Feedback Requested: 1.0

[pxi]

I've read the thread all the way through, I'm just going to echo the common sentiment.

Bugfixes and optimization.

There will forever only be one 1.0 release for KSP. Make it count. You have the feature list you announced. Stick to it.

Fix the bugs.

[Barefoot Friar]

I was a member of an (unofficial) Civilization forum as Civ III was being developed. Players were begging for its instant release, bugs be d**ned. To have an entire forum of players begging for more development is rare -- scarcer than hens' teeth. Also to have an entire forum of willing and able play testers (who have paid to be here!) Is not a resource to take lightly.

Many good ideas on this thread. Looks like I'm too late, but I'm hoping TPTB listened.

[tntristan12]

I can't believe squad hasn't addressed this officially yet. Either they are being willfully ignorant of the consequences this course will have, or they're outright ignoring their most loyal and experienced fan base out of sheer beligerence. I'm not sure which is worse.

[Frybert]

If its not done, then its not done. And if its not done, it shouldn't be called 1.0.

[StrandedonEarth]

I can't believe squad hasn't addressed this officially yet. Either they are being willfully ignorant of the consequences this course will have, or they're outright ignoring their most loyal and experienced fan base out of sheer beligerence. I'm not sure which is worse.

It gives me the distinct impression that there is someone higher up telling them that 4 years enough, release it already, you've had enough time, now "Light this candle." They should know that in the rocket business, "Go Fever" is a very dangerous thing. They should ask NASA how that worked out for them.

SpaceX takes some flak for lots of delayed launches, but at least they can't be accused of "Go Fever." Squad could learn from them.

Again, bug fixes first and foremost, and I don't know how they'll find them all releasing with a major aero overhaul.

[White Owl]

I can't believe squad hasn't addressed this officially yet. Either they are being willfully ignorant of the consequences this course will have, or they're outright ignoring their most loyal and experienced fan base out of sheer beligerence. I'm not sure which is worse.

Remember that in Squad's eyes the most loyal and experienced fanbase is 4chan, followed closely by Reddit. (Honorable mention to a few Orbinauts.) This place is just those other guys who showed up because Squad thought they should make a forum a few years ago.

[tygoo7]

Again: Fix memory management. Fix memory leaks. Actually manage asset loading. Fix the bugs that have been there forever. Fix the ocean lag. Move to DDS textures.

Etc...

Don't call a half-working game "1.0".

For once I actually 100% agree with regrex.

[cantab]

It gives me the distinct impression that there is someone higher up telling them that 4 years enough, release it already

Oh, agreed. Or maybe not someone "higher up", but at least that calling the next release 1.0 is a marketing decision not a technical one. For a start, it's been stated by Squad themselves that they want KSP in stores other than Steam, where an "Early Access" badge might not be accepted.

[J.Random]

I was a member of an (unofficial) Civilization forum as Civ III was being developed. Players were begging for its instant release, bugs be d**ned. To have an entire forum of players begging for more development is rare -- scarcer than hens' teeth. Also to have an entire forum of willing and able play testers (who have paid to be here!) Is not a resource to take lightly.

That's probably because gamers weren't tired of hasted, riddled with bugs and of poor quality overall releases at the time. You may thank industry's AAA fat cats for this change of consumers' minds.

[Majorjim!]

I just don't understand this. The community made this thread, with the exact same feedback, 2 months ago, right here: KSP 1.0 Discussion

Nothing has changed except 2 months of work on an update and a lot of press about games that were released before they were ready, to bad reviews.

The answer is still the same as it was: KSP deserves an actual beta period, where the focus is on polish and bugfixing. The fact that you're still talking about adding new features (at this point, it feels like 6 or 7 discrete new features, more than any other update) means we have never actually left Alpha.

If leaving early access because you feel "uncomfortable" about it is more important than either of the choices you presented (not finishing the bug/polish pass, or postponing the new features) then I guess you should press on with your plans. I just wish you guys could be truthful with us about why 1.0 is mandatory at this point. If its a business thing, we'll understand. If its just pride, we won't, and you'll come to regret it someday.

It's been said hundreds of times at this point, but I'll say it again: Release more beta versions (0.9x) and let your experienced community members test the MAJOR changes and balancing passes THOROUGHLY so you can have confidence that your 1.0 release will be something to be proud of.

It's just sad to see years of hard work get kicked out the door so unceremoniously, for reasons no one seems to understand.

A thousand times, THIS!

Squad please listen to us. See sense, delay the release of 1.0.

And if your decision is to rush out 1.0 is a business decision, ie to make more money, then at least we won't think you are crazy.

Realistically you cannot introduce a whole load of new features in a 1.0 release. It WILL be full of new bugs. Let US test it!!!

We are here, and have paid willingly to be so. Use us! We are more then happy to help.

[Yakuzi]

The reddit community is raising the same points as we are in reply to Maxmaps feedback announcement and the overwhelming majority of posters/voters ask Squad to delay release and slot in at least one beta iteration. Seems like the forums and reddit are in full agreement for once, must be a blue Mun tonight...

Please trust and listen to your community Squad, all we want is the best for KSP and you as developers.

