Stargate525

Neither do I, hence the thread. I don't tend to post in these sorts of forums either unless I am very invested in the game, and I do my utmost not to post things without the mindset of trying to make things better.

He's not asking when they were first mentioned, he's asking when and how it was announced, or if it was announced, that they were cancelled.

I've not seen it definitely one way or the other. Some are saying they're canned, others are saying they're still on the back burner.

I don't quite get it either. Which is why I made the thread. I'm not trying to be angry or attacking anyone, especially SQUAD, I'm just honestly trying to figure out whether I have any reason to think that I, or anyone, should be heard here, and whether 'they don't have to listen to us, be grateful for what they do already' is a valid argument.

Yes, but who is the minority here? And isn't breaking your vision to cater to the majority equally bad? The undercurrent I've been picking up here along with the 'we want resources' is that a large number of those people feel downright betrayed after seeing months and months of 'multiplayer is never going to be in this game' transform into 'why yes, multiplayer is one of our core focuses' literally overnight. By big picture, do you mean the plan they have to make their game the best it can be, or the roadmap to make as much money as they can off of it? I'm not arguing that they're following either one specifically, just curious which you think they're on, given their actions, and which one they should be on. You have my genuine thanks for that. I hate being seen as a jerk, and given how much I do enjoy debate, that tends to happen on the internet a lot. As you've seen, I've already been labelled a troll by one person. >.>

You're right. But at what point does a vocal protest of 'I disagree with your direction' become 'pointless bickering?' Your argument on mod versus obligation can be just as easily used for the other side. In fact, up until two days ago, it WAS the other side. I completely agree that Squad shouldn't 'give in.' On multiplayer or on resources or whatever. But the pro-resource people have a right to air their disagreement until such time as they receive an acknowledgement that they have been heard. I have seen no such thing thusfar.

I fail to see anywhere that the pro-resources people have been whiny, agressive, and demanding. Their main points seem to be that A) taking away resources was a mistake, multiplayer should not be placed ahead of a resource system, and C) we have the right to be vocal and let them know. This thread is to argue over point C. Do we as paid players have a right to be vocal with our disagreements about the game, and the direction it is going? Whether you are the green line or the blue line is irrelevant, as that right applies to both groups. Because you can't argue that Squad listens and is great with the community on one hand, and then shout down dissenters with 'YOU DON'T DESERVE TO COMPLAIN' with the other. Uh, what? How?

I'm not self-entitled, and 'go out and do better' is not an argument, it's a deflection. I can tell my plumber is doing a bad job without having to start a plumbing business of my own. I can see when my car isn't working without having built my own. I can have a view on politics without having been the leader of my own country. 'They can do it worse' is also a terrible argument. You wouldn't say 'Oh, he's killed a man, but at least he isn't Jeffrey Dahmer.' That does not make his crime any better. I'm not arguing that they are the worst company for transparency out there. I am arguing this: -Squad is not very open to the community regarding its decision-making. -Such closedness has led some to doubt that there IS any ongoing vision for this project. -This is bad. -Being more open would make it better.

I got it. And I agree with you. I insist that it is POSSIBLE to make money without having to cater to the vocal minority. It's by having a clear vision on what you want the game (or book or store or wiget or furniture or whatever) to be, and have the guts to tell people 'that's nice, but that's not what we're giving you. This is what we're giving you. We've made it clear. It's going to be great. You can trust us.' Problem is, that takes both a reputation for delivering on promises and a large amount of courage. Squad doesn't yet have the former (and by some accounts, is rapidly losing what little they had), but I sincerely hope they have the latter. It's a difficult road, and easy to fall off of (in my opinion, it's happened to Bioware, Maxis... pretty much anyone EA has absorbed), but the rewards I think are worth it. I challenge anyone to remember an EA title from three years ago that doesn't have a modern sequel, but if I say Firaxis, Bethesda Softworks, Microprose, Sierra... whether you liked the games or not, you knew what you were getting from them, and they are remembered.

Oh my goodness... That is brilliant! And my keyboard is gone as well.

I wasn't around for minecraft until post-release 1.3; Just what exactly went wrong with it? It was mentioned several other times in the other thread, and I'm missing context for the analogy. Could you fill me in? And you're right, they absolutely have that ability. But, I'd be very interested in seeing how Steam would respond to that, how their next game would get funded, and whether their company would remain solvent after such a move.

I have ideas, but I don't have the requisite experience to make them into mods. More's the pity for me, I guess. I do happen to agree with you. However, there is a bit of a point that Squad isn't going to get more money out of us, so why should they listen to us at all?

