Disappointed with Squad's development paradigm

[Crimson Sunrise]

Seeing as I was actually around before Minmus became a thing, I can indeed confirm that it was a member's suggestion. It wasn't even posted in a [suggestion] thread, it was just something a member tossed around offhand, and HarvesteR picked up on it and decided it was a good idea. The forums were a lot smaller back then, the devs frequently around.

Strange. Because I thought the devs deliberately decided to dimish their presence on the forums after the 'DLC fiasco'...

And considering how (judging by the dev blogs I've seen), SQUAD talks, talks, talks and doesn't say anything...It's no wonder they ended up pissing the users off.

[vexx32]

Heh, they have been more or less forced to that kind of position by a neverending stream of users who have unrealistic expectations and take two words as gospel while ignoring the more in-depth explanation. And this was before the DLC fiasco, or perhaps around the same time, I can't recall. It wasn't the DLC thing that caused them to be less frequent visitors here, though.

[Crimson Sunrise]

Heh, they have been more or less forced to that kind of position by a neverending stream of users who have unrealistic expectations and take two words as gospel while ignoring the more in-depth explanation. And this was before the DLC fiasco, or perhaps around the same time, I can't recall. It wasn't the DLC thing that caused them to be less frequent visitors here, though.

It's either the DLC fiasco or resource mining.

And...It's a very intelligent way of acting. 'People don't pay attention to the details. Let's give them MORE DETAILS so they pay attention.'

Treating the problem of guns with more guns.

[sal_vager]

You want guns in KSP now? There's a mod for that

Squad gives you information, but if you choose not to listen, well then there's no hope for you.

[willow]

Nope, "resources" as originally envisioned was overcomplex and out of scope for what the devs want to do with KSP, but a more streamlined version of resources is being developed as we speak

Glad to hear that... As someone with over 500 hours in the game I can hardly claim it to be an unplayable mess. And I won't... it's simply the best game since apollo18 on the c64.

But I was always disappointed that resources went away and stayed away. Mods do replicate the functionality. And I always hoped they would get to allowing us to build KSC type stations on other worlds where the buildings weren't just ships in disguise but similar to the KSC scene. In their own class.

As for the bugs, I find that active texture management pretty much solves 90% of my crashes. The rest occur because I'm installing and removing mods on a daily basis. I think if you pick a core set and use texture management you're basically problem free.

Strategies are horribly broken of course. But they're also pretty much optional.

There's lots to be improved. But that doesn't take away that it's a kick ass game from a really charismatic team...

[Ten Key]

"Early Access", "Alpha", "Beta", "Gamma", Squad can label this game however they like. I paid $16 for Kerbal Space Program through Steam, and after several hundred hours of play it's starting to feel like I'm stealing from them. I have more than gotten my money's worth.

[Crimson Sunrise]

You want guns in KSP now? There's a mod for that

Squad gives you information, but if you choose not to listen, well then there's no hope for you.

Well, let's just pretend neither the devs nor the staff are not stupid to assume everyone follows everything SQUAD does religiously, including livestreams.

[Captain Sierra]

Your research is lacking, multiplayer was placed on the list due to the repetitive nature of the requests, now it's in the works due in part to player requests, that is the very definition of a suggestion that is being implemented in the game.

While that may be true, the iron fist enforcement it got for such a period of time combined with Squad stating multiple times that MP was not planned for any version of KSP ever, only to change their minds after KMP became a thing would like to taint your argument. It was not until someone had done the work for them. Moreso when Squad announced they were going to start working on an MP backend, they said that MP was always in the list of "we'd like to at some point" which the empirical evidence refutes quite strongly.

/devil's advocate

[tater]

"Early Access", "Alpha", "Beta", "Gamma", Squad can label this game however they like. I paid $16 for Kerbal Space Program through Steam, and after several hundred hours of play it's starting to feel like I'm stealing from them. I have more than gotten my money's worth.

This, right here. I paid 20-something, and I have gotten way more enjoyment than that expenditure.

[sal_vager]

"Always wanted to do at some point" does not equal "was planning to do" though Cap, and you know that DMP helped to convince Squad, specifically HarvesteR, that it'd be doable.

That's not quite the same as "doing the work for them" though, the KSP-MP code is new

"Iron fist" is an interesting phrase to use for merging and closing superfluous threads on MP when a majority of the community members themselves were sick to the gills of multiple threads per day suggesting MP as if it was some never-before-considered idea, we still see threads like that on the Steam forums daily and they are just as annoying there.

