ASTEROIDS

[acc]

quote C. M. Burns: Excelent! :>

[Captain Sierra]

It really depends in how they going to implement this. If indeed it will be only a additional separate scenario then it is kinda disappointing, but if they need to implement actual asteroids to stock game to make this mission pack work then we will get a nice new feature in addition to this mission pack.

I'll be honest, after the finally beating the tech tree once and seeing how it was implemented, I'm kind of expecting this to be a scenario, rather than something to do in a sandbox save. Now, its been called for a dozen times over, and I'm willing to call for it again, lots of people want an off-rails asteroid belt. Now, you could be right, and this could lay the groundwork for that, but basing off of science and how career mode has gone so far, I'm skeptical that this would turn into the minable, movable, interactable asteroid belt we all crave, and that is why I'm fairly dissatisfied with the latest choices in development direction. Resources have been backburnered, more planets have been backburnered (there was a ringed gas giant similar to Planetfactory's Sentar that was supposed to go in with .22 if .22 wasn't a major career mode update), and improved physics may or may not have been backburnered (since they're doing all the optimization, this may be next).

[dr_jt]

I'm not seeing the capture/divert the asteroid stuff that some here are posting about.

From the article:

NASA hopes to land humans on an asteroid by 2025. It's their most daring mission in a half century, and they've asked the small team of eight developers headquartered in Mexico City to help promote that mission through their game.

That clearly states landing on an asteroid and has nothing about diverting or capturing one.

[Captain Sierra]

I'm not seeing the capture/divert the asteroid stuff that some here are posting about.

From the article:

That clearly states landing on an asteroid and has nothing about diverting or capturing one.

There is some other reading about it (no link handy ) where it does talk about the need to capture it into a stable orbit before the landing attempt is made.

Google the nasa 2025 asteroid mission. it may or may not say anything about it there.

[Themohawkninja]

Darn, I was hoping for some more info on the contracts.

Still, asteroids sound cool. It will be quite the challenge though if it's its own body (that is to say, its parent body is the Sun).

[JimmyAgent007]

I hope for something like whats posted in the thread i link in my sig. but i suppose separate missions or whatever would be fine. kinda curious how its gonna blend into the game tho.

[Champ]

<p><span><strong>Anthony (Rowsdower):</strong> What kind of prizes would you like to see for a contest that may or may not have many multiple winners. .<br/></span></p>

Some (not so good) ideas i have :

- A kerbal figurine. Might be a little expensive to make just one, but you could make many of them, sell them as merchandising, and introduce it by giving a Jebediah figurine to your contest winner.

- something in game, like make the winner's ship a "stock ship" (like the kerbalX) or something like that. Does not cost much, but would be a neverending honor

- a chance to interview every people involved in the game development.

[Rowsdower]

I'm happy for squad, but it seems like it's not a wise choice considering where that development time could and should be going.

The NASA announcement has not stopped or diverted anything. 0.24 development is still ongoing and the community will find out what's cooking very soon.

Personally, I would prefer that Squad worked more on developing the core capabilities of the game, such as career mode.

Career mode is a very important focus of 0.24, with contracts and budgets on the way.

[Giggleplex777]

Could the asteroid and the asteroid mission be included in 0.24? It would be good source of science in career mode. Plus, any new parts that are in the mission could e added to the stock game.

BTW, the asteroid mission reminds me of this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/33693-Scenario-Rendezvous-With-Roche

Edited January 29, 2014 by Giggleplex777

[Captain Sierra]

The NASA announcement has not stopped or diverted anything. 0.24 development is still ongoing and the community will find out what's cooking very soon.

It's taking development hours that could be going to adding an asteroid belt, or resources, or one of the other thousand and one most requested features in the suggestions forum that are becoming more infrequently adopted.

Faith =/= present

[AsterXiphos]

I'm not seeing the capture/divert the asteroid stuff that some here are posting about.

From the article:

That clearly states landing on an asteroid and has nothing about diverting or capturing one.

From the linked article:

A downloadable mission pack, made in partnership with NASA, is in the works that will allow players to put Kerbals on an asteroid. It will be one of the most complex and dangerous missions in an already difficult game.

Players will first have to launch a spacecraft to fly alongside the asteroid, the equivalent of parallel parking one missile next to another. Then they will have to push the giant rock into a stable orbit around the Kerbal's home planet without creating an extinction-level impact below. Finally, they'll need to safely land on it.

