Shoved under the rug/cancelled content ?

[LethalDose]

I don't think that many features are "Canceled", simple postponed, or completley scraped to make a new system of the same thing.

I don't think any idea can be called truly cancelled or abandoned in KSP. Multiplayer was "carved in stone" to not be implemented and voila - we're going to get it.

On the other hand I can imagine many things currently called "placeholders" to stay the way they are to the final release. Kerbals anatomy was a placeholder initially, too - and I doubt they're going to change much.

Well, based on a Vandamonde's lock-down message on a thread I just started, we might as well assume it's permanently canceled.

The thread was a solution to the problem that required basically no coding, and could be completely ignored by players that weren't interested. I basically got told to shut up.

Resource mining was apparently shelved due to problems, and now we're not allowed to offer or discuss solutions to those problems.

We can argue all day long about what "canceled" or "shelved" means... Half the reason that's happening is, again, SQUAD can't do a decent job of communication, and intentionally or not uses vague and confusing terms to muddy the issues. But it doesn't really matter what they meant if we can't even offer solutions to solve the problems that shelved the system in the first place. To me, I see:

"Possibly permanently canceled" + "You can't post solutions to the problem that canceled it" = "No agency to change the situation"

The mods aren't the devs, but they are gatekeepers to the devs. It seems pretty clear to me that the mods aren't going to allow discussion of the problems, there's no reason to believe that the devs are going to be paying any attention to it.

Multi-player has always been in the WNTS list just like many other things such as more parts, robotics etc. that certainly doesn't mean they weren't intending to implement, rather a "i'l get back to it later" over and over again.....

Otherwise can you give me a page that eludes to multiplayer being an "we will never" thing ?

Right, conspiracy down, what else can anybody dig up ?

Wow... I said this was a conspiracy? Just... no.

It's the mods/devs treating the community at best like amnesiacs, at worst like idiots. Even if it were true, claiming multi-player was always within the scope despite no previous mention of it is just too hard to believe. If every discussion about multi-player was a huge flame session, and the devs were always planning on including, they could have simply made a statement that they were considering inclusion, but hadn't made any final decisions. But that statement was never made, MP was on the WNTS list, and they basically gave no reason for the community to believe MP would be a feature at release.

I'm seriously worried that other features like GP2) have also been scrapped. Given SQUAD's communication skills, who knows.

Edited March 13, 2014 by KasperVld
removed some minor profanity

[Blinkin]

Thanks for all the clarifications, makes more sense now. I love all the dev things. I do miss the dev blogs we used to read.

Otherwise can you give me a page that eludes to multiplayer being an "we will never" thing ?

We could give 2 pages except for the fact that both pages stating such thing have been updated to the current state of possibilities.

Both one of the stickys with what not to suggest and the wiki stated that multiplayer wasn't possible because it should be implemented from the start or is it will be added it would be added after ksp 1.0.

Can't prove that at this moment because like I said both pages have been updated.

[MR4Y]

Well, based on a Vandamonde's lock-down message on a thread I just started, we might as well assume it's permanently canceled.

The thread was a solution to the problem that required basically no coding, and could be completely ignored by players that weren't interested. I basically got told to STFU.

Resource mining was apparently shelved due to problems, and now we're not allowed to offer or discuss solutions to those problems.

We can argue all day long about what "canceled" or "shelved" means... Half the reason that's happening is, again, SQUAD can't do a decent job of communication, and intentionally or not uses vague and confusing terms to muddy the issues. But it doesn't really matter what they meant if we can't even offer solutions to solve the problems that shelved the system in the first place. To me, I see:

"Possibly permanently canceled" + "You can't post solutions to the problem that canceled it" = "No agency to change the situation"

The mods aren't the devs, but they are gatekeepers to the devs. It seems pretty clear to me that the mods aren't going to allow discussion of the problems, there's no reason to believe that the devs are going to be paying any attention to it.

Wow... I said this was a conspiracy? Just... no.

It's the mods/devs treating the community at best like amnesiacs, at worst like idiots. Even if it were true, claiming multi-player was always within the scope despite no previous mention of it is just too hard to believe. If every discussion about multi-player was a huge flame session, and the devs were always planning on including, they could have simply made a statement that they were considering inclusion, but hadn't made any final decisions. But that statement was never made, MP was on the WNTS list, and they basically gave no reason for the community to believe MP would be a feature at release.

