Feedback Requested: 1.0

[Wanderfound]

Well, first up, everything addressed by the Stock Bug Fix mod should be corrected. But beyond that, I think there needs to be a major effort (and a lot of playtesting) put into balancing career mode. It's what the reviewers and a lot of the streamers are going to focus on.

[Columbia]

Well, I think it would be best to start with new features and then start bugfixing. At least there, no surprise issues caused by new features will pop out in the final release.

[eddiew]

Obvious point: reviews of KSP 1.0 won't really change dependant on whether you add new parts. They will however be highly affected by the reviewer's experiences. If the game blocks them, confuses them, asks them to do things they can't do, or just plain acts unfairly and 'splodes stuff without a cause, these are the things that will make for poor reviews.

So with that in mind, please please please...

1) don't add anything new at this stage, otherwise you'll have a moving target...

2) bugfixes

3) game balance / tech tree

4) performance

Bugs like the changing trajectories when leaving an SOI, or ships/bases that explode when focussed can utterly cripple the game and have got to be done away with.

Sorting out the tech tree and early game balance is a big second place; making sure that landing gear and jet engines are actually available at a sensibly early point, not asking for Kerbin flights when the player doesn't have wings, adjusting Kerbin surveys to be in line with the jets that players actually have (e.g. basic jets should cause "below altitude X" only surveys), sorting out the contracts that are offering insultingly low payments (300 roots for a part test, really?), etc.

Better performance would be nice but it is not actually required, since small and simple ships are very viable for basically any purpose. Extra parts are totally irrelevant to this launch and will just cloud balance and tech tree issues. As a software dev myself, I'd much prefer a launch with a small, polished, bug-free core game, than an expanded, buggy, rough edged one

[Van Disaster]

You have apparently lost focus right before your release date. Time for you to go back and look at what made you decide that the next version was going to be 1.0 release and see if that is still a valid plan - if it is, great! and ignore our blatherings - otherwise *throw it away and make a new one*; Don't ask us to patch your plan, we have no idea why you made the plan the way it's been so we can't offer good advice anyway other than pointing out the obvious. And do it *now* before your release PR machine has started rolling too far, nothing worse than trying to patch up something in a hurry because it's release date has been broadcast...

[eddiew]

Oh, and if in doubt, for goodness sake give us 0.91 and ask the community to give feedback on a concrete thing! It's quite hard to make good judgements when we don't actually know what the changes are, or whether bugs have really​ been fixed

[Starhawk]

I'm not sure that I understand. Are you thinking of leaving out resources? Won't that make it impossible to balance the career mode playability in such a way as to still be balanced when resources are introduced?

Are you thinking of leaving out female Kerbals? It seems a shame after they've been announced with such fanfare.

Acknowledging that women exist is already commonly an afterthought

You're obviously not leaving out the new aero model, and therefore you must be including reentry heating.

I'm really not seeing what things you guys are actually thinking you can leave out at this point.

The best feedback I can think of giving at this point is that career mode must 'feel complete'. Not only must the tech tree be balanced, but it must be balanced with progression in Kerbal experience, facility upgrades, contract generation/completion, and overall exploration. As stated before, career mode must feel like a complete game, not a bunch of disparate systems tacked together. Then it all has to shine and play so smooth you can't even tell it ever needed polishing.

I can't imagine creating that experience and then trying to add in resources and rebalance the entire thing again.

I realize that you may not want to release specific information regarding which features you are thinking of leaving out, but that limits the specific feedback we can give to vague, maybe unhelpful, posts like this.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Starhawk

[rkman]

I'm a bit worried that Squad even considers releasing a 1.0 version that would be know to contain bugs that would not be there if a little more time would be spend on squashing them.

If squashing those bugs would mean a feature-incomplete 1.0 would be released, maybe it should not be called 1.0. Since it can't be called beta anymore, may i suggest calling it 1.0gamma?

[GoSlash27]

Aero overhaul, bug fixing, and balance.

