Good news everyone! KSP enters Beta version. What you like the most, what you don't?

[MSD]

They will never be able to make everyone happy, however they could be made happy with mods. So I am just really wishing for a major performance increase (call: never going to happen ), more open API (ditto), loading of assets on request (ditto). The point is that after 1.0, and the feeling is that squad left to much out, there should be a possibility to mod it out, with the memory ceeiling and performance right now, I dont like the thought of calling it beta.

The talk about dlc was a mistake, I understand that, but than again the dlc will be most likely more soccor balls than anything space relating,

[LostOblivion]

It's brilliant, if only to shut up the people who keep going: "we're only at 0.25! 25 more years until we hit 1.0! anuther exampel of early acesss being ....! lolololol", because they don't get version numbering.

Anyway, the reasoning for 0.90 has been given. It's to give that feeling that we're entering a new phase and that we're close.

Sure. Still, they could go with Beta 1 or something, while leaving the internal versioning scheme be.

[smysha]

I wish RealChute to be part of the game - and Deadly Reentry aswell.

[Mystic]

I am happy that improved aerodynamics and more biomes throughout the solar system are still coming.

But there are two big eyesores on KSP in its current state that I am now worried won't be addressed before release (if ever):

1) no mention of reentry damage being incorporated (unless they consider that a part of aerodynamics). That is the single biggest flaw in KSP in my opinion ... that, with all of the effort one expends upon carefully planning orbits and engine burns, that arguably the most challenging and risky part of space flight (reentry) is not reflected at all in the game. Being able to plunge a spacecraft straight down into Kerbin's atmosphere and not have it destroyed or even damaged by that sort of careless reentry breaks the game's immersion for me in a big way.

2) no mention of adding clouds to Kerbin's atmosphere, much less any other planets. While less damaging to my game experience than the lack of any real tension associated with reentry, I am still disappointed every time I look down at Kerbin and see no visual evidence of an atmosphere.

There were other things I was also hoping would eventually be a part of KSP, such as an observatory that would be used to discover and plot the orbits of astronomical objects before one could navigate to them. However I can live without those things. But the cloudless atmosphere will continue to bug me for as long as I play KSP, I am sure, while the ongoing lack of reentry damage has in fact caused me to play KSP a lot less lately and, if it is never added, could result in me losing interest in the game entirely.

(P.S. - yes, I am one of those mythological creatures who play KSP with no mods at all, because I don't trust them not to impact other aspects of the core game or its performance.)

[r4pt0r]

(P.S. - yes, I am one of those mythological creatures who play KSP with no mods at all, because I don't trust them not to impact other aspects of the core game or its performance.)

well that almost makes two of us.

[Sky_walker]

well that almost makes two of us.

Hardly two. There's plenty of players like that.

And then there is a group of gamers who install only mods that affect ascetics, without ever changing anything in the gameplay itself.

[L3GO]

Is anyone here lazy and want me to make a video about it? I got a good response from my last video. I cant wait for the next stage of KSP

[Red Iron Crown]

Squad seems to be in a no-win situation. People have been screaming for better aero and ISRU for months if not longer, when they announce they're planning them they get accused of stealing ideas from mods.

One of the big benefits of early access for developers is that they can see what features are strongly desired through mod development. There's absolutely nothing wrong with incorporating or reimplementing popular mods.

[NWDogg]

I'm very interested to see how they go about tackling some of the issues with an overhauled aerodynamics system. There have been several insightful discussions before about the challenges of doing so, and it seems that any change towards the better will have a rippling effect throughout the entire game. I'm excited to see what changes they make across the board, but I'm also worried that they may just tweak a few settings on the current aero to avoid those sweeping changes in the whole game.

I'm also a bit worried about the new refueling system. If they do something very simple, it may not be a very enjoyable mechanic. However, if they make it complex, there is the possibility it will turn some of the most popular and well-designed mods (Karbonite, Kethane) redundant and potentially abandoned. This was an interesting decision by Squad considering their previous stance on the issue, so I hope they've thoroughly thought it through and will create a nice balance between usability, complexity, and customization. I do have faith in Squad though, so I believe they will succeed on that front.

The one thing they didn't mention that I would like to see, that they have mentioned before: geological features. There was a dev post about a year and half ago, mentioning testing of geysers, volcanoes and the like. From that post it seemed they had the features working in game, but no mention of them since. I hope they didn't shelve the idea completely, as it could've added so much to the experience.

