Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[Majorjim!]

Does anyone have a guess as to when the next update will be?

My guess is around another month or so.

[klgraham1013]

Hover over tool tips are never a bad thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Does anyone have a guess as to when the next update will be?

My guess is around another month or so.

It seems like things are moving pretty fast. I would prefer, if they are skipping beta, that they take a while longer. Make sure they get everything right for 1.0.

[Jouni]

Your fine with new players having to look outside the game to learn how to play? I'm not.

Isn't that what everyone does in every game? Computers are capable of multitasking, so it's usually more convenient to do a few quick Google searches, instead of trying to find the same information ingame with a slow game-specific UI.

[GusTurbo]

Does anyone have a guess as to when the next update will be?

My guess is around another month or so.

With how they're making it sound, I wouldn't think a release is coming until April or May. It's anyone's guess, really.

[SSR Kermit]

I get the feeling that Youtube is having an undue influence on the development cycle of this game. Just because critics on youtube (famously TB, Jim Sterling et al) express reservations against early access doesn't mean it's ok to push unfinished products out the gate. I'm glad I've been on board for so long, because I am certainly one of those who get put off by a shoddy release and as it stands I probably would have skipped it if it was a full release.

So much in the game still feels like an afterthought.

Integrate, balance and polish. Release that as a beta, judge the reaction. If ok, then you go 1.0. Standard fare stuff. You're really jumping the gun on this one, Squad.

[klgraham1013]

Isn't that what everyone does in every game? Computers are capable of multitasking, so it's usually more convenient to do a few quick Google searches, instead of trying to find the same information ingame with a slow game-specific UI.

No. What games are you playing? I've looked at a walkthrough for some older games, for puzzles and what not, but I consider that bad game design as well.

[KerBlam]

Your fine with new players having to look outside the game to learn how to play? I'm not.

I'm pretty sure the in-game tutorial teaches orbiting basics as well. Seems to me like most games these days have an online manual of some sort. What's the other option? Put the entire wiki in the pause menu?

I think Alt-Tabbing to the web-browser is not that difficult.

[cpast]

Hover over tool tips are never a bad thing.

Implementing a UI element for its own sake, rather than to solve some actual problem, is always a bad thing. What, exactly, should the tooltips be for? What information should be displayed on them?

[WOODY01]

Isn't that what everyone does in every game? Computers are capable of multitasking, so it's usually more convenient to do a few quick Google searches, instead of trying to find the same information ingame with a slow game-specific UI.

The negative user reviews on Steam seemed to me to have been a result of poor tutorials and player guidance in the beginning of the game. In it's current state reviewers should and probally will at least mention the lack of a good tutorial and early in game guidance.

As it stands now the negative reviews are dwarfed by the positive and I would assume at final release players will judge the game more harshly. I myself since hearing that the next release view the game with a more critical eye. My guess the positive reviews will still outnumber the negative by a wide margin but that margin will narrow.

[Jouni]

No. What games are you playing? I've looked at a walkthrough for some older games, for puzzles and what not, but I consider that bad game design as well.

Many different games. The important thing is that ingame UIs for accessing information are always really bad. Tiny fonts, poor choice of colors, deliberate delays, slow response times, nonstandard keyboard shortcuts (if any), no movable and resizable windows with tabs, no convenient ways for making notes and calculating stuff, only rudimentary search capabilities (if any), and so on. Even if the information could be found ingame, it's always more convenient and less painful to use the standard tools to access it online.

[pandaman]

Even if the information could be found ingame, it's always more convenient and less painful to use the standard tools to access it online.

Only if you have an Internet connection!

I favour ingame info where possible, at least for the basic and common stuff. For KSP that would be how all the UIs work, how to reach orbit etc. As well as inbuilt comprehensive tutorials that can be aaccessed from the start menu.

I get quite annoyed with the CAD software I use at work just links me to the Internet when I only want some basic info on a feature.

[Majorjim!]

With how they're making it sound, I wouldn't think a release is coming until April or May. It's anyone's guess, really.

Wowza. I'm tempted to put KSP to one side until the release. It looks like te update will change the game so much there's no point in building anything special right now.