Thanks,

-Slashy

[Vashts]

please fix the editors and maneuver nodes. editors bug out at root changes, copy, and symmetry changes. other issues too. add hotkeys for orbit plus/minus.

then whatever idk

[PwnedDuck]

I vote more features.

[basic.syntax]

You have a couple specific directions in mind for what can be done in the time available.

Where's the poll?

1. Lock features to the "beyond beta" announced list.

2. Test / Fix

3. Optimize

[Renegrade]

...or focus more on things like the aero overhaul, bugfixing and balance?

1.0 carries connotations to the outside world (I personally don't care, I'd be happy with early access KSP forever) - so I'd focus on the things I quoted here.

I have to strongly reiterate my position that some pre-1.0 releases would be a good thing. Ideally small, fast releases that lets us identify easily associate bugs with specific features. It's a lot easier to pick out where a regression happened from a list of three features, than from a list of fifty...

[UmbralRaptor]

Bugfix more. Given the huge feature count, a 0.9x (or 1.0 RC or whatever) at the end of this year, with "actual" 1.0 happening later seems reasonable.

[LordFjord]

We've decided that the next release will be 1.0 because it accomplishes the goals we've set up with the development of KSP from the very beginning, my question to you is whether you'd prefer we try and add more features, or focus more on things like the aero overhaul, bugfixing and balance?

Hey Maxmaps,

the question is what you exactly mean with "add more features" - add more stuff that was not mentioned or announced - or the already announced aero overhaul, resources, new parts, fairings and stuff.

If you really would want to add even more to the 1.0 release - which already is probably the biggest one - then I would say: step back, go for quality.

In any case however, I would prefer a pre- 1.0 release, call it 0.91, 0.99, whatever, that includes the already announced features. Then unleash the "still in beta" community and make a nicely polished 1.0. You ( & Squad) have probably one of the best communities in the gaming world, as long as this is still beta, there is nothing wrong to give it to them in order to improve the 1.0 release.

If, for whatever reasons the release date is set in stone, then I'd say go for quality, but make it clear to the new customers, announce it REALLY CLEARLY, that there is a lot more good stuff and content to come.

Also, thanks to coming to the forums and asking the question.

Fjord

[Eilifein]

Firstly, i would like to state that it feels like damage control. And without knowing your specific <goals> you mention i think we as players can do little to help. Everyone will have a certain idea and such.

My assumptions regarding your question:

1) Next release has a set date and a set name (1.0)

2) Features that you have been working on are either not ready or not polished enough (else you wouldn't be asking the question i presume)

3) You have time and resources to allocate to bugfixing and balance.

Will start upside down:

3) This is a priority. Unity 5 is not coming on 1.0. IF there are bugfixes and/or balances that are applicable ONLY to Unity 4.x, they should be considered as waste of time and either ditch completely or selectively or hierarchically move down the list and fix SOME. Obvious point: bugfixes and balance issues applicable to both versions are a TOP priority.

2) If you don't have a feature in a near-ready state, assign it to a post 1.0 release and be done with it. If you have a feature in a near-ready state: Is it essential? Is it fun? Is it bug resistant (intended )? Will it see extensive testing (time wise)? If any of these questions is NO, then ditch it. You will have plenty of time ahead of 1.0 to redesign, test and balance it.

1) It hurts our guestimation that we don't know the release date. But, assuming it's not going to be in 2 weeks time, i would like to present my most radical idea:

- Release a 0.99RC edition in a closed beta environment with at least 1 month before the release date.

- Expand the QA team by inviting forum players (say several dozens) that have a really nice grasp of specific and/or extensive parts of the game.

- Have them to assign themselves on testing and answer design/purpose/essentiality (word?) of the features. Something doesn't work as nice? timetofix < timeuntil1.0 -> fix. Else ditch. All the while see 3).

p.s. I went through all of the past posts one by one. I agree partly or wholly with more than 50% of them. The problem is that your question Maxmaps, requires assumptions in order to answer it. We are running on fumes here

Edited March 17, 2015 by Eilifein
typo

[Varsi]

Considering there's already a lot of stuff to do in game for a new player it would be really helpful to have the game work as well as possible at launch. New player experience (tutorials and such) should be a priority as well.