[JumpsterG]

Squad seems to be in a no-win situation. People have been screaming for better aero and ISRU for months if not longer, when they announce they're planning them they get accused of stealing ideas from mods.

They're also in a no-win regarding the choices of features to work on in beta/release/post-release. Felipe himself summed up the inevitable response to the announcements:

Q: I won’t consider KSP complete until Feature X is implemented!

Q: What about the features you “promised†on the Wiki’s Planned Feature List?

Q: Can you give us an official list of planned features for 1.0 then?

Q: And after 1.0 comes out, is that the end?

Q: What’s coming after 1.0 then?

The community clearly LOVES KSP and can't get enough of it! Unfortunately, Felipe admits that Squad only has so much manpower at its disposal:

... Time and Manpower are our main limiting resources now, and those must be spent wisely, pursuing the goals that will add the most enjoyment for everyone.

In order for a release to ever happen, they need to prioritize only the absolutely necessary features for the game to be "complete". It's really important that they move the game out of the "Early Access" status so that sales can climb up and give them the capital they will need to continue further development. If it seems like they are cutting the feature list short, that is why. Luckily, Felipe makes it clear they intend to continue adding to the game long after release.

The above is observation, the following is opinion:

I'm extremely happy with how Squad have handled things. I empathize with their small-team efforts and believe they've made responsible, professional decisions on where to apply their limited development resources. They've managed to have a very tight relationship with their community, improving communication over time and addressing issues as they arise. Any mistakes they made along the way were handled well and have clearly helped to guide their later decisions.

Maybe they could have a better game design process or could have better communication then they do, but I can't possibly say they've done a BAD job (or even just MEDIOCRE, judging by how much I (and seemingly many others) have enjoyed their product so far!).

And I think I've gone off topic, but I'll post the above anyway.

On-topic:

I love everything they've announced, and like everyone else just want more details on specific features (Kerbal XP, aerodynamics changes, ISRU). Editor adjustments are welcomed greatly and I can only hope the tycoon elements of the game become more fully formed (Yay FinePrint integration!).

[Tail_TL]

well that almost makes two of us.

There are a heck of a lot of other players who play without mods, including me. I've tried multiple times to play with some mods but for some weird reason.. I like it when its simple and I like to play only with whats "Officially" is given to us to play with... I was playing with the Astronomers Visual Pack, and I really liked it, and I still like it.. but I decided to uninstall it.. can't really explain why I did that but yeah... well I guess because its not an "Official" thing (Duh) (And also it effects the performance a tiny bit) So yeaaaahh... Then I played with KAS, I really hope its going to be implemented in to the stock game.. but yeah I ended up uninstalling it.. same reason. I'll try and force myself to install the Astronomers Visual Pack again later..

*Cough I'm not weird at all *Cough*

Edited October 17, 2014 by Tail_TL

[Sandworm]

In order for a release to ever happen, they need to prioritize only the absolutely necessary features for the game to be "complete". It's really important that they move the game out of the "Early Access" status so that sales can climb up and give them the capital they will need to continue further development. If it seems like they are cutting the feature list short, that is why. Luckily, Felipe makes it clear they intend to continue adding to the game long after release.

Or they can redefine the game in such as way that makes it "complete" with only the current features. The word I'm thinking about is tycoon. Some ads talk about tycoon-style gameplay. That's a big order. That's, if not multiplayer, multi-actor in the sense of NPCs that the player competes with. It isn't going to happen. It's so far outside of KSP that there is no hope and most players, myself included, simply don't want it. Squad will surely remove any and all tycoon language from the beta announcements, redefining what the "complete" game will be in response to the lack of alpha progress in certain areas.

The same principals can be applied to the other features that people actually want. The pro-reality sim fans want reentry damage. Squad could implement that well (a complex system based on heating of parts) or poorly (craft explodes at X g load). Or they could decide to redefine KSP as a wacky cartoon game, not a sim, and declare reentry damage outside of scope. It's all up to them. They have no obligations to do much of anything. Expect more effort put into 'expectation management' than new features.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Sandworm

[Laie]

I'm afraid that I won't like it, that the eventual game will be not what I wish for.

