Feedback Requested: 1.0

[M0T0M]

Also this:

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.

This sums up my thoughts better than I could ever express through a keyboard.

Please Squad, give us a Beta period, your game deserves nothing less.

[JSD]

I would pick one thing above all: A reason for doing it all. I've bin a reasonable long time with Kerbal now. Love the simulation part of the game. The get to know the space thing. But overall, it's still is a "empty" kind of space simulation. You build a wacky, wobbly space construction, trying to fly it to the mun. Whole lot of fun. But when you land on the mun, you plant a flag, do some sort of (in my opinion) a whole lot of useless sciences report for gathering points for unlocking new tech. Or drive meaningless around on a empty mun in a mun buggy. But overall: That's it. There is no point in doing it. There is no end game. No reward, or following options in the game. That is the kind of thing that bugs me the most about this 1.0 thing. The game isn't nearly done for a second! It's still a empty shell with a beautiful skin. (That has to be said..) The game itself is amazing, I can forgive every bug, and every stability problem is has. But if I had to pick one: It should be really this one..

Edited March 18, 2015 by JSD

[Olterin]

Personally I'd say more polish over new features. But, if you could sneak in some "features" that are cosmetic in nature while not detracting from the polishing process, that would be great (clouds?)

[katateochi]

I feel like a large proportion of the community is yelling at a wall. I really don't want to be saying "we told you so" a couple of months after 1.0 comes out and flops, that won't bring me any satisfaction. I don't know how this community can say it any clearer or louder; An incomplete v1.0 is an utterly disastrous move.

Some of what has been said in this thread is pretty cutting and I feel the analogies with certain vehicular failures are all too apt,....and we are your loyal fan base!! We love KSP, rough edges and all, but if we are expressing such levels of frustration think how much worse it is going to be when the haters and the critics start. KSP has achieved global recognition, that is a blessing but it's also a curse, because now you have to live up to it. The "I don't play early access" crowd will be waiting to jump in a try this thing that we've all be raving about, but they're a much harder group to impress. They're not going to be understanding and if they get v1.0 and find that it is essentially still early access then that will hit your reputation hard.

This is about more than KSP, it's about your reputation as a development house. You get one shot at v1.0 and you have to impress with it. The window of opportunity is small, maybe a month, during which time "the others" (ie not your loyal fan base) will decide what badge to label you with. If you get slated with bad reviews in that time you will loose out on potential customers, even once 1.1 etc have been released. Once they've heard that v1.0 was sloppy, they'll just assume 1.1 will be too, or at best is a hasty patch to fix the mistakes. We'll understand that 1.1 is just the next step to greater things, they won't.

Not only does KSP need to be complete at v1.0 but your other public facing assets will be scrutinised. -->> http://www.squad.com.mx/SquadSite/index.htm <<-- This!!! This is not ready!!! And it needs to be when you go v1. It doesn't matter that it's not about KSP, people are going to go there and it's not going to impress. It's not a site that says professional developers live here, and if KSP itself is getting bad press that will only make things worse. (ps site is actually buggy running on chrome, constant CPU load of 30-40% while open).

I'm not saying this to be nasty, I'm saying it cos I actually care, as does everyone else who's been urging you to hold back on the v1.0 release. I'd really like to see what Squad does next and play your next game, but that won't happen if you drop this ball.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

As much as I want/like new features, I thinks it is better to iron out the bugs and improve existing mechanics first. The more content you add, the larger the to-do list will grow.

[brienne]

Any news from devs? Lokk like they disappear for a month from forum.

[peachoftree]

I know this is a stretch, but official API documentation would be awesome!

[problemecium]

Heh, I actually kinda saw this coming, although I didn't think you guys would actually make a thread warning us ^^

In any case, I say that the current feature set you've posted according to the devblogs is more than enough for an update on its own. So feel free to just debug what you already have and call it done for now. If you don't feel like calling it 1.0, I'm totally fine with releasing patch # 0.91 and saving 1.0 for the next update.

[Guest]

I wish I had time to read the entire thread. Of the pages I have read, one thing seems to stick out. Why is it necessary for the next update to be considered a 1.0? Does the label 1.0 really mean anything anyhow? I feel those questions need to be answered. I think that would help focus the communities suggestions for the next update.

I like many of the suggestions being made here, like bugfixing, especially those in Claw's bugfix thread. Optimization would be nice, but is really needed more for the modded games, not the stock. The stock game runs pretty good. I remember how often the old "water fix" threads use to pop up. I haven't seen one of those in a while. Aero update seems pretty important. I'd like to see that implemented asap. I think mining could be shelved until the bugfixing and aero is done. The visual improvements are the least important. Gameplay mechanics need to be worked on first. I like games that look nice, but I like games that work as intended even better.

