Feedback Requested: 1.0

[Starwaster]

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."

Maybe someone is. Don't forget that Squad is not just a company that makes a computer game called Kerbal Space Program. There's a parent company which had nothing to do with computer software. They're a marketing company (http://squad.com.mx/) Maybe they have some issues with how things are being handled.

[Kar]

While many people here wants more content, new parts, new stuff, in my honest opinion, mods, already do that. What I really wish for the new version is a stable game to play, modded or not. This implies fixing memory leaks, frame rate (this is the worst thing in KSP) and crashes.

I ask you please, pretty please, make KSP the most stable you can do before releasing anything else. I understand people wanting more stuff in the game, but think about it, what use have more parts or more content in the game if it crashes or give some weired bugs?

So, fix the bugs, improve stability and this I think everyone agrees, improve frame rate.

[Lord Aurelius]

Just found this thread (hiding in plain sight stickied in the general discussion forum...).

If the 1.0 deadline is truly immovable, call Jeb and have him help build an unstoppable object to ram into it and summon the kraken to make it glitch out of existence (or destroy the universe in the process).

Joking aside, my opinion on the matter is that KSP isn't ready for 1.0. Even if all the initially announced features make it into the game without adding any new bugs and manage to fix all the old bugs and balance and polish everything (a really big if) the career mode is still fundamentally broken. All the systems might technically be in place, but they're not implemented in any cohesive way and progression is basically broken, and I'm not sure a simple balance pass will really fix the fundamental issues. This is the mode that reviewers and new players will play because they assume this is how the game is meant to be played, which simply isn't true at this point. This game is still just a big sandbox, and career is sandbox that holds you back early on by forcing you to grind funds and science points instead of guiding new players through the game as was originally intended.

I'm still puzzled (and more than a little annoyed) by this whole thing, it seems like starting with the curse decision Squad has made major decisions behind closed doors with minimal community input (replacing spaceport with curse, the jump from .25 to .90, and now the 1.0 release) and haven't relented at all despite the massive community backlash (i.e. to all appearances they basically ignored the community), yet now that there's a hard deadline and Squad is getting worried we're finally being asked for input. I'm not trying to put down Squad, but I am kind of frustrated with this whole situation, as there's obviously something going on behind the scenes that's not being communicated that has the potential to really harm this game by forcing Squad to cut corners and release before it's ready.

That said, if you really must go forward with 1.0, my priorities would be as follows:

Critical (i.e. don't even think of shipping without these)

Fix frustrating bugs (anything gamebreaking, memory leaks, gui bugs, EVApult, editor, decoupler, etc)

Polish (consistent textures and UI, fix typos and small glitches, IVAs for all parts)

Part Balance (doesn't have to be final, but don't ship with broken placeholder values for parts)

Aero & heating (these are way overdue and have a large effect on the early game, you don't want to be changing this later)

Career balance (fix the nonsensical contracts and tech tree, fix early game balance and progression)

Proper tutorials so new players and reviewers aren't totally lost (make these easily discoverable, maybe have a way to jump straight to a tutorial from career instead of having to back all the way out to the main menu)

High (Highly recommended for 1.0)

Fix more bugs (planet destroyer, occasional kraken attacks on very large vessels, stuff that takes a fair amount of effort and knowledge of the bug to reproduce)

Performance optimizations (game loading time, physics performance, memory usage, etc)

DeltaV readouts and engineer reports (makes rocket building a lot easier)

A few new parts to fill holes in the current lineup (nothing too fancy)

Medium (if there's time, otherwise push to 1.1 or whatever)

Some kind of main quest series of contracts for career (visit all the anomalies and bring back samples?)

Female Kerbals

Robust modding interfaces for everything (i.e. nothing hardcoded, should also include a planet modding interface)

Improved graphics (especially planet clouds and textures)

Low (probably best to push to the next update at least)

ISRU/mining (doesn't affect early game at all, can be easily added later for more endgame)

More planets

More launch sites

Other features

Unity 5 (wait until it's ready first)

Really hoping that this next update does the game justice regardless of what number it is.

Edit: In light of the post below, I would also agree that Squad should focus more on parts of the game not accessible to modders. My list above would be for a situation where Squad is committed to continued development and wants to make the best initial impression given limited time constraints. If there is any chance at all that this game won't receive the dev attention it needs after release, then Squad needs to double down on bugfixing, performance and implementing a robust modding interface to build a solid foundation that the modding community can build on top of. Games that are mod friendly tend to have much longer lifetimes (and sell more copies in the long run because of it) even if the initial release isn't perfect (case and point: the elder scrolls games).