I'm seriously worried that other features like GP2) have also been scrapped. Given SQUAD's communication skills, who knows.

Remember TOS...Conspiracy theories aren't allowed. And frankly, thats the first time I've ever seen this as a rule on any gaming forum.

We could boil down this to two simple questions:

-Why modders have to provide source code of their own work?

-Considering how strong the rejection(or at least the impression of it) for Multiplayer was, why that changed as soon as a mod (with published source code nonetheless, due to Spaceport rules) that had it functioning appeared?

I find funny that SQUAD, being a marketing company, it's failing catastrophically at the bread and butter of their existance: communication and selling ideas to people...AND has to resort to Iron Fist strategies.

Edited March 13, 2014 by MR4Y

[Nemrav]

We could give 2 pages except for the fact that both pages stating such thing have been updated to the current state of possibilities.

Both one of the stickys with what not to suggest and the wiki stated that multiplayer wasn't possible because it should be implemented from the start or is it will be added it would be added after ksp 1.0.

Can't prove that at this moment because like I said both pages have been updated.

That seems to be what the devs said, but it still goes along with them saying "after it was all said and done" at the kerbalkon...

I don't think there is such thing as no conspiracy theories, but from what I see that's what we were getting into and those typically end up in flame wars, which of course get banned really easy... I don't think we really need that do we ?

okay, but really now, can anybody find stuff that was tested but never really talked about, that's what this thread is for really... not heated resource mining, multiplayer discussion..

[Red Iron Crown]

-Why modders have to provide source code of their own work?

It was my understanding that this policy was put in place to reduce the likelihood of malicious plugins. It has the fringe benefit of providing code examples to other prospective modders, reducing the barrier to entry and the amount of wheel reinvention.

Thhe plugins are all licensed and Squad must abide by those license terms unless they negotiate different terms with the modder. Given that some of those licenses are viral, Squad would be foolish to incorporate them directly into the game under those terms.

[rkman]

The thread was a solution to the problem that required basically no coding, and could be completely ignored by players that weren't interested. I basically got told to shut up.

The condescending attitude of the op probably did not help.

Edited March 13, 2014 by KasperVld
removed some minor profanity

[MR4Y]

That seems to be what the devs said, but it still goes along with them saying "after it was all said and done" at the kerbalkon...

I don't think there is such thing as no conspiracy theories, but from what I see that's what we were getting into and those typically end up in flame wars, which of course get banned really easy... I don't think we really need that do we ?

okay, but really now, can anybody find stuff that was tested but never really talked about, that's what this thread is for really... not heated resource mining, multiplayer discussion..

They get banned easily for two primary reasons:

-Lack of communication from SQUAD themselves (ironic, considering they are a MARKETING COMPANY) and implementation of iron fist strategies.

-Conspiracy theories being a violation of TOS, being a first on any gaming forum I've seen after years of being part of forums.

As for banning due to conspiracy theories, let me remind you all of this very particular EA case:

Adrian: That is understandable, but I must inform you that if you choose to dispute it, your account will be banned.

Adrian: I am sorry, but I can not speak on another company's policy.

Adrian: Now this just released.

you: I am at a loss of words

Adrian: So the servers are having issues, with more servers opening up as other countries release then we will show these issues resolving themselves.

you: Yes, but it is not capacity demand I am debating

Adrian: I can understand this causing frustrations and I do apologize for this.

you: Your servers are not the issue

you: The game/back end is

you: "Game updates" are not an excuse to hide behind

Adrian: I am sorry, but I am not able to process a refund.

Adrian: Is there anything else that I can assist you with?

you: You were offering refunds according to your press release!!!!

you: In response to the launch day trouble Hatam said " If you regrettably feel that we left you down, you can of course request a refund for your order at http://help.origin.com/contact-us , though we are currently still in the process of resolving this issue. "

you: Why lie??

you: I have done nothing wrong in expecting what is quoted.

Adrian: That is correct, that this is where you can request a refund, but as our policy is stating it is also the our discretion to process a refund.

you: http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/210/9330019.page#top

you: Process a refund.

Adrian: As I stated before, we are not able to offer a refund.

