Devnote Tuesdays: The "Beta Than Experimentals" Edition

[CaptainKipard]

... while keeping it fun for general public.

And that's the problem

1. It alienates their core audience.

2. Making it more gamey will result in another generic game that's fun for no one.

Squad should stop trying to please everyone. It's paradoxically self-defeating. This is a sim. It appealed to science nerds, and that's a huge part of what made it popular. Make a list of the gameplay elements in KSP and compare that to other games, you'll soon figure out what makes it stand out. I suspect that negating that will only hurt Squad in the long run, because, get this, the market is oversaturated. This is the same thing that happened during the game industry crash in the 1980s. Squad might not survive as a developer if they don't stand out.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Guest]

Agreed. They should embrace the very thing they advertise themselves as! It's that simple, people already think of KSP as a sim (really, the more I look at it, the more I'm convinced Squad is much better at advertising than actual game making ). Orbiter's failings are not in realism, but in arcane scripting system (which is required to make even a basic mission, manual control hardly works well) and lack of good visualization. KSP fixes those, with a very good visualization system, nice graphics (one of my problems with Orbiter is that most stuff has lackluster visuals) and a huge amount of customization options.

Orbiter is, at the core, a scientific simulation tool. It can be enjoyable, but in the end, you can't really do much in it. KSP, on the other hand, is much more. It has construction options (which means you can learn about spacecraft design, not only their operation) and the career mode (which allows you to experience managing a space agency). None of those would be hurt by realistic physics, quite the contrary, in fact. KSP should be a game primarily aimed at science nerds (this includes most actual scientists) and secondarily at hardcore flightsimmers interested in customizable aircraft (something no other flight simulator offers). Both of those are somewhat peculiar demographics to work with, but there's more than enough games for casual gamers already, and I don't think this kind of gameplay would appeal to RTS/Tycoon players.

[J.Random]

Squad should stop trying to please everyone except me.

Here, I fixed it for you.

[CaptainKipard]

Here, I fixed it for you.

You seem to have no concept of irony. Everything I said is objectively true, whereas you only expressed a subjective opinion earlier, with your "reserve the right to hate [squad]". The fact that I want a sim is irrelevant to the argument, it just makes it easier on my ego when expressing it.

LOGIC!

[J.Random]

Everything I said is objectively true

Of course it is.

"reserve the right to hate [squad]"

Not Squad, you. People who want an unnecessarily complex simulation for everyone. Harvester said more than once: it's kinda sim, but only because it has to be. As long as "everything will fly (and crash) as it should", Squad is happy about precision of their simulation enough to not complicate it any more. I bet the reason for expected aero revamp is not so much players' opinion that it sucks as countless bugs with control surfaces and lack of nosecones/adapters' purpose (other than aesthetic).

[CaptainKipard]

Not Squad, you.

You got me there. This changes everything.

People who want an unnecessarily complex simulation for everyone. Harvester said more than once: it's kinda sim, but only because it has to be. As long as "everything will fly (and crash) as it should", Squad is happy about precision of their simulation enough to not complicate it any more. I bet the reason for expected aero revamp is not so much players' opinion that it sucks as countless bugs with control surfaces and lack of nosecones/adapters' purpose (other than aesthetic).

In other words making it more realistic. Another way of saying it would be that "unnecessary" simplification leads to bugs. See? I can play this game too. Can you have a discussion in good faith or do you want to continue playing semantics?

Edited December 12, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Robotengineer]

I would like to chip in that people who want more realism are also more likely to know how to mod/find a mod. If some people want more complexity, it's easier to add more complexity by modding than remove it.

I also think that KSP should neither be sim or science game, it should be a game about space exploration. If it is to sim like, people won't buy it because they will think (incorrectly) that it is to hard. If it is to much of a science game, it becomes about either grinding for science in career mode, or a teaching tool for orbital mechanics, both of which would be not much fun or very accurate.

On aerodynamics, making it more realistic does not mean making it more complex for the end user. It's a common sense thing, things with nosecones should be more aerodynamic, and more lift should not equal flight. As funny as some of the things people have been able to do with the stock atmosphere, it's not really worth it.

[J.Random]

OK. Let's start with "core audience" argument. Judging by low entry point, science/space geeks/nerds are _not_ really an intended audience. Trial and error, "by the guts" intuitive gameplay and emphasis on visual representation of information instead of spreadsheets assume lack of actual knowledge but curiosity and urge to learn about space travel. In other words, space/science geeks/nerds "wannabes", not realistic sim fans (yet). On the other hand, complexity, if required, can be added through mods, satisfying players as they become more interested in realism. You've named the exact reason why KSP depends on modders so much already: you can't please everyone. Including me, you or Dragon01.

[Robotengineer]

I agree with the core audience argument, I started out with an interest in space and space travel when I started playing KSP about a year ago. A year later and I can spend hours looking up alternative propulsion technologies, the limits of RL spacecraft, trying to find out more about pseudo-realistic spacecraft from sic-fi movies, etc. I went from having an interest in space, to knowing more about the science and the industry of it in 1 year. However, if I had only played stock, I would only have about 1/4 of the knowledge I've built up, and wouldn't know that much about ∆v, isp, alt. prop. and planetary science without mods. Basically, KSP has been a portal for me to learn about numerous other things, and I hope it stays that way for past, present and future players.

[Phoenix84]

I agree with the core audience argument, I started out with an interest in space and space travel when I started playing KSP about a year ago. A year later and I can spend hours looking up alternative propulsion technologies, the limits of RL spacecraft, trying to find out more about pseudo-realistic spacecraft from sic-fi movies, etc. I went from having an interest in space, to knowing more about the science and the industry of it in 1 year. However, if I had only played stock, I would only have about 1/4 of the knowledge I've built up, and wouldn't know that much about ∆v, isp, alt. prop. and planetary science without mods. Basically, KSP has been a portal for me to learn about numerous other things, and I hope it stays that way for past, present and future players.