For example, I really like how you can pretty much finish the tech tree in Kerbin SOI. In my vision of the game, the tech tree would only be the "tutorial" part of the campaign: let the players discover the parts gradually rather than throwing the whole toolbox at them all at once. But it's fine with me if you can have pretty much everything after a few visits to the Mun. Getting to Jool is difficult enough, I don't need the additional "challenge" of having to do it on inferior parts. Besides, what would be the point of Kerbodyne Launchers and large docking ports if you could only get them *after* the big missions? The current admin strategies are a bit too much though.

In a similar fashion, I'm quite fond of the "free money" missions. If I need to plant a dozen flags in order to finance my next mission, that gives me a nice sense of tedium (and is enough to make me consider launch costs), but I like how it doesn't actually stop me from doing anything. The flag and science missions strike a nice balance in this regard; what troubles me is making half a million from a simple part test in Kerbin orbit.

Somehow I guess the finished game will be quite different, though.

[Frostiken]

they announce new aero and some sort of fuel system, and "that's all"? lets be serious those are big changes.

Science was supposed to be a 'big change' and it's a clicking simulator. Contracts were supposed to be a 'big change' and it just tested your ability to activate a decoupler in weird places. Resources were supposed to be a 'big change' and it... got canceled. Let's get real - Squad is not known for creating mechanics with much depth to them whatsoever.

We already have both of those 'things' in the form of mods. We've had them for months and months.

How about they do something that you can't do with mods? Where's my damage system?

[Frostiken]

Getting KSP out the door makes sense, then additional features should be a paid add-on, IMO. Continuous game development requires a continuous income stream. It's rather a lot to expect infinite development for the cost of a single dinner at a halfway decent restaurant.

KSP has been effectively 'out' for almost three years now. Squad has accomplished less - with a bigger team - in the past two years than they did in the first. The last great update we got was still v0.18, which was November 2012 I think. They gave us docking, new planets, maneuver nodes, redid almost all the models and textures, gave us probes, action groups, electricity, lights, and redid the resource system.

That was ONE VERSION.

In the two years since then, the total list of major features still doesn't match the size and scope of 0.18. No new planets. A science system that is an insult. Flags. An astronaut recruitment building that does absolutely nothing, with Kerbal stats that do absolutely nothing.

[Tail_TL]

KSP has been effectively 'out' for almost three years now. Squad has accomplished less - with a bigger team - in the past two years than they did in the first. The last great update we got was still v0.18, which was November 2012 I think. They gave us docking, new planets, maneuver nodes, redid almost all the models and textures, gave us probes, action groups, electricity, lights, and redid the resource system.

That was ONE VERSION.

In the two years since then, the total list of major features still doesn't match the size and scope of 0.18. No new planets. A science system that is an insult. Flags. An astronaut recruitment building that does absolutely nothing, with Kerbal stats that do absolutely nothing.

Agree... The devs did become more lazy... Oh well... I guess the "Time Rots Everything" saying is true. (And in this case its the motivation that has rotted for the devs.) This game will probably never reach that "Close to being a Perfect Space Sandbox Game" state.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Tail_TL

[Stratzenblitz75]

Agree... The devs did become more lazy... Oh well... I guess the "Time Rots Everything" saying is true. (And in this case its the motivation that has rotted for the devs.) This game will probably never reach that "Close to being Perfect" state.

Luckily, we have mods to complete the game for us.

FAR + DRE + KWRocketry + Karbonite/Kethane + Astronomer's visual pack + Remote Tech + Kerbal Engineer Redux + RealChute + ScanSAT + B9 Aerospace +... Too many mods to count.

There, now KSP is more complete. I just saved everyone 3 months of waiting for an official update the barely adds anything. Where's my medal?

In all seriousness though, I agree with Frostiken on this issue; the past few official updates have been fairly underwhelming. This game has so much potential and I feel the developers aren't really taking advantage of it.

Oh well, as stated before, at least I have my mods.

[Franklin]

You kids are confusing content with workload, or worse, content with effort.

[Franklin]

They designed a procedural contracts system from the ground up but not one new planet since .18? Pfft, way to phone it in Squad, are you even trying?

[Moon Goddess]

I'm not demanding anything of the devs, if they stopped right now I'd still enjoy the game, maybe even more so since my mods wouldn't ever get broken again...

But what I really would love to see from the devs is things that mods can't seem to do.

Bringing Kerbalizer into the game, female kerbals, and putting the A in IVA so we can move around space stations. Other things I'd like to see stock like life support can be done by mods so I don't need those as much.