Adrian: Is there anything else that I can assist you with?

you: This chat text goes viral.

you: Thanks

Also, I'd rather be part of a forum where opinionated people have the liberty to state their opinion without having their mouths stitched than a matrix, where the dirty reality oozes through the cracks and everything seems fine and dandy on the top layer due to heavy white knighting and shielding from the staff's part.

[Spuds]

I think you're missing the point of why they are closing the resource related threads, MR4Y. The threads are being closed because Squad has explicitly stated that they DO NOT want to add resources now, and do not want them to be part of the current game. To them, these threads obscure the influx of new ideas that are coming in, and these threads eventually dissolve into a poo-flinging contest at Squad, which nobody enjoys.

I believe in a previous Devnote or Squadcast they spoke about why they didn't want resources and why they believe it will detract from the game experience. And frankly, not everyone wants to have resource mining. I for one don't; I really like building fueling ships and launching and docking them together with other ships. I say as respecfully as I can that not everyone on these forums shares your opinion and wants resource mining. Since reception is rather mixed as well, Squad thinks that it isn't a good idea to add resources. Squad has the right to whatever goes into their game, and though there have always been some features I wanted, I like the direction KSP is going in.

Now, I'd like to get back on topic with the thread. I've been interested in the idea of a discovery observatory, finding other celestial bodies to land and do science on. However, there has been no official word after the intent declared to add it some time ago. How do you guys think that it will be implemented?

[MR4Y]

I think you're missing the point of why they are closing the resource related threads, MR4Y. The threads are being closed because Squad has explicitly stated that they DO NOT want to add resources now, and do not want them to be part of the current game. To them, these threads obscure the influx of new ideas that are coming in, and these threads eventually dissolve into a poo-flinging contest at Squad, which nobody enjoys.

I believe in a previous Devnote or Squadcast they spoke about why they didn't want resources and why they believe it will detract from the game experience. And frankly, not everyone wants to have resource mining. I for one don't; I really like building fueling ships and launching and docking them together with other ships. I say as respecfully as I can that not everyone on these forums shares your opinion and wants resource mining. Since reception is rather mixed as well, Squad thinks that it isn't a good idea to add resources. Squad has the right to whatever goes into their game, and though there have always been some features I wanted, I like the direction KSP is going in.

Now, I'd like to get back on topic with the thread. I've been interested in the idea of a discovery observatory, finding other celestial bodies to land and do science on. However, there has been no official word after the intent declared to add it some time ago. How do you guys think that it will be implemented?

And, if you read what I said in it's entirety, you would have noticed that I never mentioned anything about resources.

[KasperVld]

Conspiracy theories being a violation of TOS, being a first on any gaming forum I've seen after years of being part of forums.

As a side note: the conspiracy theory rule was set up to ban subjects such as the U.S. not actually landing on the moon, or governments brainwashing you to believe the earth is round. Then again, if you look at a definition of what a conspiracy theory is: "A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation" then it can indeed by applied to more situations than that.

[Rowsdower]

Everyone chill out right now. Respect the rules of the forum and each particular subforum. If you have issues with moderator action or any forum rules themselves, PM us. Discussion of that sort is not allowed and and point blank, if it's on the WNTS list, don't submit it. While there's plenty of room for criticism in the forum the last several posts are really toeing the line as to what is no longer acceptable, particularly bordering on rule 3.4. If I have to jump in here for a similar message again, this thread will be closed and infractions may be handed out. No exceptions. Now because of the case you and others around the community have built, I've politely asked around for further comment regarding Squad's statements on resource mining. IF I am able to get that, I will lay it out. However, Squad still stands by those official statements that were made as is.

[OdinYggd]

Multiplayer ended up on the WNTS list because every thread about it always devolved into a massive flame fest.

This is pretty much exactly it.

Nearly everything on the WNTS list was put there not because of anything the devs said, but because of how often it was suggested and how quickly threads about it would degrade. Much of that list was later examined by the devs and confirmed either possible, unlikely, or probably never.

Last I checked, discussions about why something would be on that list were allowed as long as they were held in a respectful manner consistent with the goals of the forum rules. Such threads could re-examine the current status of a WNTS item and include details of what technical issues remain with its implementation or why it would disturb the game experience in a way that might not be beneficial. Suggesting a WNTS item would be closed almost right away on the other hand, simply because instead of inviting discussion it would invite problems and rule violations.