Edited March 19, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[TMS]

Agreed with the above post. The description of career's fundamental problems are what I was trying to get across in my blog post.

At this point, I'm really beginning to feel like the best things to prioritise would be the underlying stuff that modders can't fix. I have a strong feeling that a DF9 is on the way, and it would be good to have a stable platform on which the community could finish the game off.

[forenci]

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 - - -

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

Yes but game development has become quite different from the traditional software release model. It's no longer a release-and-then-done model. Games frequently add new features to the game well after initial release. Again, I'll use Payday as an example. The release of Payday 2 was pretty dry by all accounts. And very buggy. Nonetheless, it's become an extremely popular and well thought of game.

[Pecan]

Late on parade but I have to say go with the bughunting, balance and polish.

Many people have said KSP is sufficiently full-featured for a release as it is. Make sure all those features work as they are meant to and as smoothly as possible in order to make the best possible 'first impression' on the rest of the world - you only get one chance.

Yes, personally, I'd enjoy more features but I think adding them now would be detrimental to KSP in the future; add them afterwards.

[Majorjim!]

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:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7602/16847419322_256ecfe5bc_c.jpg

vs

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8610/16305030081_73faf8bba0_c.jpg

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.

So much this! Also, the actual KSP loading screen shows Kerbin with clouds! As does the view from the VAB and SPH.. People may wrongly assume their game is bugged..

[monstah]

So much this! Also, the actual KSP loading screen shows Kerbin with clouds! As does the view from the VAB and SPH.. People may wrongly assume their game is bugged..

Now that you mention it, I'm always bugged out when I finish building my rocket on the VAB, put it outside and it's nighttime.

The VAB and SPH backgrounds should correspond to game time!

[Linear]

Now that you mention it, I'm always bugged out when I finish building my rocket on the VAB, put it outside and it's nighttime.

The VAB and SPH backgrounds should correspond to game time!

Always thought this. Would be great for immersion.

[NecroBones]

I think the Aerodymanics really need to go in ASAP, specifically because it will have far-reaching implications for how people design their rockets, and such a large change to the core gameplay should probably come with the 1.0 release, and not 1.1.

Whereas ISRU (resource harvesting) is more of a "bonus feature", and can probably wait.

[Commander Jebidiah]

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.

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).

Well my laptop does meet the recommended specs and till cant run it prperly. and i know it wouldnt only affect 64 bit users but the majority of people use 64 bit systems now.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Commander Jebidiah

[NecroBones]

Unfortunately a lot of the bugs that are my "pet peeves" are ones that don't affect 99% of the players, so I don't have high hopes of them being fixed. But here are some of the ones that plague me (off the top of my head), as a part-modder:

* Parts that contain more than two decoupler modules will cause the VAB menu icons to zoom out of control. I've seen mention of this also being the case if the part contains more that two types of resources (with a work-around being to not place those resource defintions contiguously in the part CFG). But with the decouplers, that work-around doesn't work, and I can think of use cases where you might want to decouple ALL BUT ONE of the attachment points, so the omni-decoupler option doesn't work either. Right now, to keep the parts bug-free, they can't have any more than two detachable nodes if they're not omni-decouplers.

* ModuleJettison currently has a few issues. The jettison direction vector seems to impart spin on some panels, rather than define the actual direction, when using multi-panel fairings. The only stock part to do this is the nuclear engine, and it uses two panels, and it seems that the jettison directions are hardcoded and not truly honoring the settings in the CFG. Unless of course I'm doing something way, way wrong.

* ModuleJettison also disconnects ALL FAIRINGS FROM ALL NODES, and not just the ones associated with the node that actually detached, and whether the decoupler was in the same part or not. This makes it impossible to have a part that uses stock-style shrouds at both ends.

* ModuleJettison-defined fairings currently can't be turned off in the VAB via tweakables, unless you install Tweakable Everything. IMHO, they should always be optional.

Edited March 19, 2015 by NecroBones

[ddenis]

Polish it! Less but better is better than more but worse.

[justidutch]

… Less but better is better than more but worse.

I think I just got seasick reading that

[Superfluous J]

I think I just got seasick reading that

No it's obvious. If you want the game to be more better, you want less more and more better. If you have less better but more more, you'll end up with more worse, aka less better.

[Renegrade]

No it's obvious. If you want the game to be more better, you want less more and more better. If you have less better but more more, you'll end up with more worse, aka less better.

I actually worked with a guy who insisted that people say "more better" instead of "better" for whatever silly reason.... He knew it wasn't right, but he'd always say, "no, more better.."