If people had looked for and contributed to existing threads on the subject it'd not ever have been a problem, same with most of the other WNTS topics, simple

[Crimson Sunrise]

While that may be true, the iron fist enforcement it got for such a period of time combined with Squad stating multiple times that MP was not planned for any version of KSP ever, only to change their minds after KMP became a thing would like to taint your argument. It was not until someone had done the work for them. Moreso when Squad announced they were going to start working on an MP backend, they said that MP was always in the list of "we'd like to at some point" which the empirical evidence refutes quite strongly.

/devil's advocate

If I may stretch that a little more... Some of the 'suggested features' were mods before they were into the game.

So, there's a portion of 'suggestions'...in the form of work being done in behalf of the developers, which qualify more as 'I'm not gonna wait for the developers to wise up and see this is what people want and make a mod.' than a suggestion as per se.

[snip]'s advocate.

[ShadowZone]

I gotta add something here because to some extent I get where Derfel is coming from. I have logged over 1000 hours in KSP now and still haven't visited all planets/moons. A lot of those playing hours were time dilated so to speak since the game slows down to a grinding halt as soon as you build larger craft.

"But then don't build large rockets!" --> no I won't stop building humongous creations because that's my thing, that's what I like about KSP, being able to build ludicrous space vehicles.

Every time I read the dev notes I think "finally, I am going to read about some real performance improvements / bug fixing" but it is always some new idea or feature. Contracts, aerodynamics and now multiplayer. Squad is continuously increasing complexity and therefore making it harder for themselves to reduce past mistakes.

I am working closely together with a software development company and they did the same thing: had to increase complexity due to customers' wishes (paired with an ineptitude of management to protect devs from them) and kept piling on technical debt. In the end the product they developed almost died. That's exactly what I am seeing here. And that worries me.

Why does it worry me? Because I love what KSP could be. It has immense potential (that it hasn't reached yet). Yes, aerodynamics are important. But why isn't there more focus on reducing bugs and increasing technical performance?

And here we have to get back to the initial thread title about "development paradigm". Honestly? Forget about old ideas like "alpha", "beta" and "release". The game is released. Thousands are playing it. KSP has already become something else than a simple one-off release. It is now a service. And Squad should refocus their energies to continuous development of this game, because let's be honest: it will never be finished. Just like space exploration will never be finished (at least not in our lifetime). New ideas will surface, and since this game has developed such a involved community.

TL;DR There should be two development strains:

1) bug fixing & overall improvement

2) new features

Right now, neither is done very well, to be honest.

[Crimson Sunrise]

I gotta add something here because to some extent I get where Derfel is coming from. I have logged over 1000 hours in KSP now and still haven't visited all planets/moons. A lot of those playing hours were time dilated so to speak since the game slows down to a grinding halt as soon as you build larger craft.

"But then don't build large rockets!" --> no I won't stop building humongous creations because that's my thing, that's what I like about KSP, being able to build ludicrous space vehicles.

Every time I read the dev notes I think "finally, I am going to read about some real performance improvements / bug fixing" but it is always some new idea or feature. Contracts, aerodynamics and now multiplayer. Squad is continuously increasing complexity and therefore making it harder for themselves to reduce past mistakes.

I am working closely together with a software development company and they did the same thing: had to increase complexity due to customers' wishes (paired with an ineptitude of management to protect devs from them) and kept piling on technical debt. In the end the product they developed almost died. That's exactly what I am seeing here. And that worries me.

Why does it worry me? Because I love what KSP could be. It has immense potential (that it hasn't reached yet). Yes, aerodynamics are important. But why isn't there more focus on reducing bugs and increasing technical performance?

And here we have to get back to the initial thread title about "development paradigm". Honestly? Forget about old ideas like "alpha", "beta" and "release". The game is released. Thousands are playing it. KSP has already become something else than a simple one-off release. It is now a service. And Squad should refocus their energies to continuous development of this game, because let's be honest: it will never be finished. Just like space exploration will never be finished (at least not in our lifetime). New ideas will surface, and since this game has developed such a involved community.

TL;DR There should be two development strains:

1) bug fixing & overall improvement

2) new features

Right now, neither is done very well, to be honest.

This is one of the prime examples of something you have heard of before: Seagull Management.