[katateochi]

*snip my question to you is whether you'd prefer we try and add more features, or focus more on things like the aero overhaul, bugfixing and balance?

emphatically; optimization and bug fixes!!

With the move to V1 I think that it's important for you to have something that, if you did walk away from it (Jeb forbid!), would be something you know is stable and reasonably refined. New and more casual players may well get turned off if they find the first release to be buggy or unbalanced. From my point of view (as a long-term player) I currently feel that I don't want to get into any serious missions because the game tends to get glitchy (freezing frames) after either running for a while or once you have lots of flights in progress and that really detracts from my enjoyment of it.

As you have now reached your initial goals for KSP I think that foundation needs to be made solid before adding anything else on top of it.

[Moonfrog]

I make a list of my priorities so its easier.

Number 1 : balancing. I'd like certain parts to be more use able for what there meant to do.

Number 2 : aero overhaul, if the current aero design is a placeholder, then i think it would be good to fix replace this with the version u want to use, instead of the placeholder.

Number 3: All placeholder parts IVA, materials to be finished. Bugs. I've not encoutnered alot of game breaking bugs, i've played alot of games, and all games i've played have crashed at some point. so far KSP has crashed 4 times in 1 year. Pretty good.

Number 4 : New content

[Yukon0009]

So, did some one say togglable reentry heat damage?

[Superfluous J]

Every version < 1.0 is about adding stuff. 1.0 is about polish, bug fixes, and balancing. You've already got a full plate of new stuff going into 1.0 (which is why I personally wish you did a .99 or something first) but I would urge you to spend every spare bit of everything getting all the little things right.

Except dV. That is a must

[FishInferno]

One thing that the game really needs is an art overhaul. The older parts don't go well with the newer, sleeker space plane parts. We also need a better effects system, because the current flames look pretty ugly. Something like RealPlume with engine effects changing as altitude increases. Also, remove the smoke from liquid engines, and give us smoke clouds at launch.

Yeah, that may have sounded blunt, but no hard feelings:)

-Fish

[chemieglennie]

Everything that's been talked about since 0.90 needs to be properly finished, polished and balanced. It also needs to look better. I shouldn't have to install a mod to get clouds. 1.0 should be seen as the version lots of new players are going to be using for the first time. As far as I'm concerned the only two options are,

1. Delay 1.0 until everything is ready

2. Do an extra release - 0.95 (or more releases if necessary)

[Wallygator]

Well Max,

You are in a bit of a conundrum at the moment.

The wider community has already had their expectations set by you (and some maybe not set too well) therefore it is fair to assume that any measurable deviation from what you have already announced will likely have a bit of backlash - so...

1) Stay true to what you have already committed your team to deliver - EXCEPT - when in doubt you MUST focus on fixing bugs and improving stability

2) Where new features or content (stuff not already announced) can be added, I suggest a separate set of free downloadable content which can be put out simultaneous with 1.0 with the clear understanding that the content may still need to be polished a bit and therefore is not an official component of 1.0 just yet but well progressed WIP. This gives you and your team the needed plausible deniability regarding any balance issues on the new content. Call it a 1.1 or 2.0 sneak peak, whatever...

3) Bin the entire Unity 5 discussion till late 2015 (you will likely need to clear your development teams calendar for probably 6 months to make a Unity 5 upgrade happen properly)

4) Create a Community based "Balance Team" to off-load the settings and configuration issues surrounding the balance of the game - You are already building internal tools to help this process - grant these tools to a select set of external support staff and let them run with it. I fear that the current internal dev team paradigms regarding game play are likely interfering with a wider and more effective balancing result.

5) Ignore what I have said. Others have over the years and it doesn't affect my self worth ;-)

Edited March 17, 2015 by Wallygator

[Majorjim!]

or focus more on things like the aero overhaul, bugfixing and balance?