Same for me.

I've always loved space. I watch Sci-Fi, recently got into amateur astro-photography, and always wanted to visit the stars.

After playing KSP for two years, it's only gotten stronger. Plus I know about the rocket equation, orbital mechanics, and other related things.

Although that comes with a downside: finding more and more errors in movies, such as Gravity.

Years ago, I saw the last Titan IV launch from VAFB. My grandpa worked for Aerojet at the time. He gave me the Titan IV handbook. At first I saw the diagrams and it looked neat, but I didn't really understand it. I just pulled it out the other day, and I actually understand some of what's in there now. That wouldn't have happened if I didn't play KSP.

It talks about each of the Titan stages, what the propellants are (solid boosters use Aluminum powder fuel and Ammonium perchlorate oxidizer), the engine thrust, and ISP ratings, payload capacity, etc...

Very fascinating stuff.

[colin_in_space]

I would like to chip in that people who want more realism are also more likely to know how to mod/find a mod. If some people want more complexity, it's easier to add more complexity by modding than remove it.

This is the best point raised in this post so far. I will never understand why people are so obsessed with certain points in the main game when there is all to often a mod for that. I wanted a harder game so I added tac L's, deadly reentry, and near (OK I wimped out about far). Et voila! I have more accurate aerodynamics and reentry heat. Easy peezy breezy sneezy.

As for your elwasinf by christmas I am sure this is not for us but for squad. Both so they can enjoy the holidays and hopefully a holiday bump in sales. It is not just about making us happy (I already bought the game) but staying solvent and having income to keep building this game we all love.

I am quite excited for 0.9. The only big feature u haven't heard mention of yet is gas giant 2. OK do I have yet to get kerbals to jool, but I still want more planets!

Thank you squad for all the hours of happiness.

[Vanamonde]

This thread has turned into a repetition of arguments we've already had elsewhere. Rather than go through those again, please use this thread to talk about the news in the current devnotes.

[CaptainKipard]

Ok.

What is this "fake occlusion" Daniel was talking about?

Also I hope the new menu is not animated like the current one. I don't know about everyone else, but one thing I hate about games is forcing me to wait even a second. I just want to click, click and go.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Superfluous J]

Ok.

What is this "fake occlusion" Daniel was talking about?

Also I hope the new menu is not animated like the current one. I don't know about everyone else, but one thing I hate about games is forcing me to wait even a second. I just want to click, click and go.

First off, I totally agree about the animated menus.

Secondly, Occlusion (in this sense) is when light is blocked by one part of your object and a shadow falls on another. Fake occlusion is where you - well - fake it so you're not actually tracing light rays or anything. Think of the buttons on older versions of Windows where the bottom and right sides are dark, as if the button is blocking the light.

[panzer1b]

Good job, im lookin forwards to this update, hopefully ill be able to have less pain (and perhaps nolonger NEED editor extensions/part root set) when messing in editor.

The other stuff is cool, but i dont know how you gusy plan to balance the traits system (increasing stats like dV or thrust is impossible in terms of realism), perhaps itll be limited to plausible stuff like jet throttle lag (skill could improve this), maneuvering faster, more responsiveness, ect. But im hoping there are no cheat kerbals (dV buff OP).

Career upgrades look promising too, although id love to have a scienceless/moneyless career option added (like sandbox mode, but the ability to get missions, i like the freedom to do whatever im in the mood for, and i also like the ability to do the missions too). Still, the missions upgrades should be alot, since i find that the whole test parts gets boring quickly (fun for a while, but after testing 100 parts it turns more into grinding then entertainment).

The MK3 parts look nice, i think ill find a nice use with those for capital ships, since they arent circular and circular parts look terrible on capital ships. Might make a few cargo SSTOs, although im not that big a fan of "conventional" designs, prefer sci-fi stuff in general.

Anyways, while i havent heard any word on this, i sure hope there are at least SOME upgrades to optimization, the game is just unplayeable with anything over 1000 pats, and 500 is where it starts to get sluggish, any station worth anything is going to at a bare minimum have 500, if not 5000 parts. One possible suggestion id have is adding procedural parts as a temporary fix (if i can replace 10 wings with 2, its that much less lag). Primarily id like to see fuel tanks, wings, and structural panels, but anything procedural would be appreciated!

Anyways, gl with whatever upgrades you guys decide to make, any content is appreciated (provided it doesnt make the game BSOD )

Edited December 13, 2014 by panzer1b

[basic.syntax]

adding procedural parts as a temporary fix (if i can replace 10 wings with 2, its that much less lag). Primarily id like to see fuel tanks, wings, and structural panels,

This. Sort of. I wouldn't be so much in favor of supporting procedurally stretching parts to fit in the editor, that would add a new layer of unreality to it, and could make aligning anything to the stretched thing require more stretching, rotating... a cascading mess of problems. I like the snap-together real-parts modeling metaphor. ("This is a real Thing, that you can plug into / snap onto this other Thing.")

But I'd support all parts having upgrade levels that we choose to activate (and in career mode, pay for) in the editor. A level 2 wing part might be twice the size, a level 2 SAS twice as effective... a UI listing available upgrades / variations for the selected part in the editor would be neater, compared to cluttering the toolbox with 4 size variations of the same thing.

id love to have a scienceless/moneyless career option

You can get really close to this, by customizing the difficulty of a new career game, and setting Science and Fund rewards per accomplishment or contract - up to 1000% of normal values.