If there is an issue regarding how such threads are to be handled, it should be addressed by PM to either a blue-name or purple-name staff member. All decisions made by the moderating team are taken as a team effort, and concerns can be addressed quickly.

We still don't know for sure on multiplayer- or resources for the matter. KSP as a whole is still very much a work in progress, and plans could change at any time for any reason. I do have to agree though that the proposed resources system would have been very complex and grindy, if you want to experience it try using Kethane with Orbital Construction or Exoplanetary Launchpads to create a self-sufficient orbital station. The sheer amount of time you'll spend ferrying resources back and forth turns KSP from a fun build it and fly it game into a rather tedious and boring logistics simulator.

[Hodo]

We still don't know for sure on multiplayer- or resources for the matter. KSP as a whole is still very much a work in progress, and plans could change at any time for any reason. I do have to agree though that the proposed resources system would have been very complex and grindy, if you want to experience it try using Kethane with Orbital Construction or Exoplanetary Launchpads to create a self-sufficient orbital station. The sheer amount of time you'll spend ferrying resources back and forth turns KSP from a fun build it and fly it game into a rather tedious and boring logistics simulator.

And that kids is the end of the thread, he summed it up nicely with that paragraph.

[Nemrav]

Thanks mods, hopefully it won't come to locking this thread after getting so far

Is there anything the original purpose of the thread would welcome that anybody could unearth ?

[MR4Y]

As a side note: the conspiracy theory rule was set up to ban subjects such as the U.S. not actually landing on the moon, or governments brainwashing you to believe the earth is round. Then again, if you look at a definition of what a conspiracy theory is: "A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation" then it can indeed by applied to more situations than that.

Since this is not necessary to be PMed and I can't give you reputation with a criticism, still is the first time I see such dictatorial rule in a game forum. Period.

[regex]

Since this is not necessary to be PMed and I can't give you reputation with a criticism, still is the first time I see such dictatorial rule in a game forum. Period.

And? You're not paying for these forums, just leave if you can't handle the rules. Make a sub-Reddit or something.

[LethalDose]

This:

I find funny that SQUAD, being a marketing company, it's failing catastrophically at the bread and butter of their existance: communication and selling ideas to people...AND has to resort to Iron Fist strategies.

And this:

I'd rather be part of a forum where opinionated people have the liberty to state their opinion without having their mouths stitched than a matrix, where the dirty reality oozes through the cracks and everything seems fine and dandy on the top layer due to heavy white knighting and shielding from the staff's part.

are pretty much square on. If I get banned for speaking my mind, fine. I think it's completely reasonable to think critically about what's being said by the developers and point out glaring inconsistencies or provide solutions to the problems. I'm not someone to happily toe the line when I see problems because I've seen what happens to projects when they're ignored.

As for this:

The condescending attitude of the op probably did not help.

Well if you read the mod's reason for locking it, they went out of their way to point out the thread was locked for suggesting something on WNTS list, not the tone. Believe what you want about their real intentions, but if you think it was something other than what was said, then you're really kinda proving the point...

Last I checked, discussions about why something would be on that list were allowed as long as they were held in a respectful manner consistent with the goals of the forum rules.

This is basically in direct contradiction to what the mod stated that the referenced thread (Topic was on WNTS list, therefore discussion on the topic are explicitly disallowed.), so this really feels like an trap. If the mod went out of their way to say the thread was locked for tone, I'd buy this statement, but, again, the locking mod did the opposite.

I do have to agree though that the proposed resources system would have been very complex and grindy, if you want to experience it try using Kethane with Orbital Construction or Exoplanetary Launchpads to create a self-sufficient orbital station. The sheer amount of time you'll spend ferrying resources back and forth turns KSP from a fun build it and fly it game into a rather tedious and boring logistics simulator.

The suggestion in the locked thread didn't require any of the problems you list here, which makes this passage seem woefully unfair since apparently we're not allowed to discus this topic under threat of "reprimand" from the CM!

The topic here is "Shoved under the rug/cancelled content", so I think discussion about being displeased that are for all intents and purposes canceled by being features being shoved under the rug instead of being directly addressed is pretty on topic.

[Rowsdower]

Speaking of locked threads, this one's off the rails for good. Closed.