[Skyrunner27]

It's taking development hours that could be going to adding an asteroid belt, or resources, or one of the other thousand and one most requested features in the suggestions forum that are becoming more infrequently adopted.

Faith =/= present

This allows them to test the feature that they are creating. If whatever kind of asteroid they are creating get positive reviews then simply they just have to place a couple near Dres and congratulations you got your self an asteroid belt.

[BubbaWilkins]

It's taking development hours that could be going to adding an asteroid belt, or resources, or one of the other thousand and one most requested features in the suggestions forum that are becoming more infrequently adopted.

Faith =/= present

Just because the requests have been made do not make them reasonable or possible. When the game engine has issues with 200+ parts in a single craft and with large amounts of debris, you can't expect them to just throw 1,000's-1,000,000's of asteroids into the mix. What I would expect would be temporary entities which would spawn on a triggered event such as a random detection or even scripted events (missions). So you get single planet killers and possible resource sources with minimal impact on the rest of the system.

[Captain Sierra]

Just because the requests have been made do not make them reasonable or possible. When the game engine has issues with 200+ parts in a single craft and with large amounts of debris, you can't expect them to just throw 1,000's-1,000,000's of asteroids into the mix. What I would expect would be temporary entities which would spawn on a triggered event such as a random detection or even scripted events (missions). So you get single planet killers and possible resource sources with minimal impact on the rest of the system.

Except that the systems often suggested are based straight off of current working mods. Now tell me again that they aren't reasonable or possible.

I remain skeptical until I see that they are actually putting it in as some type of planetoid and not just an uncontrollable single part craft. In the latter case, that's already been done.

When results are on the table, then I'll see about putting some faith back into development decisions.

[Rowsdower]

It's taking development hours that could be going to adding an asteroid belt, or resources, or one of the other thousand and one most requested features in the suggestions forum that are becoming more infrequently adopted.

Faith =/= present

While we appreciate feedback and input from the community – we frequently take it into consideration and add many ideas to our growing to-do list – that doesn’t mean our development cycle adheres to said list, nor is governed by it. I’m sorry to hear you’re disappointed with the direction KSP is headed but our team is very excited about the NASA partnership and what we’re working on in tandem for update 0.24.

[Captain Sierra]

While we appreciate feedback and input from the community – we frequently take it into consideration and add many ideas to our growing to-do list – that doesn’t mean our development cycle adheres to said list, nor is governed by it. I’m sorry to hear you’re disappointed with the direction KSP is headed but our team is very excited about the NASA partnership and what we’re working on in tandem for update 0.24.

You're not consoling in the slightest. I wrote a long post that summed up pretty much everything I could say right now back shortly before .22 came out. In summary, it stated that the current development direction is pushing to reduce barriers to entry for new players, while not focusing on the features the veteran community wants (resources backburnered, more planets backburnered, the list of proof goes on).

The long and short of it is: while it may not be noticable now, that doesn't play well with veteran player retention.

By my best guess I'd say you have the outstanding modding community, who delivers those most-requested features, to thank for that.

/cynicism

[Dispatcher]

Squad's done a great job with KSP so far; I think they'll continue to come through with more fun for both new and veteran players.

[Rowsdower]

While it's a shame that your disappointment has gotten to this level, Captain Sierra, remember that there is still a long way to go here and tons more growth to be made. However, no moves will be made at the same time and not all cards will be revealed at once. Also, make no mistake. The KSP community is adored and we recognize that the folks in the mod scene help push the game past its limits and then some. While we recognize that, I must reiterate that while specific wants and requests are known and out in the open, the things that get put into each update are not necessarily governed by them.

[Captain Sierra]

Ignoring the other post . . . .

Squad's done a great job with KSP so far; I think they'll continue to come through with more fun for both new and veteran players.

While I don't disagree, I do believe that the current implementations of their latest efforts (career mode) need some tweaking to both be more viable, and be a little more friendly to everyone. For people that know how the parts work, the tree is a confusing jumble that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You get 2.5m orbital stages before 2.5m launch stages. You take forever to get the large antenna and solar panels (a death sentence if you use antennarange). While helping to reduce the shock and awe that newbs can get, the current science implementation is pretty much focused on landing and biome exploits. There's only so many ways you can play through scienece, specifically because things like no-return Voyager style probe missions are useless, and unmanned missions, while somewhat effective, are not nearly as rewarding science-wise as manned mission, mainly because of the very powerful crew report and EVA report.

