Feedback Requested: 1.0

[Yakuzi]

My vote would be to add polish, such as clouds, a new skybox, etc.

Maxmaps meant of the already announced features for 1.0 (it was a somewhat poorly phrased OP).

[Ridge363]

Stability and bug fixes are a must. New users will expect stability. New features such ISRU, GP2, ect. Are just gravy(bonus).

[basic.syntax]

Another company is facing similar questions. A long "early access" cycle, folks clamoring for release. (But not quite the same situation, because the current version of KSP is widely available.)

The goal of releasing a product with "no compromises" is often diametrically opposed to releasing something "as soon as we possibly can." Releasing consumer technology is all about making compromises in order to get a product to market in a timely and relatively affordable manner. Apple compromised on the original iPhone, releasing the first-generation device without 3G cell technology and over a year before the launch of the App Store. Countless software and hardware developers these days similarly aim to release a "minimum viable product" then iterate on that design with post-launch refinements.

[WanderingKid]

If you insist this is a 1.0 release, my opinion is then it must be bug fixed, and it should get a series of balance passes.

1.0 should be a shining glory to the world of a well oiled machine that does what you say it does, rather then a list of a thousand neat features that work sometimes and is horribly 'off' when it comes to how things compare to each other.

Again, this is my opinion. The bugs need squashing before more goes in. I signed on to an alpha/beta test way back, and I'm good with that. However, when I get a 'release' version of a game, I seriously wonder about the competence of the game makers when I feel like I'm Beta Testing Balance (*COUGH* Final Fantasy XIV *COUGH*).

[Torquemadus]

We don't plan on stopping work at 1.0 at all, so we're maybe better off leaving some stuff for 1.1 and getting to work on the specifics of what can make the existing stuff in the game truly shine.

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?

If I understand this question correctly, we're being asked if we will support some of the previously announced 1.0 features being put back to 1.1 to give Squad more time to work on them.

This sounds like a good idea to me. I'm very enthusiastic about the new features. I want these features to be given the attention they deserve. I don't want to see them rushed!

Aero is obviously turning out to be a major feature. It seems appropriate to give aero it's own patch. It's clear that Squad want to give bug fixing and balance the attention they deserve too. I'm expecting aero to make a big impact on balance, especially where spaceplanes are concerned, so I'm keen for them to take the time to get this right.

I would be surprised if we don't see Valentina in 1.0, since she has already been officially revealed to the community.

There are a number of features that we haven't seen or heard much about in the devnotes yet. Re-entry heating and ISRU are likely to be major game changers, as these will both greatly affect the way players design their craft. It's important that these aren't rushed. I also think it's important that the players get at least some input into how these features will work, we currently know very little about them. I would suggest releasing a specific patch that deals with these two features and the game balance changes that they will cause!

I wouldn't be surprised if the infamous "barn" buildings are causing more trouble. This is another feature that I'm happy to see put off to ensure that it gets done properly.

[Avicorn]

I would prefer to wait longer, but receive all announced features. Career mode has limited replayability, and parts rebalance separated with new aerodinamics and other stuff makes anyway will force to start from beginning. Also, addon support questions. So I'll better wait.

[klgraham1013]

Another company is facing similar questions. A long "early access" cycle, folks clamoring for release.

Is anyone besides Squad clamoring for KSP 1.0?

[Kelderek]

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?

It sounds like 1.0 features fall into 3 categories:

1. Core features which accomplish your past goal, allowing this update to be called 1.0.

2. Other features you've told us you are working on (things mentioned in DevNotes for example).

3. Potential new features not previously mentioned.

It is possible that everything you told us about so far falls into #1 and then #2 would be an empty list, but I suspect that not everything you have mentioned to us was part of your original design goal. I think most of the posts in this thread agree that #3 is NOT needed for a 1.0 version, there is plenty of stuff on the list of features you've told us about already.

I am going to assume that the 1.0 release date is already set in stone, otherwise you probably would not have asked for any of this feedback. With that assumption in place, then I think it would be helpful if you could list out the core features that accomplish your past goal to call this 1.0 - the things you will definitely have in a 1.0 release regardless of what we say. Then show us a list of everything else you have mentioned to us that you are planning for 1.0 or have already worked on for this update - it is that second list that we could then prioritize for you along with general bug fixes, stability, polish, etc.

[regex]

Is anyone besides Squad clamoring for KSP 1.0?

Probably like, two or three fanboys maybe. Otherwise the general consensus has been "Do it right the first time, guys, you only get one 1.0."

[Frybert]

*sigh*

[basic.syntax]

Is anyone besides Squad clamoring for KSP 1.0?

Yes, in a sense. Folks ask in these forums for features and improvements to KSP all the time... they don't care what Squad calls it. But no, in the sense that reasonable people are willing to wait. Squad has decided a 1.0 date. My choice of words wasn't the best. I wanted to drop that recent quote in here, it reminds us that all declared-finished products are the result of compromises, KSP won't be an exception.