So in summary, given the lack of explanation from Squad on why the next update has to be a 1.0 and has a hard deadline, I feel like the most important goals are :

1. Include the final model for aerodynamics.

2. Render Claw's bugfix modules useless by fixing the damn bugs in the first place.

3. Finalize game balance, ie. part prices and tech tree order.

4. All other stuff when time allows. ie. mining, multiplayer, and graphics.

One last question that's been on my mind. If Squad puts a 1.0 label on the next release, should we expect no more breaking of saves and/or mods? I guess that ties in with question : does the 1.0 label even mean anything?

[Yakuzi]

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.

That I can understand. I don't understand, however, why they are asking the community for feedback, when they clearly already made up their mind beforehand...

Concerning the release, if they at least would give us a valid reason (e.g. money) for this push I would also understand. However, defaulting on confirmed features because they are "uncomfortable" in EA is just silly and quite insulting to be honest.

EDIT: And IIRC, Maxmaps posted sometime back that money was definitely not an issue for the hasty 0.25 alpha->0.90 beta->1.0 gold

Edited March 18, 2015 by Yakuzi

[Capt Snuggler]

Any news from devs? Lokk like they disappear for a month from forum.

? the OP from maxmaps was yesterday...

Heh, I actually kinda saw this coming, although I didn't think you guys would actually make a thread warning us ^^

In any case, I say that the current feature set you've posted according to the devblogs is more than enough for an update on its own. So feel free to just debug what you already have and call it done for now. If you don't feel like calling it 1.0, I'm totally fine with releasing patch # 0.91 and saving 1.0 for the next update.

I and almost every one on this thread would agree with you but its becoming clear that Squad do not.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[pertrep]

The game as it is is very rich, so at this stage more is not better. Polish what is there for 1.0 and start introducing new features after that. The tutorials could use an overhaul for 1.0.

[TMS]

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

we need to make this happen.

[Meecrob]

I apologize in advance, since this has most likely been brought up already. At 32 pages and limited time to read the forums, I ask your forgiveness.

Please have something on bodies other than Kerbin to do. Yes, there are biomes, which I am grateful you added to all bodies. This is an excellent start along with the Fine Print mod being incorporated to stock. I think that there should be something about each body (or at least the more visited ones - Duna, Jool's moons, etc.) that make you do something. I do not have a 100% thought-out solution, but the feeling I get from career mode is that you race to make the game sandbox mode. If I wanted that, I would play sandbox. Perhaps something along the lines of bodies have their own conditions...for an Eeloo mission you would need to include heaters to perform certain science experiments. The gravioli would be useful anywhere, but say the science bay would only operate in a certain temperature range, forcing you to land on the day side or bring heating equipment with you. Vice versa for say Moho. Perhaps different terrain? make it so a rover that works on one body would have to be tweaked to drive in the deep, loose sand of Duna, but works on Dres? I guess what I am getting at is the fact that when I land, I can perform all science within 1 minute and blast off for home without really doing anything - hence my comment earlier about it feeling like a race to sandbox. Do science, fill the tech tree and unless you make up your own reason for being on a planet, there is absolutely no point of going there again. As mentioned on the first page, this is the release reviewers are getting. What's the point of creating a solar system if there is nothing to do but click buttons? I know this will never become a first-person soil research game. I understand its mostly about the flying. I have no issue with that. My issue is that I sit in the nav screen thinking of what I should do and come to a realization that no matter where I go, I click a few buttons and thats it as far as the game goes. I think an attention to detail about more than just gravity/atmosphere of a body should be modeled. It should be hard to get to Moho due to airframe heating issues, it should be hard to get to Eeloo because its literally colder than humans (and kerbals) can really wrap their heads around and research is required to build a craft suited to it. I want a sense of accomplishment for weathering the ...weather?. The same lander I made for Mun can handle any body in the game provided I account for gravity and atmosphere (IE fuel and thrust)....well not Eve or Tylo...but you get my point.

TL;DR Make each body individual in a sense to make it feel like more of an accomplishment of engineering and piloting. Make something to do while there. That isn't clicking buttons. The world is watching. Make it impressive for vidja game folk, not just us space freaks who mess their pants off of a perfect burn and saving 7.5 Dv.

[Cerberus738]

I don't think they need another beta. If it gets some polish then it's ready for 1.0.

As much as we all love new features, if you're going to do a true release then all the features you release need to be finished!! People won't know they are missing the other features if the ones you release are perfect.

[golombo]

I think 1.0 release should be polished so aero overhaul, bugfixing and balance is on the first place for me. Features can be added anytime later.

[Commander Jebidiah]

To all the people who say clouds are needed i agree however, there should be an option to have clouds or not without deleting a folder. Unfortunately not everyone has an expensive PC and cant run these mods. My laptop for example, the only reason i play with cloud mods is beacause my laptop is so slow ive gotten patient with launches to orbit, that should only take 5 minutes, that end up taking 2x to 5x longer.