Polish it! Less but better is better than more but worse.

This might clear this up:

"less but better" is better than "more but worse"

(it's better to have a small quantity of good stuff, rather than a large quantity of bad stuff)

[Superfluous J]

I actually worked with a guy who insisted that people say "more better" instead of "better" for whatever silly reason.... He knew it wasn't right, but he'd always say, "no, more better.."

I was actually using it to mean a larger quantity of better stuff. Actually, I was using it to be intentionally confusing

And I say "more betterer" a lot, for similar reasons to your coworker.

[Commander Jebidiah]

I notice most of those who arn't bothered about the ISRU feature joined after 0.20.2

The reason it is getting added this update is because it was supposed to be implemented in 0.19

I wasn't here in 0.19 but i did watch videos of post 0.20.2

If ISRU isn't implemented after they said it would i imagine that a lot of pre-0.19er's would lose trust with Squad.

[DoToH]

Regarding your question: You have to include the core features that were confirmed for 1.0 AND have to polish/balance/optimise and bugfix, that is the definition of a game release and constitutes the whole "scope complete" thing. When the community conveyed its overwhelming concerns with the premature announcement/release plans of KSP 1.0, you yourself personally asked us to trust SQUAD:

Now, however, it seems that SQUAD is backtracking as they realise that the goals set out are indeed not attainable in the short term let alone the next version. So here are your options:

1. Postpone release. Add all features and fix bugs/optimise. Since you haven't set a release date this shouldn't hurt your reputation too much.

2. Postpone release with intermediate beta versions. This will be the best option for the game by far, you might lose a bit of rep in the beginning but people will understand as the release will be full feature and relatively bug-free^tm

3. Push release (the current path it seems) KSP will either ship without promised features or as a buggy/laggy incomplete game, costing you dearly in reputation by reviewers and players alike.

The most logical thing is to go for option 1 (ok) or 2 (ideal), particularly since the only reason SQUAD has given for the rushed release of 1.0 is being "uncomfortable" in Early Access:

At this stage, postponement is in the best interest for both the game and the developers (if being "uncomfortable" is the true reason for the pushed release... if not, now is the time to tell Max).

Edited March 19, 2015 by DoToH
spelling

[Van Disaster]

They can't push the release date back according to that Reddit thread, so tbh I'm not sure what the point of any of this asking the community stuff is - you can't release a game with enormous outstanding issues unless you're complete idiots so it's patently obvious what the focus should be. I was rather hoping this might be a different sort of development cycle to what seems like nearly every other commercial software product, but as per usual we're going to have an unfinished release rubberstamped as complete.

[DoToH]

[...] if the day came where we had to look at what we had and found that we were simply not comfortable calling it 1.0, we would have no issues at all delaying it. For now, we see no reason to move our deadline, as the constant input from the QA team has so far reassured us on the fact that we are following the right path.

Having to postpone features is, IMO, a valid reason to move their deadline.

[RocketPilot573]

*snip*

Pretty much, I think the devs are underestimating the meaning of "1.0." I would prefer if we get the update as planned, but keep it beta.

[Lord Aurelius]

We didn't ask for 1.0. We didn't begin this rush for release.

Agreed, Squad made the 1.0 decision behind closed doors and when we voiced our concern, Squad basically said they had it all under control and were confident they could do it. Likewise, we didn't set the deadline, we just found out about it now that Squad is worried they can't meet it. Much of the community has been trying to encourage Squad to slow down and do things right, moving the deadline would actually generate more goodwill from the community than anything else at this point if it meant that Squad could do a proper release. A proper beta with a few interim bugfix releases would be even better.

This whole situation is still kind of strange, and I'm not sure if Squad is having issues with management/funds, they've been overly optimistic and overpromised themselves (the devnotes keep mentioning licensing and merchandise deals, I wonder if the deadline is from those), or if there's something else going on. Either way, I hope the deadline isn't as set in stone as Squad is claiming and that they realize that if they're having to go back on promises to meet the deadline, then it needs to be moved if at all possible.

[r4pt0r]

Well if the 1.0 jump is due to a dwindling budget, then how will they continue development into 1.1 and beyond? Unless calling the game finished is just an attempt at a money grab?

[Alshain]

Well my laptop does meet the recommended specs and till cant run it prperly. and i know it wouldnt only affect 64 bit users but the majority of people use 64 bit systems now.

Are you sure? Laptops often do not have dedicated graphics cards with 512MB of ram. Your laptop probably has integrated graphics.