[Tail_TL]

Luckily, we have mods to complete the game for us.

FAR + DRE + KWRocketry + Karbonite/Kethane + Astronomer's visual pack + Remote Tech + Kerbal Engineer Redux + RealChute + ScanSAT + B9 Aerospace +... Too many mods to count.

There, now KSP is more complete. I just saved everyone 3 months of waiting for an official update the barely adds anything. Where's my medal?

In all seriousness though, I agree with Frostiken on this issue; the past few official updates have been fairly underwhelming. This game has so much potential and I feel the developers aren't really taking advantage of it.

Oh well, as stated before, at least I have my mods.

I know this is more of a personal problem but, what to do for those who don't like unofficial features or mechanics or anything really in their game? (Talking about mods) I'm just saying that I don't like to be playing a different game if compared to the next guy.. I mean I.e. I have finally landed on Laythe or something with a unique rocket and am super proud.. but other people are doing it with mechjeb or kerbonite or any mod that makes it a different experience and alters the difficulty.. I'm not sure if I explained it well but in short, I'm just saying that I want everyone to be on even ground (or atleast most people). If you know what I mean. In my point of view.. with all these mods I feel like we are all playing a different game and we aren't on the same page.. we aren't playing the same thing, we aren't one big community. I'm probably way off and no one feels the same as I do, or I just can't explain properly, but I hope someone gets what I'm saying.

EDIT:

Another way I could put it: "I like it when we are all playing the same thing, only thing different is our minds and our ideas. Not the game itself."

Edited October 17, 2014 by Tail_TL

[Sandworm]

I know this is more of a personal problem but, what to do for those who don't like unofficial features or mechanics or anything really in their game? (Talking about mods) I'm just saying that I don't like to be playing a different game if compared to the next guy.. I mean I.e. I have finally landed on Laythe or something with a unique rocket and am super proud.. but other people are doing it with mechjeb or kerbonite or any mod that makes it a different experience and alters the difficulty.. I'm not sure if I explained it well but in short, I'm just saying that I want everyone to be on even ground (or atleast most people). If you know what I mean. In my point of view.. with all these mods I feel like we are all playing a different game and we aren't on the same page.. we aren't playing the same thing, we aren't one big community. I'm probably way off and no one feels the same as I do, or I just can't explain properly, but I hope someone gets what I'm saying.

EDIT:

Another way I could put it: "I like it when we are all playing the same thing, only thing different is our minds and our ideas. Not the game itself."

You'll get over that eventually. Many new players seek the purity of the "stock" game as a basis for comparing themselves with others. KSP is not that type of game. Matured players don't care about external standards, probably because after a few months they know about all the holes in the stock game and know how to exploit them. You will learn to invent and play by your own standards.

For instance, I seek a more realistic sim experience but that doesn't mean I'm using every realism mod I can get my hands on. I don't like RemoteTech or DeadlyReentry because, to me, they only ape reality. The difficulties they create are only loosely associated to realworld space programs. I do use various life support mods because, again for me alone, they create an enjoyable challenge. Eventually everyone decides on some combination that suits their own style.

[razark]

Another way I could put it: "I like it when we are all playing the same thing, only thing different is our minds and our ideas. Not the game itself."

If we're comparing my achievements to yours, then the mods we're using matter. Otherwise, the only thing that really matters is that we're both having fun playing the way we want to.

I guess if there were some sort of on-line tracking system that compared how people were doing, there would also need to be a way to track which mods were used to do what, or if it matters in multiplayer. Other than that, everyone gets to play the way they like. You have no reason to complain if I go build bases throughout the system using mechjeb, and I have no reason to complain if you putter around the Kerbin neighborhood in stock. If someone looks down on you because of the way you choose to play a game, then just smile and remember that there's someone that looks down on them for how they choose to play.

[Red Iron Crown]

You'll get over that eventually. Many new players seek the purity of the "stock" game as a basis for comparing themselves with others. KSP is not that type of game. Matured players don't care about external standards, probably because after a few months they know about all the holes in the stock game and know how to exploit them. You will learn to invent and play by your own standards.

That's pretty condescending. There are lots of veteran players who play pure stock, and some of them are among the most inventive and skilled I've seen. The don't need to "learn" or "get over" anything. Implying that players who don't use mods just haven't learned better yet is flat out wrong.

[Franklin]

I think he meant that he'll get over wanting others to play the same game as himself, or everyone playing the same game.