PDCWolf

I like how you ignored everything said until now and suggested the worst possible course of action without any backup to it.

I'll stay on max's side this time and vote for it being called Kesos

You go to a planet, right click something, get goo, spam transmission or take the sample back to kerbin, YOU UNLOCKED A NEW PART You go to a planet, set a mining operation, have a lot of stuff going on like bases, planes with airscoops, water refineries taking resources from oceans, launchers coming and going to ferry those resources (or just use them to refuel your ship and keep going). Those resources help you with life support, they also help you establish a solid base of reputation and funding (if those are ever implemented), and they give you something to do when you go to a planet. A reason to stay. They also provide a reason for multiple missions because as everything is now, you can do everything there's to do anywhere on the Kerbin system with a single launch. The science system as it is now, doesn't even require you to leave Kerbin's SOI. With correct planing you can get everything just from kerbin and mun. On top of that, I don't really trust the new "fixes for science", I just don't have faith in them by now. Guess I'll have to see it with my own eyes.

I'll use your own mindset against you. Who are you (or the devs) to tell me what's fun and what isn't? There's people that see the entire game as tedious and install mechjeb. There's people that see the entire game as beautiful and do every-single-launch manually. Same with every part of the game, Hell, there's a plugin that does asparagus staging for you. there's no global definition of what's fun and what isn't.

I actually always dreamed and were going to suggest if it didn't happen that after completing the tech tree, the real career mode would start, and there money and reputation would kick in (like real NASA). People would contract my launch services and stuff or I would do hardcore interplanetary sample return missions to gain more funding and reputation. That way you can keep the tech tree as a tutorial without killing the hardcore players' hope of a good career mode.

Resources is not a limitator as the bad thought-out science is. Resources is a mostly endgame thing, when you completed the tech tree and you start YOUR own space program, so that you have something to do on other planets. It also is the key to sustainable extra-planetary bases (When life support arrives), and is the key to good reputation and funding when that arrives too. On sandbox, is something else to do when you get to a planet other than running trough non-collision-able rocks.

The trolls' lair as it is defined by people from here. 4chan.

Did you even read what I wrote? I say that I agreed to this, but that that doesn't mean I'm not going to fight for what I was promised and what I want the game to be.

I wouldn't really call max "all of squad". I do believe he was a victim of misinformation and that made him "lie" (which for me he really wasn't, he just got caught on misinformation or changed plans and ended up relaying those to the community), and so, I won't really trust him as saying the total truth.

The problem comes when you show charts, screenshots, gifs, parts, and playtest the feature and then saying you will either not include it or include it in a dumbed down manner.