[TeddyDD]

so we're maybe better off leaving some stuff for 1.1

And you still going to call next release 1.0 instead of making one or two more beta versions?

Publishing of an incomplete game is a bad idea but it been mentioned hundreds of times on the forum.

Waste of time to write about this again.

[Superfluous J]

I work 3rd shift and don't have a lot of time to peruse the forums at night (which may surprise some of you, but I work efficiently when I DO browse the forums) so I didn't see this until about 8 hours after it was posted. I tossed in a quick reply and then went to bed.

Then I got up and reread the vast majority of this thread, and I share a lot of concerns.

Reading between the lines, it really looks like Squad doesn't know what to do with what they have. It's like they swerved the car off the road and now that it's plummeting into the ravine, they're turning around and asking us for opinions on how to make it better.

[Tiberion]

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.

[StrandedonEarth]

I read about half of this thread on my mobile earlier, so forgive me if I forget who said what or what has already been said. My 2 cents:

I would go with finishing aero, since that is a game-changing save-breaker, along with bug-fixing, optimizations, and a balancing pass (probably not the last). Beyond that, it is important not to frustrate new players.

Hands up! How many of you put your first rocket on the pad and then mashed buttons and clicked things until it finally launched?

I hope the new tutorials will walk new players through everything they need to know. However, bear in mind that not all new players will try the tutorials. I think it is important that players be able to view, if not edit, the key bindings in game from the esc menu (one of my frustrations when I was learning the game). Along with that, being able to view, and preferably edit, action groups on the fly would be exceedingly useful, perhaps as an engineer skill.

Speaking of skills, the current experience/skill system is disappointing, to say the least, partly because it is completely automatic and railroaded. In the kerbonaut complex, players should be able to choose what skills to spend their XP on and train their 'nauts in. There is no reason a scientist can't pick up some piloting skills, just make it expensive, XP and fund-wise, to open a second (or third) profession line.

Regarding the starting manned debate: If people really want to start unmanned, fine, give them the SAS-less Stayputnik, while your starter pilot still has SAS. But the option to use either should be there right from the start. After all, the reason the Japanese had to use kamikaze pilots because they didn't have any type of guidance system, and the Germans only had very rudimentary guidance systems for their V-1's and V-2's.

[basic.syntax]

It appears this thread has run its course.

As you fine gents and ladies in the forums and reddit learned, we’re looking at the dev process of 1.0 and considering our priorities regarding the content we deliver and the quality that it is at. I want to thank everyone for their feedback as they have given us a lot to think about, and we will hopefully have something to share later this week.

[regex]

Reading between the lines, it really looks like Squad doesn't know what to do with what they have. It's like they swerved the car off the road and now that it's plummeting into the ravine, they're turning around and asking us for opinions on how to make it better.

God, I could quote this for days. I have been quoting this for days. Don't get me wrong, I'm really excited about the prospect of the next update and the feature set is looking fantastic, but I still feel like this car hasn't had a driver for a very long time. Like 5thHorseman, I fear we've flown off the cliff edge and someone's trying desperately to turn it around. Edited March 17, 2015 by regex

[SelectHalfling0]

One thing, other than all the great parts of the next 1.0 update, would be easily changing the class of the kerbals.

I try changing their names from the persistence to change their class and it krakens my save!

[Van Disaster]

Whoever's saying "put back the aero change", you can't suddenly dump a fundamental change like that into a patch a month or two after going gold. That's in the order of learning to drive, taking your test and all the traffic laws changing.

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.

[eddiew]

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.

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!

[WanderingKid]

I already left a comment, but I feel it's necessary to add a bit more weight to my opinion earlier.

If you're leaving Beta to go to 1.0, this should NEVER happen again:

Until it does, you're just asking for trouble. This is an incredibly common 'minor' glitch.

[Vashts]

imo, completely re-writing a core mechanic while going from beta to full release is a bad idea. this is the type of thing you want extensive testing on before calling it official. thats what betas are for.

[klgraham1013]

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!

This sentiment has been repeated over and over, and is worth repeating, yet again, because of it's validity.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hi,

I guess I dont care as long as they work on bugs and MOD-Compatibility; while multiplayer is nice and fixing science is nice, bug-squishing is more important.

Maybe some flexibility in the building levelling and prices would be nice; ie maxxing out career mode at start to test the game.

I am waiting for the 'barn' to appear so I can restart my game tis all...

Cmdr Zeta

[Wallygator]

^^^Yes. Props for being sensitive to the Core community. Well done max.

But it is also important for all of to remember is that there are a lot of contributors here who have no software deployment experience. Still, their perspectives are valid from a user perspective.

My perspective after much more deep thought on the matter ---> fix the bugs - Nothing else should have priority.