Done: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/61749-Just-what-is-the-community-to-SQUAD Back onto topic, let's go back to when Squad made this decision, when they should have notified us, and whether it's the right one to have made. My thoughts are 'quite a while ago,' 'as soon as they made it,' and 'absolutely not,' respectively.

Split off from the resources thread as per request of FEichinger. Some relevant posts from the other thread: So let's discuss it. What, exactly, are paid members of the community to SQUAD? Are they assets in development, are they mainly bug-testers? Do we have any influence in the design of KSP going forward, and should we? Should demands of paid players outweigh the demands of those who have not purchased when those two conflict? How do you see yourself in the context of an alpha game that you may or may not have paid full price for? I think my view is pretty well articulated up there. Discuss.

I'm looking forward to it. Better and more expanded science (seriously, I'm not entirely certain what the fuss about the science is), the ability to launch empty tanks, and perhaps additional biomes are all a plus in my book.

I'm not imagining anything. Please don't put words into my mouth. I'm also not saying that the game is open source. What I AM saying is that we all have placed stock into this game. We bought the game on the promise of a 1.0; getting to play it in the meanwhile is a bonus. But, because we can play it, we can see where it is going and - as a group - pull the direction it heads. The short of it is that by canning resources, by not being communicative with their current player base, they are breaking their end of the bargain. This style of purchase is much closer to a service than it is to a standard transaction. Imagine that they had started a kickstarter, with all their promises about resources and such in the advert blurb. People are buying their game based not on what's in it, but what they say will be in it, and the promise that their purchase now gets to help make that happen. Saying these things and not delivering them (EVEN FOR ALPHA CONSUMPTION) is at best dishonest and at worst fraudulent. They have let us in on their game as they are developing it. To think that we won't look over their shoulders and tell them when we think they've messed up is the height of folly.

Bull. I didn't buy early access, I bought ALPHA access. An Alpha is being tested, revised, and changed. It is an assumption that I as a player and tester of their incomplete and broken content (at least relative to the 1.0 version) will be able to influence ongoing changes in at least a small way. I am NOT a regular customer, nor is anyone else who currently owns KSP. You are not purchasing a product so much as investing in one. We are paying a reduced price in exchange for the future product, to allow that product to be made. We are not consumers, we are investors. It is of utmost importance that we protect our investment, and fight when we feel it is being driven into the ground.

I'm sorry. I thought we bought into an early-alpha game specifically to make those decisions ourselves. Perhaps I was mistaken?

I am sick of multiplayer games. I just opened up my steam library and sorted by date. Of the last twenty games I played, seventeen of those have multiplayer. Almost ALL of them have a sufferable single-player experience. I don't want to play with friends, I don't WANT to meet new people, I want to sit down, play a game, and not have to worry about the other people playing in the same world. When I multiplayer, especially in the 'start a server and play snadbox with others,' it typically ends up with me playing alongside others, rather than with them. It makes. Games. Weaker. It's the plague along with microtransactions and app-speak that's infected gaming, trying to scrabble for every scrap of the market that they can. Make your game good, and people will come. Do this sort of stuff, and you begin to walk the road to where your game is the same generic boatload of junk that I can get anywhere. Please don't do that.

Excuse me? We did MULTIPLAYER ourselves too! If they can co-opt that, why can't they co-opt Kethane and give it solid integrated code too?

It depends on the mission profile. If you're heading anywhere, you'll need three per sphere of influence (high over, near space, and landed). Anything with an atmosphere will need two more for 'high in atmosphere' and 'flying at.' Even if I'm planning on transmitting, most of my planetary probes have three; I've never been good at timing/managing the power constraints well enough to get all three with one instrument. For anything else, I pack two. For symmetry.

Personally, I just hope that I can land on a body, do my experiments, and shove all that data into the module for return. I'm sick of having to bring back (and figure out how to land) clusters of those materials bays... Ah, another convert from the Elder Scrolls forums, then?

Underwhelming? This update was responsible for the biggest paradigm shift in my playstyle since docking came around. ...Dunno how long I've been about, actually... And the wiki's down. I remember at least .17, and had been playing sometime around september '12, whatever that equates to.

Well, for me, it comes down to part count. A single large port is two parts. A quad port is ten. However, it does let you more accurately control rotation, if that's important.

That's exactly what it is. The auroras are those particles interacting with the fields. There was an article on one of the newer exoplanets that suggests that it's so close to the sun, spinning so fast, and is so massive that the entire planet would be sporting those auroras constantly.