The threads have been kept civil, both mod and users working for that at the same time. Everything posted here, whether right or wrong is valid criticism. Nothing insulting really, unless you consider SQUAD to be a superior entity that can't be treated as a group of humans. Opinion. You mean the useful ones or the ones getting deleted because they are not on topic or civil? We are discussing the way they communicate to make it better. We are discussing how they should treat the community to make the game even better. And finally, we are giving feedback on the development process. We could all just be throwing a tantrum and insulting everyone, yet we force ourselves to be civil and polite to discuss these topics. They weren't really transparent to begin with, nobody knew what was harvester's vision on KSP or what KSP was supposed to be until not too long ago. Most of the rage comes from their flipping everything 180º and suddenly cancelling a very wanted feature to develop something they said was impossible and not going to be on the game ever. Opinion. Coincidentally, a lot of people seem to think different and don't think the dev notes are full, or detailed, or the announcements are useful at all. That's why more transparency is being demanded. Opinion, on top of that it collides with hard facts. Also, this is not the resources thread. If you read before commenting you would realize the rage comes from them flipping out, not for not developing resources on itself. Also, for that "YOU HAVE LE MOD XD" argument, we also have KMP, so there's no reason to develop stock multiplayer either. Back to the same, "THERE'S A MOD FOR IT" is not a valid argument since they cancelled resources and developed multiplayer, both features already having a mod for them. Well, we just aren't hating things out of the blue, we are reacting, which means there was an action. Underestimate the dev time my back. They got it developed to the point they could play-test it to say "it's not fun". For the "there's a mod for it" argument please scroll up a bit. No, wrong. KSP is not about jeb or explosions. KSP is about helping little green men in their conquest of space. The community sucking bad at making rockets got along with the placeholder "funny" descriptions. Opinion. Not really. This would have deflected if they remained silent about resources (people would still have hope of it coming eventually). Well, those ten patches took years, if it didn't get better in that time, then nobody would be here, except for 10 or 20 hardcore blind fans. You want multiplayer? You think it is great? You HAVE kmp. (Really guys, think before writing such arguments). The uncertainty in development comes from what I already named enough times: 180º turn on the roadmap. Well, they really need to control what they say. They are talking to people that love the game as much as they do, so saying things out of the blue without really studying them (such as mentioning DLC on twitch chat out of nowhere) was something really dumb. Transparency is good, impulsiveness is not. It's not the chart, really. Do read the threads before presenting invalid arguments. They got resources up to a playtesting/nearly release point and decided it was not funny. It was not a dream floating on harv's head, it was something pretty much finished. Divide it in 2: Resources is what KSP deserves. Multiplayer is what it doesn't need right now (or pretty much anytime before release). The mistake coming from they being the ones saying "it's not fun" instead of letting the "great community" you guys talk about test the feature. No, thank you. I gave them my money and impliedly agreed to them taking it and running away. I'm going to fight for the game I invested in, for it getting complete and for it being full of those promises they made to me when I gave them my money. If you want to take what ever they throw at you and treat them as gods, you are welcome, but don't spread that cancerous mentality. (The situation would be totally different if the game was free, obviously)

I really want to believe something else is going on, like harvester not being the one making the important decisions. This is reinforced by he going really sad by the end of that video.

They said it at the closing ceremony, Resources are either not coming or coming on a very-very simplified form. Look for the video at KSPTV, it's on the 12th minute. They make the announcement and seconds later you can then see harv going very sad and getting teary eyes. Anyways, you are in the wrong thread if you are talking about resources.

I don't really get this one. It's not like they are gifting me something. I agreed to them being able to pull a notch and already gave them my money, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to fight for what I want or criticize them for doing something wrong. This mentality is just getting yourself in doggie position just in case. Either you don't value your (or whoever it was) money or you like to live in mediocrity and accepting everything that is thrown at you, even if they make you pay for it. If the game was free on the other hand then yeah, I wouldn't even bother posting, except to post my parts or share something with the community.

Are you trying to make squad look better, bad or are you trying to make the community look like a group of entitled brats? Back when minecraft was a baby, Notch would go left and right showing his concept of the game, making promises and convincing everyone that the game was going to be great. Hell, he even used to browse 4chan to make those promises, and everybody loved him for his project of a game. Then the game reached a critical point (the one marked in the graph). By that time the vocal minority was a minority, but notch saw this as an oportunity. It speaks really well of notch in terms of business but not in terms of being a good person. He decided to ditch his vision and promises to implement those small ideas the vocal minority had. This obviously attracted more of the vocal minority alienating the original players and those who Notch promised the entire world to. At that point in time, Notch stopped visiting 4chan (everyone started pretty much proving him wrong and doing things at the level of the DLC Fiasco, telling him how he betrayed his original community for money). That's what we call "pull a notch", to betray your original community and ignore your promises to bring more money into your pocket. It's a great business strategy, obviously, but not good for people or your reputation as a person, except for those of the vocal minority who now love you. Not really, you can just make meetings to discuss things seriously, and then reveal them to the community on a detailed manner. The community is only for feedback, you should remain true to your promises and ideals and the community will follow. Then you turn into a community led project, which isn't really good at this stage. As I said, you should remain true to your original vision and development roadmap. OPINION WHO buys the game and WHO likes it is the problem at bay. WHO does squad develop for? Are they pulling a notch or not? As I said, if you post a roadmap and your final vision of the game, then there's nothing to complain about, but if you flip everything midway -for something that looks like a cashgrab no less- then you are going to get fecal matter for it. Opinion. What a coincidence! I though we were just doing that! jesus christ I'm so, SOO wrong. I though we were just keeping a thread civil. I though I just asked a mod to reopen a discussion with the promise to keep it civil, AND I THOUGH EVERYTHING WAS CIVIL. Oh wait, it is. We are being respectful, the point is there's just too much people saying the same and it looks like an outrage and a fiasco. All I see is 4 polls that remain civil and this thread. And everyone is making an effort to contain their emotions to keep the discussion going. They owe something to us? This deserves an entire thread on itself. Being a fan is the worst thing you can do. Fanatism means blindly following everything without complaint or question. Fans are the cancer killing society. And this sentence is way off-topic, but yeah, you got me this much into it with your post.