Wait, what? So the 1.0 update will not contain an aero update? Or not in its final state? This is confusing because 1.0 means complete in features. So Squad stick to your guns on this. As the proverb goes, A man who chases two rabbits catches none. So, finish the aero update, fix bugs that should have been done months ago and then release 1.0. After that add in polish.

This guy said it better than I can.

Firstly, i would like to state that it feels like damage control. And without knowing your specific <goals> you mention i think we as players can do little to help. Everyone will have a certain idea and such.

My assumptions regarding your question:

1) Next release has a set date and a set name (1.0)

2) Features that you have been working on are either not ready or not polished enough (else you wouldn't be asking the question i presume)

3) You have time and resources to allocate to bugfixing and balance.

Will start upside down:

3) This is a priority. Unity 5 is not coming on 1.0. IF there are bugfixes and/or balances that are applicable ONLY to Unity 4.x, they should be considered as waste of time and either ditch completely or selectively or hierarchically move down the list and fix SOME. Obvious point: bugfixes and balance issues applicable to both version are a TOP priority.

2) If you don't have a feature in a near-ready state, assign it to a post 1.0 release and be done with it. If you have a feature in a near-ready state: Is it essential? Is it fun? Is it bug resistant (intended )? Will it see extensive testing (time wise)? If any of these questions is NO, then ditch it. You will have plenty of time ahead of 1.0 to redesign, test and balance it.

1) It hurts our guestimation that we don't know the release date. But, assuming it's not going to be in 2 weeks time, i would like to present my most radical idea:

- Release a 0.99RC edition in a closed beta environment with at least 1 month before the release date.

- Expand the QA team by inviting forum players (say several dozens) that have a really nice grasp of specific and/or extensive parts of the game.

- Have them to assign themselves on testing and answer design/purpose/essentiality (word?) of the features. Something doesn't work as nice? timetofix < timeuntil1.0 -> fix. Else ditch. All the while see 3).

p.s. I went through all of the past posts one by one. I agree partly or wholly with more than 50% of them. The problem is that your question Maxmaps, requires assumptions in order to answer it. We are running on fumes here

[TheHolyChicken]

POV from a newbie here, who has played for ~25 hours but hasn't yet been to the Mun (playing Career on Hard exclusively at the moment). The 0.5% elite players might be clamouring for a more advanced aerodynamics model, but that's far from being a deal breaker for your average new player/reviewer!

Here's some things that bothered me:

* Tutorials/GUI. On several occasions I've had to leave the game to google how some of the GUI worked. That's not the sign of a good GUI. For example, I didn't understand how some of the contract requirements worked, and couldn't figure out why I wasn't completing missions. Some terminology is foreign and never explained, like suborbital vs height requirements in the contracts. Again, I had to google it to find an explanation.

* Science. What the heck is it? Where do I get it? Science painfully trickled in until - after googling (again) - I discovered you could do other things to gain science, like right clicking the command pod and selecting 'Crew Report'. Who knew? Not me!

* Tooltips. If I hover over a button with my mouse, like SAS, I'd *love* if a tooltip could appear that would show you a little explanation of what it does, and maybe its hotkey. SAS? What the heck is SAS? Oh, it's stability assist, and I can turn it on and off with 'T'. It'd be really helpful if that was in the game, instead of having to search google for these things.

* Automatic hints could go a long way to help teach players. For example, the first time the player attaches a jet engine, why not have a little popup to tell them that Jet engines will require the addition of 'air intake' parts to function?

* Cancelling contracts - it turns out cancelling a contract is completely different from failing it. I didn't cancel any contracts for the longest time, until I was forced to cancel a contract because I'd bitten off way more than I could chew, only to discover it was totally fine. Again, the game doesn't tell you any of this.

KSP has a really big learning curve, and that's ok - but players need to be given tools and help to scale that mountain. If new players routinely have to google for help or controls it'll drive a lot of people away.

Edited March 17, 2015 by TheHolyChicken