"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game forever bad."

- Shigeru Miyamoto

Edited March 18, 2015 by Yakuzi

[klgraham1013]

So, let's take a look back. Here are some choice quotes from the Beta Than Ever: The Future of KSP blog entry. These are quotes I find interesting. Take from them what you will.

The next update will mark a big milestone for us at Squad, as it is the last update focused on Career Mode. After the next release, Kerbal Space Program will reach an internal milestone we call “Scope Completeâ€Â.

Scope completion means that every big system that the game needed is there, some closer to completion than others, of course, but they’re all there. After Scope Completion, development focus shifts towards completing those unfinished features, balancing and adding some smaller stuff. No more groundwork, no more laying down infrastructure. note: They do mention aero and mining later in the blog.

Beta development is going to be a new stage for the project, and that also means our development workflow will change, and by consequence, this will have an effect on the releases. There shouldn’t be any huge updates that we have to build for months on end and still have to release with barely more than enough content to showcase the system.

Beta means we’ll be focusing on creating content, on using the tools we’ve built. Priorities should level out, which means the things we consider important should also match what everyone considers important. Beta essentially means we’ll be working a lot more on stability, usability, performance, balance, aesthetics, all the while still throwing in little and some not-so-little things we hope you will enjoy.

Our main focus during the Beta phase will be to improve the overall playing experience of the game as much as possible. Once we’re outside the Early Access umbrella, KSP will have to stand on its own as-is, and not rely on upcoming features and perceived potential affecting players’ opinions.

Beta is the period in software development when all planned capabilities are implemented, and dev focus is centered on polish and bugfixing. Yes, we do that already in experimentals, but we’re going to be doing it in a wider scope during Beta phase. Beta means taking a step back, and seeing all areas of the game under equal focus for testing and improvement. We know there are several bugs we haven’t fixed yet. This is the time to make those fixes and assure the game is working as well as possible. The term Beta is definitely fitting here.

We’re going to call our first Beta version KSP v0.90.0), to make it clear to everyone that KSP is nearing a state of completion. Of course, that doesn’t mean we plan to do exactly 10 Beta patches to reach 1.0. It could be more, it could be less, we can’t tell. If we run past 0.99. the next version could be 0.100.0, or we could change the system a bit, and increment the revision numbers instead, depending on how much we feel a release has added. In a way, Beta updates really are more like revision patches actually. We’ll keep announcing new releases as we have always done in any case, so just hang around the community and you’ll never miss a release.

[BudgetHedgehog]

So, let's take a look back. Here are some choice quotes from the Beta Than Ever: The Future of KSP blog entry. These are quotes I find interesting. Take from them what you will.

I don't think it's fair to bring past quotes into the present. Companies are allowed to change their mind, after all. They're staffed by people and people have an annoying habit of not predicting the future. It's better to take the current state of things + what they're saying now and forming opinions on that. I'll say that about any product, good or bad.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I always love more features; however I think maybe KSP should go through a phase of bug fixes and balance.

[ThePsuedoMonkey]

Count me as another in the "bugfixes and polish" camp. If I had to pick one specific thing that could use more polish, I would love to see where you guys are currently at with the tutorials overhaul; they were enough to teach me the very basics back in 0.18, but they don't feel like they've changed all that much since then. They were pretty good at getting you comfortable with the controls, but I would like to see more focus on the more complicated things like landing safely, building/flying planes, and how to rendezvous with other things. Some clear indicator of the skill level and progression for the tutorials would have been helpful too (e.g. "Level 1 Engineering - Construction", "Level 1 Piloting - Controls", "Level 1 Science - Research", "Level 2 Engineering - Staging and Boosters", "Level 2 Piloting - Orbiting 101", "Level 2 Science - Experiments", etc.).

Mostly though, I'm 100% in favor of making sure all of the included features feel complete (no major balance issues or bugs, and everything works as intended) as opposed to overloading the update with new features. I want 1.0 to feel as special to all the new players and reviewers as the demo felt to me the first time I landed on the Mun.

[Merinsan]

This is extremely valid. As a professional software developer, I would never be thinking about adding big features in the run up to 'live' day. Either features were there for the 'final' beta test, or they're happening after it goes live, or the deadline is pushed back and another beta round happens. The only thing that happens between the actual last beta and the first live release are simple bugfixes that can be internally verified.

...you should kinda know this, Squad.

That said, it is clear that this community will gladly offer their time to test the begeebus out of what has been implemented thus far, and Squad, I really think you should consider taking them up on that offer. That is a remarkable show of loyalty and interest; with most games, people would just want the thing to launch so's they could start a new save, but this community wants it to launch well, even if that means launching later than they'd like and continuing to play careers that they know will be deleted in the great purge of 1.0.

Please make use of the massive testing resource this community is offering!

Well said.

One thing that I think Squad is missing here is that there are a number of people in the software industry, who know how things like this work; ie you and also myself, who are making comments here. The fact that we are worried should be worrying Squad. Now I know we don't know everything about the current development, but what possible harm could there be if the game had one more beta release with all features that are going into 1.0, then 1.0 being just bug fixes from 0.91?