[Beachernaut]

"Early Access", "Alpha", "Beta", "Gamma", Squad can label this game however they like. I paid $16 for Kerbal Space Program through Steam, and after several hundred hours of play it's starting to feel like I'm stealing from them. I have more than gotten my money's worth.

This. ALL DAY LONG!

I think I spent $12 when I bought KSP. Last time I checked steam I had well over a thousand hours playing. Although I've experienced my fair share of bugs and crashes, and with the exception of some mod related bugs, I have yet to experience repeated bugs/crashes that stopped me from enjoying the game. I think there are some legitimate bugs that Squad really do need to address, but at this point I'm going to keep playing this game.

[Pthigrivi]

Man this thread is still going?

I dont know I play stock and I play this game all the effing time. It hasn't gotten old for me in the 2 years or so Ive been going. I mean yeah, bug-fixes obviously, performance needs some work, they know that. Its in progress yo! The things they've added in the last year haven't been glitzy or flashy like new planets or resources. I have total faith those are on the way in the next year or so. What they've been drilling down into is bringing this out of sandbox and adding the real nuts-and-bolts of actual gameplay. This game wasn't a game before budgets. Its a hugely important constraint and really helps people think about making lean-mean rockets. Kerbal Skills are brand new and need a bunch more work, everything needs a balance pass, but contracts are way better already and better aerodynamics are totally necessary.

Have some patience yall.

[Starwhip]

As an avid user of the game for over two years, and a forum member for nearly as long, I've seen many ups and downs of the game. I agree with the OP on several points:

A: The game is buggy

B: Some of the bugs are due to inefficient programming.

C: More ships/parts = more lag.

However:

- Bugs are constantly being either worked around, fixed, or scheduled to be. Shout-out to Claw.

- Try programming something the size of the solar system in an engine that was intended for stuff like shooter games with levels under a couple hundred meters in any direction. (May be an over-exaggeration, but still, Unity was not meant for the scale of KSP)

- Of course more objects means more lag. Go and spawn five hundred entities in any game not intended for five hundred entities, and you have issues.

As for the "It's all SQUAD's fault" crowd, as well as the "Unity Sucks" guys:

Patience is a virtue.

EDIT:

Also, the reason games like Skyrim run much faster is because they don't simulate the effects of Newtonian physics, thrusters, air drag, velocity, momentum, etc. They basically say: "Everything falls down" and that's it.

[Crimson Sunrise]

- Bugs are constantly being either worked around, fixed, or scheduled to be. Shout-out to Claw.

Who is just a volunteer and not working for SQUAD. One dedicated person can do the work of 11-12 people who are getting paid to do the same thing and failing miserably.

- Try programming something the size of the solar system in an engine that was intended for stuff like shooter games with levels under a couple hundred meters in any direction. (May be an over-exaggeration, but still, Unity was not meant for the scale of KSP)

- Of course more objects means more lag. Go and spawn five hundred entities in any game not intended for five hundred entities, and you have issues.

Space Engine was programmed entirely by one person. The 'game' itself is at least two levels of magnitude more complex than KSP. While spawning 500 entities is no easy job, try to procedurally create the entirety of the non-cataloged observable universe.

As for the "It's all SQUAD's fault" crowd, as well as the "Unity Sucks" guys:

Patience is a virtue.

Accountability is a virtue as well, but you certainly will see more people wanting to get credited than people wanting to be held accountable.

EDIT:

Also, the reason games like Skyrim run much faster is because they don't simulate the effects of Newtonian physics, thrusters, air drag, velocity, momentum, etc. They basically say: "Everything falls down" and that's it.

Neither does KSP. Refer back to the bunch of people complaining bout the lack of realism and HarvesteR stating that 'fun comes first'.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Crimson Sunrise

[Starwhip]

Who is just a volunteer and not working for SQUAD. 3rd parties making short work of 1st parties.

Indeed, he is. But the fixes don't just fade away into the aether, do they?

Space Engine was programmed entirely by one person. The 'game' itself is at least two levels of magnitude more complex than KSP. While spawning 500 entities is no easy job, try to procedurally create the entirety of the non-cataloged observable universe.

SQUAD was/is a marketing firm. HarvesteR was a graphics designer. (I think? Don't quote me on that.)

It was programmed by one guy who had the whole scope from the beginning. Which was to program a "game two levels of magnitude more complex" than KSP. Could the guys working down at SQUAD made the game at this level? Yes. Would it be KSP? No.

