Feedback Requested: 1.0

[forenci]

well actually....

To use a metaphor, they are moving the finish line closer(by prematurely calling it 1.0), but claim they are still going to go the whole distance(by actually continuing development and finishing the game)

So calling it 1.0 doesn't matter, because the feature complete version of the game will be 1.1 or ,much likely, higher. So why call it 1.0 now when its still undone?

Didn't they also say they had a deadline that was not movable? Don't you think if they were an independent team they could just push it back if it pleased them? Everything they have done (not doing another beta patch, potentially not including features to meet a deadline) tells me that they are being forced to meet a certain deadline.

[impwarhamer]

I'd personally prefer if you try and made sure the new aero model was working pretty well, but other than that, new features all the way!

[r4pt0r]

Didn't they also say they had a deadline that was not movable? Don't you think if they were an independent team they could just push it back if it pleased them? Everything they have done (not doing another beta patch, potentially not including features to meet a deadline) tells me that they are being forced to meet a certain deadline.

you tell me, he said that yesterday: https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/2zbd54/maxmaps_on_twitter_now_considering_that_adding_as/cphdfr2

If there is a strict deadline and they really are going to continue development then its kind of dumb because a deadline to finish a project has no purpose if you are going to continue that project past the deadline.

[NeoIvan17]

I think post release of 1.0 should be divided 60-40 in regards towards new features/bug fixes. I'd like more Late-game content to strive for such as items in interstellar quest and other mods (Futuristic engines, new science equipment, better/more parts for base and space-station buildings, etc) that require your to visit other celestial bodies in order to earn the science needed to unlock the parts. I mostly just want new late-game parts.

Though I must agree with some here that you guys should continue to polish the game before release and focus on that as much as possible. I doubt this game will get ravaged by reviewers as the game has been nicely fixed up (mostly) from when I first started to play, but it'd be nice if KSP was in pristine shape.

Keep up the excellent work.

[EtherDragon]

Hey guys. Basically looking at the current feature list we need to look at our work in general and consider working on polish, bugfixing and balance in certain areas of the game instead of some of the new features we're working in. Going specific instead of going wide. 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.

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?

Hi Maxmaps,

I would prefer that you focus on delivering a polished iteration of the current scope.

I prefer to see a well executed aero-overhaul with in-game tools to help build better space-planes.

A well thought out resource gathering system to round out KSP's career mode "end-game" is much higher priority than new features.

These priorities are strongly tied into balancing career mode, so this is a must before other new features are added:

Career mode needs to have a leaner start - right now there are too many buildings at firs, and it's overwhelming to new players. The clear and singular focus should be taking on contracts, and building and launching rockets to complete them. All other aspects of the KSC are in support of this central goal and should be introduced later, as appropriate. Here are some specific suggestions:

There should only be one completed building to start with: Mission Control - the VAB and Launch Pad would be shown as "under construction" with a tooltip or something that states, "Visit Mission Control, these buildings will be ready by the time you get your first contract." Walk the user down the strait path of get contract, build rocket, launch rocket, blow up - try again - eventually win by learning Rocket Science!

R&D - Under construction at beginning of the game, and cannot be used. Unlocks after the first contract is completed that returns Science or after the first successful recovery of a ship (since recovery of a rocket that survived launch gives 5 science). Automatically adds ability to do Crew Reports and EVAs while landed on Kerbin. "We didn't expect you to be so scientific! Good thing they just completed construction of Research and Development. Head over there and see if you can put your Science to use!"

Astronaut Complex - Under construction (cannot be used) It should only become available after the first crew member dies, or after reaching a sub-orbital trajectory. On death, "Oh my! We're going to need to hire more Astronauts, good thing the Astronaut Complex just finished construction!" or "You've reached space, and we've just opened a new facility. Go check out the Astronaut Complex."

Tracking Station - Under construction (cannot be used) and becomes available after the player achieves a stable orbit. "Now that we've reached orbit, we have a new facility to track our rockets and solar system. Check out the recently finished Tracking Station."

Space Plane Hangar and Runway - Under construction (cannot be used) becoming available after the player unlocks their first Tech Tree Node that contains Space Plane parts such as an atmospheric engine and wheels.

Administration Facility - Under construction (cannot be used) until the player unlocks with with their first building upgrade. After all the other buildings are unlocked they get a message, "The Administration Facility is almost complete, but they need an additional so-and-so Funds to finish construction. When you're ready, Upgrade the Admin Building by rick-clicking on it..."