[basic.syntax]

1.0 is more than 2 months away. Maxmaps said this, in his latest Squadcast.

Starting at 11:30 into the stream - (my transcript. link to video, and Much more stuff that he talked about, is in the link above.)

"...over the past couple updates we got you used to shorter dev cycles ... and i'm crazy happy that we managed to pull them off, but, i'd say don't expect this one to go as short. I would love to say "yeah, it will just be 2 months," and BAM we're out in 1.0 and its gonna be great, but no. This one's gonna take a little longer, because there's... as you probably read the feature list, there is a LOT to get done."

[Nhaga]

I was personally expecting two particular things for the official release :

Weather (mostly wind clouds and rain), and a more "finished" update to the graphics (mostly for the celestial bodies)

Now, don't get me wrong I am not part of the people that think a game should be judged by its graphics, I played KSP for over 200 hours and I am looking forward to the release to get back into it.

Also, I'm not trying to say that KSP should be overly detailed I think the video game industry have enough example of games such as Journey which have simplistic yet really neat graphics.

For exemple, when I launch or land a spacecraft and see as I approach or leave the surface all these very obvious small and repeating patterns, and the way the water connect with the lands, to me it seems like an unfortunate missed opportunity to bring more atmospheric and ambient feeling.

Further, If the collision against trees and rocks is not going to happen, that would be yet another big immersion breaker.

Sorry for my english, I'm just giving my opinion.

Edit : I forgot to mention re-entry damages and g-force effects that I was expecting because It's partially implemented. Even though I understand that they would increase the difficulty waaay up for certain person, the game now has checkable options for it's difficulty so I was still expecting it to be in 1.0.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Nhaga

[Red Iron Crown]

Those are good points, Nhaga. I don't think of myself as being superficial enough that graphics are overly important, but since upgrading my PC and trying visual effects mods I have to admit better graphics do add to my enjoyment of the game. It's more immersive, and some of the visuals are awe-inspiring.

[Captain Sierra]

Those are good points, Nhaga. I don't think of myself as being superficial enough that graphics are overly important, but since upgrading my PC and trying visual effects mods I have to admit better graphics do add to my enjoyment of the game. It's more immersive, and some of the visuals are awe-inspiring.

I agree with both of you in that graphics are a good thing. They make the game so much nicer, but the do not make the game. I still enjoy the stock game as much as I enjoy my 64 bit version running Astronomer's Visual Pack on the highest res possible (and an 8k skybox; my GPU does handle this and its totally worth it). KSP is a game that still sells itself on gameplay rather than visuals and thats something there isnt much of. Homeworld coming back partially does that (though its biggest selling point is the existing die-hard fanbase such as myself).

What I expected from 1.0 is that:

1) The major bugfixing would have already been done and time would be taken to ensure all of that was in fact complete and there were no game breaking bugs left.

2) No major systems were being added. Major systems open the door for game-breaking bugs, game-breaking balance, and overall a far-less-than-finished game.

I'm fine with Squad thinking KSP is ready for 1.0, and if the update were already out and they were going to release just a small minor tweaks patch to call it 1.0, I would have no issues. My issue is that they're adding so much, changing so much and fundamentally reengineering the entire gameplay experience that it is too much for a 1.0 release. Their experimental team is not perfect, which is why they have us. They're not giving us time to bugfix and troubleshoot all this stuff before calling it 1.0. You release a buggy 1.0 and your launch will flop dismally. None of us want that, so we yell and yell and complain and b**ch until Squad acknowledges us and hopefully sees that we have a point.

All we want is them to not break the game on their 1.0 release, which is almost guaranteed to happen with an update of this magnitude. Squad, throw it as 0.91 please. We don't care if you make a hotfix a week later and call it KSP 1.0, just for the love of God do not make a more-than-likely game breaking update your 1.0 release.

[Robotengineer]

I would like to say that graphics need a redeux as well, the current ones just don't work. It doesn't have to be clouds, but a new skybox, revamped planet textures, revamped parts, etc. Having played with Texture Replacer, EVE, Distant Object Enhancement, Planet Shine and Ven's Stock Revamp, in RSS, KSP is a ton more immersive. I would say the #1 graphical eye-sore in stock is the skybox, especially when playing at lower resoloutions, 1/2 res or lower.