Now, will money help that? possibly. I'm certainly open to waiting and seeing how that balances things, but long and short, the current implementations seem very unrefined and they should be refined a bunch before development throws them to the wayside and adds new stuff. HAWKEN is suffering from this a bit lately as well. Their stated goal is new content (map and/or mech) every update, and they roll updates monthly. They're having a few balance issues because it's getting ahead of them. Balance passes aren't getting the attention they need because of new content. While new content is great, I think, at the bare minimum, the existing content needs to be given a good thorough workover with a fine-tooth comb before they go adding 4 more variables into the equation, or else Squad ends up in a balance snowball, with it getting ahead of them and the issue becoming increasingly complicated and difficult to balance well without screwing something else over.

[tanuki_chau]

Ignoring the other post . . . .

While I don't disagree, I do believe that the current implementations of their latest efforts (career mode) need some tweaking to both be more viable, and be a little more friendly to everyone. For people that know how the parts work, the tree is a confusing jumble that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You get 2.5m orbital stages before 2.5m launch stages. You take forever to get the large antenna and solar panels (a death sentence if you use antennarange). While helping to reduce the shock and awe that newbs can get, the current science implementation is pretty much focused on landing and biome exploits. There's only so many ways you can play through scienece, specifically because things like no-return Voyager style probe missions are useless, and unmanned missions, while somewhat effective, are not nearly as rewarding science-wise as manned mission, mainly because of the very powerful crew report and EVA report.

Now, will money help that? possibly. I'm certainly open to waiting and seeing how that balances things, but long and short, the current implementations seem very unrefined and they should be refined a bunch before development throws them to the wayside and adds new stuff. HAWKEN is suffering from this a bit lately as well. Their stated goal is new content (map and/or mech) every update, and they roll updates monthly. They're having a few balance issues because it's getting ahead of them. Balance passes aren't getting the attention they need because of new content. While new content is great, I think, at the bare minimum, the existing content needs to be given a good thorough workover with a fine-tooth comb before they go adding 4 more variables into the equation, or else Squad ends up in a balance snowball, with it getting ahead of them and the issue becoming increasingly complicated and difficult to balance well without screwing something else over.

I kind of feel like you are looking at KSP the same way people look at MMO's and RTS's. 'Drop Rates' and 'Crit Levels' are replaced with 'Science density levels' etc. While there could be some comparison, KSP isn't an MMO, nor is it a RTS.

I think your idea of an asteroid belt is intriguing. It sounds like something awesome to play with. Do you have a time frame for the mod release?

[nMitch]

Ignoring the other post . . . .

While I don't disagree, I do believe that the current implementations of their latest efforts (career mode) need some tweaking to both be more viable, and be a little more friendly to everyone. For people that know how the parts work, the tree is a confusing jumble that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You get 2.5m orbital stages before 2.5m launch stages. You take forever to get the large antenna and solar panels (a death sentence if you use antennarange). While helping to reduce the shock and awe that newbs can get, the current science implementation is pretty much focused on landing and biome exploits. There's only so many ways you can play through scienece, specifically because things like no-return Voyager style probe missions are useless, and unmanned missions, while somewhat effective, are not nearly as rewarding science-wise as manned mission, mainly because of the very powerful crew report and EVA report.

Now, will money help that? possibly. I'm certainly open to waiting and seeing how that balances things, but long and short, the current implementations seem very unrefined and they should be refined a bunch before development throws them to the wayside and adds new stuff. HAWKEN is suffering from this a bit lately as well. Their stated goal is new content (map and/or mech) every update, and they roll updates monthly. They're having a few balance issues because it's getting ahead of them. Balance passes aren't getting the attention they need because of new content. While new content is great, I think, at the bare minimum, the existing content needs to be given a good thorough workover with a fine-tooth comb before they go adding 4 more variables into the equation, or else Squad ends up in a balance snowball, with it getting ahead of them and the issue becoming increasingly complicated and difficult to balance well without screwing something else over.

I think you need to quit being a baby. You don't work for squad, you know nothing of their work loads or the way they handle them, you probably know nothing of game development and are on a Rant when if you're that up set there's a Mod to suit your needs until it's implemented, IF it will be implemented. Squad has already announced that resources are "Shelved indefinitely". And whether or not Squad decides to change something might make you upset keep this in mind; SQUAD DOESN'T WORK FOR YOU. They might try to add in some requests here and there but they are going to go in the direction they want to because it's they're game.

[Rowsdower]

Folks, I'm going to need you to calm down with the quips, whether it be directed at myself or each other. Let's bring this back to the topic at hand. Thanks.