If you follow something like what I've laid out above - all the core concepts of managing and using the KSC are introduced over several flights - reinforcing and supporting the central core of the game (contracts, building and launching rockets).

Point is: Balancing career mode progression so that the player is introduced to each concept one at a time, is the highest over-all priority for me. In order to do so, you need the new Aero model and resources present.

Lastly - specifically for career mode balance, Strategies in the Admin Building need to be easier to initiate - costs of many of them are so high, even at a low commitment, I never use them.

THEN, in 1.1 I would like to see something like a "win condition" in Career Mode, with some side stories fleshed out:

What is the story behind the Mistery Goo? (Maybe each new Career Mode play through has it coming from a different place in the solar system...)

Resources - locating, collecting, and returning a certain quantity of a rare resource.

That kind of thing...

Edited March 18, 2015 by EtherDragon

[Tiberion]

From MaxMaps and Harv replies on reddit (at least we had a post here too this time) they seems to be dead set on 1.0 as the next release.

One problem with that feedback request is that we don't really know the current state of the features and what was fixed. The dev update give us a glimpse but far from the full picture. From what I understand the new aero is done and only need QA and bug fixing, but what is the state of the other features and what was fixed ? I don't see the point in expressing my view that X should wait for 1.1 if X is already 100% done and tested.

And it really doesn't matter what they have or haven't done, or how much it has been tested. QA and Experimental testing will only get you so far, and with the major fundamental ways that the game is being changed for this final release, the chances of catastrophic-level issues getting released is very high. I have history back all the way to 0.11 or so and it tells me that the big changes always need a followup patch to fix things or make changes that aren't quite right. Before, it was just another beta release so it wasn't a big deal. But if you 1.0 patch lands with a giant thud and needs an immediate patch then you have a problem.

Even if the patch was just:

New Aero model and attending features (Heat, Fairings, etc)

Total part re-balance because of Aero

Career/Science Tweaks as described by Harv

Then that is a massive amount of things to test or go wrong. I can't think of any possible reason why they would want to risk that in a "launch" situation instead of dealing with it in our newly minted beta period, which won't actually see any releases within it as it stands (Beta Than Ever being the Alpha/Beta Milestone)

[damerell]

Well, it's not an entirely unjustified fear. Games like Planetary Annihilation were raked over the coals for early releases, even though they'd been in open testing for a long time and the state of the game was no secret.

PA charged extra money (quite a lot) to get in early, even at points the game was barely a game, creating a situation where people were paying now for jam tomorrow. When the jam didn't materialise, they were upset.

KSP is sold at a discount in advance and has been a fun game to play for some releases, bug comedy or no. I hope there's more jam coming, but it's quite a different situation - and that's why there's 4 years of review sites (well, RPS, yes) saying "actually, KSP is pretty jolly". It also means the people who found the idea interesting are much more likely to have tried it already - "free demo, try early, pay less" is a lot more attractive than "try early, pay more, trust us".

[Nathair]

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".

Right on the money, as usual.

[M0T0M]

Hello all,

In some ways I guess this is my introduction message. I was waiting until I had 1000 Steam hours logged before I began posting but this thread has more or less forced my hand with 25hrs stills to go.

I'll keep it short from here.

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

This, please this. Whilst I will continue to enjoy this fantastic game no matter what, I would love KSP to have as spotless an introduction to the wider world as possible. I would like all those new players coming to this joyful software to have the best possible experience.

Followed by the revelation that there will be more content to follow.

Better that than to buy an awesome game, filled with content and immediately encounter bugs.

That is as short as I could manage.

Thanks for reading.

[pandaman]

My thoughts have already been posted by many others, but.

Go with the features you have already declared, with the possibility of leaving resources for 1.1.

Ensure that the game is accessible for new players - good tutorials and in game help etc. and squash all the bugs and irritating issues you can.

[Superfluous J]

(Note: I agree with you in spirit but can't help posting the counterexample)

hey at least the Superman 64 Devs hit their deadline

hey at least the Master Chief Collection Devs hit their deadline

hey at least the Sims 4 Devs hit their deadline

hey at least Duke Nukem Forever took the time to get everything right.

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

I see the game as half-broken.

[forenci]

you tell me, he said that yesterday: https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/2zbd54/maxmaps_on_twitter_now_considering_that_adding_as/cphdfr2

If there is a strict deadline and they really are going to continue development then its kind of dumb because a deadline to finish a project has no purpose if you are going to continue that project past the deadline.

Yeah, I honestly don't know. The whole situation just seems weird. My feeling (again, this is my own personal feeling) but they have pushed back things in alpha plenty, so why wouldn't they do so here if they didn't have a hard deadline to meet?