I'm not worried about the professional reviewers out there. They don't carry so much weight these days, but I do worry about peer reviews. Currently on Steam, KSP gets good reviews, but it's only because it is early access at the moment. There are a lot of people who avoid early access, and they wont forgive bugs when they buy and review it.

I'm a fan of KSP. Love the game. But if there are game breaking bugs in 1.0, I'll give it a bad review.

[Yukon0009]

As for tutorials, are there any for planes yet? Or did I miss something from the stock game?

[sarbian]

The answer is still the same as it was: KSP deserves an actual beta period, where the focus is on polish and bugfixing. The fact that you're still talking about adding new features (at this point, it feels like 6 or 7 discrete new features, more than any other update) means we have never actually left Alpha.

A lot of people stay clear of "early access" games and Squad clearly want to get rid of that tag quickly. Maybe the game sales are slowing down and they hope to restart them that way. Making game is also a business and we have to keep that in mind.

But I agree than a rush to 1.0 won't do the game any good, even more so when that 1.0 has many large change. QA and Exp catch most bugs but the past release have shown us that they don't catch them all.

Myself I would release a 0.99 in the coming weeks with finished aero and debugged current new feature. Aero is the change with the most impact on the game and it need "testing" by the whole current player base.

And then I would go for fast cycle focusing only on bug fixing to release a 1.0 with nothing new over that 0.99

[Ippo]

I have nothing to contribute to this discussion, although I would be really really curious to see you stick to your original plan and get burnt just like we kept saying for months.

ok, more constructive: ignore the deadline. Move it as far back as it needs to, 1.0 must be FINISHED, completely.

[cyberpawn]

my only request.. make ksp run on 2gb of ram computer..

[helaeon]

Myself I would release a 0.99 in the coming weeks with finished aero and debugged current new feature. Aero is the change with the most impact on the game and it need "testing" by the whole current player base.

And then I would go for fast cycle focusing only on bug fixing to release a 1.0 with nothing new over that 0.99

This seems like a very good idea.

[Capt Snuggler]

General presentation and clamouring for clouds:

vs

Personally I think the skybox and the surface is the thing that lets everything down most, I've had to disable clouds & while I miss them slightly, it's not actually *that* big a deal. A new skybox would be pretty easy to knock up, that's not remotely in the order of a new aero model or even gendered kerbals. But this is not a suggestion thread.

Suggestion thread or not, that comparison is staggering! (though in not so keen on ether of those sky boxes).

almost every youtuber uses EVE mod. why squad have not implemented these kinds of visual enhancements in stock is a mystery to me.

Something else I need to get off my chest:

the release animations. they are a waste of time. THEY ARE A WASTE OF TIME.

I think every KSP player would much prefer that art/animation talent being focused on producing and polishing in-game content rather than 30second clips that we will watch once if that.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[Moss]

Going by this week's denotes, it looks like the tech tree is going to be somewhat altered in the way that progression happens. Something that I feel could added, and that would work extremely well with contracts, would be the inclusion of a system that unlocks tech nodes based on in-game accomplishments, meaning that a particular engine or part can only be unlocked once the player has done a specific experiment on a specific body. Like, for example, Nuclear Engines can only be researched after one has sent a probe to Eve. Or Mainsails can only be unlocked after one has recovered a surface sample from Duna. Or larger docking nodes can only be unlocked once the player has completed an orbital rendezvous. This is marginally more realistic than the current system, and would encourage players to progressively explore rather than grind for science on Minmus to get most of the parts that they want.

[eddiew]

...one more beta release with all features that are going into 1.0, then 1.0 being just bug fixes from 0.91?

Precisely this!

A lot of people stay clear of "early access" games and Squad clearly want to get rid of that tag quickly. Maybe the game sales are slowing down and they hope to restart them that way. Making game is also a business and we have to keep that in mind.

There seems to be a risk of getting out of early access with a product that's got a bunch of untested, buggy features though... Steam peer reviews could make or break it. As soon as a wave of "unfinished" or "buggy" tags gets set up by players, it's very hard to continue strong sales.

If Squad are still reading this thread, could you guys give us some kind of hint as to your plans in the wake of the community's response here? We're all hoping for a good, smooth 1.0 launch that pumps up the playerbase and gives you guys money for further development work on KSP, so it'd be nice to have a reassuring word that you're thinking along the same lines

[Vallius]

Here's my recommendations for prioritizing features for 1.0. Let form follow function, as they always say.

1. Aerospace (and by extension, fairings). This will cause, by far, the largest and most important game-play change, and should not be significantly altered after 1.0.

2. Tech Tree Revision. It doesn't need to be perfect, but this determines the overall progression of the game. New players need to have a semi-logical progression of technology.

3. Part Balance. New aerodynamics will greatly change the way most parts work, so this should be high on the list.

4. Early Career Mode needs to be more forgiving for new players

Useful but not critical to 1.0:

Improved aircraft design tools, Engineers Report.

Reentry Heat, Bigger spaceplane parts

Pure Gravy:

Female Kerbals, ISRU Parts, interiors for all crafts.