Also, one person who got a metric crap ton of money (And is still getting more!). SQUAD might have gotten a larger quantity, but they are ten guys working for a living, not one person working on a game.

Accountability is a virtue as well, but you certainly will see more people wanting to get credited than people wanting to be held accountable.

Yes, but is that relevant to the topic?

Neither does KSP. Refer back to the bunch of people complaining bout the lack of realism and HarvesteR stating that 'fun come first'.

You're kidding, right? Right?

Or are you entirely unaware of the fact that the game is, indeed, not using magical data extracted from the revolution of your CPU's fan to change the position of the ship, instead of calculating the acceleration of said ship, weighing X tons, with Y engines, and how that affects its orbit?

Not that it is supposed to be "realistic" (I mean, come on, if you want realism go play with real rockets.), but it definitely does more than say

Player_SpeedY += Gravity;

[Crimson Sunrise]

Indeed, he is. But the fixes don't just fade away into the aether, do they?

They aren't treated as priorities either. Refer back to the Krakens and Cthulus.

SQUAD was/is a marketing firm. HarvesteR was a graphics designer. (I think? Don't quote me on that.)

It was programmed by one guy who had the whole scope from the beginning. Which was to program a "game two levels of magnitude more complex" than KSP. Could the guys working down at SQUAD made the game at this level? Yes. Would it be KSP? No.

Also, one person who got a metric crap ton of money (And is still getting more!). SQUAD might have gotten a larger quantity, but they are ten guys working for a living, not one person working on a game.

The same way KSP started by one guy (HarvesteR) who had the entire scope of the game from the beginning. Also, the guy working on Space Engine doesn't charge a single cent for it and it's going pretty well implementing features and such. As for SQUAD...Steam + Standalone sales...You got my drill. It's about commitment and accountability. Not about money.

Yes, but is that relevant to the topic?

It's about accountability and commitment.

You're kidding, right? Right?

Or are you entirely unaware of the fact that the game is, indeed, not using magical data extracted from the revolution of your CPU's fan to change the position of the ship, instead of calculating the acceleration of said ship, weighing X tons, with Y engines, and how that affects its orbit?

Not that it is supposed to be "realistic" (I mean, come on, if you want realism go play with real rockets.), but it definitely does more than say

Player_SpeedY += Gravity;

Does it use n-body physics, lagrange points, real world aerodynamics? Most games nowadays are built using Havok or similar physics engines, that are modeled on real world physics. Some of these engines are even used in real world simulations. Just because you don't see those in said games, doesn't mean they aren't capable of such.

[Starwhip]

Does it use n-body physics, lagrange points, real world aerodynamics? Most games nowadays are built using Havok or similar physics engines, that are modeled on real world physics. Some of these engines are even used in real world simulations. Just because you don't see those in said games, doesn't mean they aren't capable of such.

I can't keep it down, Sal_vager!

But they still aren't using them, thus run faster.

[RAINCRAFTER]

Someone just please close this thread.

[sal_vager]

Doesn't hurt to allow people to air their criticisms, though it'd help if those criticisms were valid and not fallacies

[Starwhip]

Someone just please close this thread.

Oi. Not to be mean, but it's not your call. OP only, really, unless the thread flies off the rails over a cliff.

Which it hasn't... yet. This guy isn't done with me, I think.

(Maybe I drove him off.)

EDIT:

Doesn't hurt to allow people to air their criticisms, though it'd help if those criticisms were valid and not fallacies

Yep. XD

[Tuareg]

Nope, "resources" as originally envisioned was overcomplex and out of scope for what the devs want to do with KSP, but a more streamlined version of resources is being developed as we speak

or they simply dont have the ability and the time to spend on a garageproject so they will solve it with a single part which produce fuel on a click... i could do in 30 min. that will be the next patch?

[KerBlam]

I'm surprised they chose UNITY in the first place... Does anyone here know how that came about? It seems there are other more suitable engines for a game such as this.

The amount of programming that must have been required to get this project operating on that platform! A custom engine may have been less work?

Considering the UNITY platform seems to be the cause of the greatest amount of grief concerning KSP, regarding performance especially.

I'm definitely not disappointed with SQUAD, I love this game and I have nothing except exploding thumbs-ups for them. I do think they shot themselves in the foot slightly with UNITY.