It doesnt matter how many memory leaks squad fixes it will ultimately come down to how powerful your PC or laptop is.

The big problem with adding all new parts is that people with 64 bit pc's with 8Gb RAM wont be able to run 32 bit ksp as the vanila game will go beyond its 3.8Gb limit.

[Tiberion]

we need to make this happen.

KSP 1.0: Beta Than Never

[klgraham1013]

To all the people who say clouds are needed i agree however, there should be an option to have clouds or not without deleting a folder. Unfortunately not everyone has an expensive PC and cant run these mods. My laptop for example, the only reason i play with cloud mods is beacause my laptop is so slow ive gotten patient with launches to orbit, that should only take 5 minutes, that end up taking 2x to 5x longer.

Just throw clouds in the graphics settings.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Love it.

[Alshain]

To all the people who say clouds are needed i agree however, there should be an option to have clouds or not without deleting a folder. Unfortunately not everyone has an expensive PC and cant run these mods. My laptop for example, the only reason i play with cloud mods is beacause my laptop is so slow ive gotten patient with launches to orbit, that should only take 5 minutes, that end up taking 2x to 5x longer.

It doesnt matter how many memory leaks squad fixes it will ultimately come down to how powerful your PC or laptop is.

That is why there are Recommended System Specs, if your computer doesn't meet those you can't really complain. They have been listed in both purchase locations for a long time. If your computer does meet those you have nothing to worry about.

The big problem with adding all new parts is that people with 64 bit pc's with 8Gb RAM wont be able to run 32 bit ksp as the vanila game will go beyond its 3.8Gb limit.

This doesn't make sense. Or it kind of makes sense, but you seem to be under this mistaken impression this would only affect 64 bit windows PC's. More than 3.8 GB would prevent all Windows users from running the game (less for 32 bit in fact because the OS uses some of that), I'm pretty sure Squad is not stupid enough to do that. Keep in mind however the current stock game doesn't come close. The only people with RAM issues are mod users (or PC's that don't meet the recommended specs).

[Rath]

Do total bug fixes and ONLY what you planed from the beginning, then in 1.1 impress the heck out of everyone with a bunch if non-glitchy amazing features

[CaptainKipard]

Please make it so that the game loads and handles assets in a timely fashion like every other game on the planet.

[eddiew]

But as a software developer you must also know that this is not always possible. Even though we like to think of Squad as independent, they have a CEO and someone who may very well be setting deadlines for them, similar to how a publisher would be. As a result, we often get buggy software and games because it is a constant battle to implement the features of a game or software and keep it bug free. And moreso, you must know the cycle can be endless. Fixing bugs often creates new bugs. At some point you just have to put the features in, squash as many bugs as you can, and release it.

I'd like to see more beta patches, but it may not be in Harvester and other's control (which it sort of sounds like it based on what they have said).

Not really - as others have also said, adding features is for alpha phase. If you're adding features after the final beta test then you have royally messed up your development schedule. The point of beta is to test new features and make sure they have the least amount of bugs and quirks possible, and that normal human beings can figure out how to use them.

While I agree that bugfixes are ongoing in almost all software, it is the act of adding features that is most likely to also add bugs, and this is why you don't just say "Ok, beta worked, now add 30% more cool stuff and ship it." Add features, host beta, fix bugs, release or repeat.

Management of expectations is key; if players see a feature in the game and it doesn't work, they get cross and the game gets bad reviews. If the feature is absent, and had never been mentioned as a thing, and the game works without it, then players are happy (and ignorant). You even get the opportunity for a post-launch update with the feature, which draws attention, and may pull back some lapsed players.

- - - Updated - - -

Do total bug fixes and ONLY what you planed from the beginning, then in 1.1 impress the heck out of everyone with a bunch if non-glitchy amazing features

That! If you make good on the original plans and everything works, that's a brilliant launch. If you deliver 110% of planned features and only 80% of them work, then it's bad.

Also, 1.1 would mean press releases and re-reviews. Post-launch feature additions are not a bad thing

[White Owl]

I have a tinfoil hat here. I don't think I'm ready to put it on yet... but it won't hurt anything to check the hat over, straighten the bent corners, make sure there aren't any holes.

Squad, has the game been sold to someone? A bigger publisher, with their own demands? Did you agree to deliver the game by a certain date, and also stay on to develop further for the new client/owner?

Not that it would necessarily be a bad thing. More money for you; a decent reward after years of development, oh hell yeah you deserve it! Bigger publicity for the game. Possible new directions for future development. This could be really exciting!

I just wonder.

Should I put this hat on?

Edit: Whoops, I meant to post this in the devnotes thread. Oh well, I guess this thread will work.

Edited March 19, 2015 by White Owl

[Barefoot Friar]

Well, if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it poops all over the sidewalk like a duck, then it just might be a duck.