[klgraham1013]

I'm not completely understanding why or what games require internet search? Besides Dark Souls and Fez, which are both community puzzle games, I can't see a reason for most games to require Google. Even my beloved Civilization 5, which you would assume would fit this category, has a very useful in-game encyclopedia.

- - - Updated - - -

Addition: Why not have the wiki in game, as Civ 5 does?

[Jouni]

I'm not completely understanding why or what games require internet search? Besides Dark Souls and Fez, which are both community puzzle games, I can't see a reason for most games to require Google. Even my beloved Civilization 5, which you would assume would fit this category, has a very useful in-game encyclopedia.

Because the in-game tools cannot compete against specialized tools for the same purpose. A web browser is much better for accessing information about Civ V than the Civilopedia, your favorite text editor is much better for taking notes than any ingame journal, a web browser or a spreadsheet is much better for finding and comparing part stats than the VAB UI, and so on. When you're using an external tool, you benefit from the years or even decades of work that has made the tool good for its specific purpose, as well as from the years or even decades of experience you have with it. The only benefit ingame tools have is that they have access to the current game state, and usually they don't even take advantage of that very well.

[Superfluous J]

I'm not completely understanding why or what games require internet search?

(Note I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm agreeing. Wholeheartedly)

I'm pretty sure that Minecraft is still indecipherable without a wiki open to the crafting page, at least until the player has memorized most if not all recipes. This was one of the things about it that lost me as a player when 1.0 hit, and it's one of the things I'm worried about KSP losing me for as well. It's hard to champion a game where the most basic of things (In Minecraft it's "craft an axe" with no hint as to how, and with KSP it's "Oh I have to right click the Kerbal and say "Take a surface sample"? And when he gets in the pod it's stored. Oh, and he can store infinite surface samples. But only this one crew report? Oh. If he gets back out and takes the crew report out of the capsule and gets back in, he can take another crew report. And this is written down where? Oh, in this forum post by 5thHorseman. This sounds more like a rant than instructions."

Sorry I got a little meta there, but I hope my point is made

[pandaman]

Having access to info on the Internet is certainly an advantage. I learnt most of the basics from tutorials and videos etc. and lots of other interesting and useful stuff from forums and wiki.

BUT - IMO there is no substitute for decent tutorials 'supplied' with the game and access to a detailed user manual from within it during play. Perhaps a downloadable PDF that sits in the game folder that can be accessed via an in game menu would do the job. If could then be printed by the user if so desired.

[klgraham1013]

You basically nailed my point 5thHorseman. There are many examples like that which I've refrained from posting as it would risk turning into a blog post.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no reason a wiki within the game should be worse than a wiki on the internet. Especially since an in-game tutorial / wiki can be custom made for the subject it is addressing.

[basic.syntax]

I forgot where I saw it, but, I recall a mention that they are aware the science system is... all over the place. When I first started, it made no sense, until like others are saying... forums and The Internet fills you in. 'Something' is planned. I think. I hope for a new Science UI, to bring together all the sciencey things your craft (or EVA character) can do at the moment.

[Jouni]

There is no reason a wiki within the game should be worse than a wiki on the internet. Especially since an in-game tutorial / wiki can be custom made for the subject it is addressing.

The contents can be the same, but the UI will be worse. I can't see Squad spending comparable time and effort to perfect the UI as the developers of common web browsers, office suites, and operating systems have.

[WOODY01]

A simple tutorial, with an indicator on the Nav-Ball and popup text showing the player how to launch, orbit, and land.

A more logical contract system would help new players out, it will help with pacing the player and introducing more and more difficult contracts later on. It starts out great with the launch, achieve altitude, make it to space, orbit contracts. The problem after that the player gets inudated with contract offers that can overwhelm them if new. Some could even be unachievable to a new player if they do not have enough tech.

There should be information somewhere in the game explaining launch windows, how to achieve an encounter, landing on another body, basic aerodynamics and vehicle design. This and the tutorial will cover what the player needs to know to make it to other bodies in the system.

I am of the school of thought that a game should include everything you need to know to achieve at least a basic level of success. I have no problem then having to search the internet to improve my skill and understanding.