I think people are just freaking out because they think 1.0 is going to get terrible reviews and somehow this will impact the game. For starters, it's one of the most played games on Steam as we speak (if I'm not mistaken). Second, we're all a bit jaded because we've played the game so much as it is. For someone just starting out, this game is pretty damn good with tons of depth. Yes, it has bugs, but honestly not even close to a bad as other games I've played upon release. Games have been getting buggier and buggier as time has passed. And honestly, games can be buggy on release and still be fantastic. Look at Payday 2 for example. Super buggy on release, and still is even somewhat buggy today and even despite some of the initial reviews being so-so, it's become a hit game. Game development is far more fluid these days. A buggy release is not a game killer by any means.

[Robotengineer]

Why oh why must the next release be called v1.0?

its not done. its not nearly done. a blind man could see that pushing KSP to v1.0 was a bad idea.

make .91 and .92 and .93 if you have to.

with out the planned features, KSP is an incomplete game.

with the nasty bugs, KSP is an incomplete game.

you've created a great thing! you have a huge dedicated fan base. Your teaching people things, making people think. don't ruin everything you have built by slapping a *DONE* sticker on it and "shipping" KSP with massive gaping holes crawling with bugs.

get modders involved for art polish. many would live to have art assets included in stock.

• aero update v.91
  
• resource update v.92 (ISRU & life support)
  
• career and contract polish v.93
  
• art polish v.94 (replace crummy models & add detail to planets)
  
• bug fix v.95
  
• release v1.0
  
• second pass bug fix v1.1
  
• mutiplayer v1.2
  

tl;dr: I'm still not sure why SQUAD isn't comfortable with releasing more beta versions. They could have a 1.0 that was not only "feature complete" but also bug-free. Or, they could pursue their current path and sacrifice one or the other for no readily apparent reason. The community doesn't like this, new players and reviewers won't like this, and it puts arbitrary strain on SQUAD. The choice is crystal clear, for me at least.

SQUAD should ensure that 1.0 isn't buggy. That's their biggest priority. In addition, they should probably overhaul all of the "placeholders" that have been added to the game over the years. If they can do this, I feel as if KSP will be ready for an incomplete, but still playable, 1.0. If they try for the current feature list, the game probably won't work very well. And no one wants a nonfunctional "first official release" version.

Sorry for the incredibly long post. I just want to re-iterate my opinions on this matter.

If you give this post and others like it some serious thought, SQUAD and Maxmaps, I will send a hand-written letter thanking you profusely. And I hate sending hand-written letters.

[snipped]

tl;dr: I'm still not sure why SQUAD isn't comfortable with releasing more beta versions. They could have a 1.0 that was not only "feature complete" but also bug-free. Or, they could pursue their current path and sacrifice one or the other for no readily apparent reason. The community doesn't like this, new players and reviewers won't like this, and it puts arbitrary strain on SQUAD. The choice is crystal clear, for me at least.

SQUAD should ensure that 1.0 isn't buggy. That's their biggest priority. In addition, they should probably overhaul all of the "placeholders" that have been added to the game over the years. If they can do this, I feel as if KSP will be ready for an incomplete, but still playable, 1.0. If they try for the current feature list, the game probably won't work very well. And no one wants a nonfunctional "first official release" version.

Sorry for the incredibly long post. I just want to re-iterate my opinions on this matter.

If you give this post and others like it some serious thought, SQUAD and Maxmaps, I will send a hand-written letter thanking you profusely. And I hate sending hand-written letters.

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.

These posts pretty much represent my views perfectly, so rather than trying to write my own poorly written post, I'll quote these good ones.

[LABHOUSE]

Improve what you have, squash those bugs, and fill in the holes and blanks.

Edited March 18, 2015 by LABHOUSE

[worir4]

Improve what you have, squash those bugs, and fill in the holes and blanks.

Bug genocide FTW!

[biohazard15]

Aero overhaul and bugfixing. New features can wait.

[Frank_G]

The current content of the game and the stuff you will throw in it with 1.0 will be a pretty solid base to continue development. In my opinion it is the time to focus on the detail. Get everything shaped, polished and tuned, fix the issues that are currently known and then put a nice clean release on the market. The magic 1.0 (being actually nothing special, considering the way KSP went so far... all releases were really awesome) will surely attract a lot of players, giving the project some good cash to continue.

And as you say the game is now feature complete, it is the best time to deliver and then continue with all new shiny explosive thingies to stick to rockets n´ stuff.