One of the problems when listening the community is who do we listen to? and well, the community has a lot of "groups" of players, and we can all see that. It's obviously impossible to get all of them happy and even more if you don't have a really, really defined "goal" of what you want your game to be. Obviously, everyone wants to have word on everything and that's just not possible, so you have to resort to statistics and all of that jazz. This creates a new problem and it comes in the way of a chart: Ignore the actual lines and concentrate on three items: Vocal minority, Quiet Majority and Normal People. The question comes again: who the hell do we listen to? Vocal minority? They make their opinions be heard, but when something bad happens (DLC Gate or the all new Resources thingy) they are clearly out-numbered. Quiet majority? They don't even speak unless you do something wrong or go out of your original plan or what you promised (DLC Gate or Resouces thingy). Normal people? They are mostly passer-by guys who will stay for a month or two and go away. The obvious thing to do is make a balance and test the floor every time you want to put something new into your game or change a major thing. But that costs development time, resources and more, and you can't just make polls for everything. One of the best ways to solve this is full transparency on the development process, that way you don't have to ask about everything and you have some sort of "early alarm" if you are doing something that alienates the most important part of your community. And now it is really obvious: You can't say you listen to the community if you only put a vague paragraph of what you are doing once a week. You can't say you don't listen to them when you flip around development roadmaps. So you either go full silent and don't pay attention to the outrages (making you an EA-Tier developer that keeps making the same mistakes) or you go full transparency and state whatever it is you are working on so that you have community feedback without having to make your community wait 3 months to get something they didn't want. And yes, I know my post is kind of confusing. TL;DR: You should define this from the very beginning, before your game is open to the public, changing this topic midway is going to generate a problem both with your established fanbase, your "vocal minority" and the normal people just passing by that stays for an update or two and then go away. At this point in time, the only way to solve everything is to go full transparency.

I had a small bit of excitement BUT they killed it with half-implemented tweakables, the badly modeled and OP sabre and the announcements.

Guys, saying that "resources was canned long ago because nothing was said about it" really doesn't make any sense. Even more, it was the only thing some of us had faith into, that they were working on it behind the scenes. Hell, they even worked on the thing up to a point they could say "it's not fun", just imagine how much work that is. They should have been working on it until very recent times. Not saying the two events are linked, but you can't say that there isn't flip-flopping and bad communication either.

Just a rebalance, nothing new really. Gotta love this though:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/61714-Multiplayer-or-resources

It was promised, it was teased, it was developed, it was promised again, it was worked on. Jesus christ, they even said it would come for 0.19

The pool says "would you chose multiplayer or resources?". The only way it can be taken apart from playing developer, is what people like the most, and you can see resources have 10 times more voters than mp

And that means that I should quote back to my dog analogy and the following posts explaining it: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/61297-Resources-postponed-cancelled-or-reserved-for-a-DLC?p=838627&viewfull=1#post838627 That's the original one, then the following discussion will clarify it up, as my English skill has its limits.

Why do you guys like DLC so much? WHYYYYY Something that upsets me is that they said "Hard and not fun" without even letting us play it.

All these polls, jesus christ. Why do I feel the impulse of voting on them all. anyways, resources.