Edit: I´d really love to see fairings, resources and new aerodynamics with 1.0 - just to clarify

[Ikaneko]

Get some bugs fixed, make a start on some of the krakens. I would say the planet-destroying one that happens when the claw is passively attached is a good place to start.

Other than that, general balancing would be nice. It is paramount to sort out the bleedin' decouplers! The 3.5m is cheaper than the 1.25m!

Aero overhaul we need at 1.0. It would be a disgrace to go into release with a placeholder still there, and will reflect badly on the devs, who don't deserve that.

[TheDog]

From a project management point-of-view:

In scope for 1.0:

-------------------

MUST-DO Priority:

1) Evalute known/reportd bugs and fix all critical and high priority ones.

e.g.: memory leaks, functional bugs seriosly hampering gameplay, bugs with high visibility for the customer (aka player)

2) Complete features that are already work-in-progress and are alrready in an advanced stage of implemtation, and yield high visibility for the customer (enhancing gameplay)

e.g.: resource integration

DESIRED, BUT OPTIONAL Priority:

3) Complete features which would be save-breaking if introduced post-1.0.

This includes major overhauls of aerodynamics, or drastic gameplay-altering changes to game components.

Rationale: players on KSP will start their long-term saves with 1.0. Introducing save-braking changes in 1.x would be highly inadvisable.

Out of scope for 1.0:

-------------------

NICE-TO-HAVE Priority, can easily be shelved for 1.0:

4) All enhancements and new features that do not fall into category 2 and 3, and can be provided today already by various mods.

E.g. visual enhancements, some parts, alternative tech trees, ...

5) General visual polish

While indeed nice to have, it is priority 5 only.

6) Migration to new development tools/environment

e.g. Unity 5, win x64 support

Sorry to all fans of Unity 5, but this *is* so optional, and very harmful to delivery dates & deadlines.

Consider this for KSP 1.2, earliest.

[Yakuzi]

I'm really curious why there's a hard deadline. Is the rent due? Is it something political in Mexico? Did Steam come calling? Are you guys just really stubborn? Did 4Chan's release time chart just really get to you?

I get the feeling that this is going to be a very bad thing for the game.

SQUAD, this is completely idiotic/amateurish/scandalous. Why in Krakens sake would you ask for our feedback when clearly you had your mind made up all along? Why do you so desperately want to appear to listen to the community just to say "whatevs guys, we dont care and are keeping our deadline. We're just informing you we're not keeping our promises/announced features, so deal with it". It seems this is merely a desperate and amateurish damage control ploy...

HarvesteR, judging by the drastic change in pace of development and releases since 0.25, I can only assume you are no longer directly in control of KSP development and that there are hierarchical/external forces driving this illogical rush for gold. Please let your community know what is the true reason for leaving Early Access, as being "uncomfortable" is no excuse for defaulting on promises and delivering an incomplete product. You've done an absolutely amazing job all these years and KSP is nearly good to go 1.0. However, to rush a game just before the finish line with many placeholders and grindy gameplay would be an incredible disgrace to you, KSP and your fans.

Trust your community as we have trusted you so many times over the last years. Let us know what causes this idiotic push for 1.0, and we'll get a petition to Goya and Ayarza to delay the deadline so you can launch a complete and fun KSP true to your vision.

If not, please consider "KSP 1.0: shoulda done beta" for the official release title

Edited March 18, 2015 by Yakuzi

[Spartwo]

Fleshing out what is there is would be the most important thing IMO after that Multiplayer is something which would massively change the game for the better.

[DocMoriarty]

Fix bugs and balance, thats what beta is all about. If you add features it's in alpha again. One of my fav bugs that i desperately hope to get fixed are the Kerbal EVA bugs, no pitch control and too strong thrusters which make every EVA a nightmare right now.

[AbhChallenger]

I think again it is important to note the difficulty of moving to Unity 5. And why that means an entire version (In my opinion 1.1) needs to be dedicated to it. We need to be cautious in saying it is "okay" to push planned features of 1.0 to 1.1 as opposed to saying just delay 1.0

There is very little that can be done performance wise with Unity 4.

[Barefoot Friar]

That is as short as I could manage.

Never apologize for long posts on forums. It's a text-based medium. People who hate to read can go watch YouTube.

Also, welcome.

[Caelib]

SQUAD, this is completely idiotic/amateurish/scandalous.

Welcome to the world of software development. Honestly, you're reading too much into it. The overall process of a release is complicated and expensive ... derailing a release schedule can have serious business/financial consequences. Your wants/desires for a given release are second to this.