Upstream: Why does it matter

[Fel]

There's quite a bit of ruckus being made about what SQUAD needs to put in KSP V1.0 for it to be "a good game." While optimizations are quite nice, people often suggest them without the faintest clue about "real world" implementation. Just to point out how hard texture streaming really is, this mod finally achieves it... by using low level programming and a wrapper to bypass the limitations of C# and Unity.

Expecting SQUAD to fix REAL bugs instead of "feature suggestion bugs" or "change something to appease me bugs" should, of course, be the true priority... but rather, it seems people are more focused on how SQUAD should be putting x mod into the game.

A poll of fun!

Let's just point at this for a second, it is pretty definitive that 40% of the people who voted did NOT want KAS or FAR/NEAR to become stock (remember, multiple choice poll). Living in "the real world" instead of an imaginary "majority rules" society, burning 40% of your customers is a horrible business move. [Not commending SQUAD for implementing FAR anyways, though I think the dev notes indicated that they would be providing sliders to adjust difficulty].

The ONE THING people agree on is bug fixing and optimizations... things that mostly only SQUAD is capable of... but then we have other things people "want" to be pushed upstream despite a mod existing to fill that functionality... and not EVERYONE wants that feature added in.

I complained in the past about the broken nature that the small universe had on the game... and even came to agree that the small universe was better after making test changes to see how it would change. But then came Real Solar System, should we take how successful one mod is as an indication of what EVERY player wants? How about how much flack people gave BEFORE the mod about adjusting the universe to meet the standards? Despite people occasionally talking about it, it would have seemed that releasing the mod would have resulted in hostility or shunning, not the acceptance it has today. Even things people SAY they don't want... they sometimes do.

Not even Kerbal Alarm Clock is 100% wanted! And the thing is, for the people who use it... Kerbal Alarm Clock WORKS!

What I'm getting at is; people are very fixated on trying to push mods that THEY like upstream; and are apt to complain about what SQUAD implementing not being as good as the mod they copied.

Let's take a look at the iPhone 1 (mostly the marketing). On a whole, the iPhone 1 WAS the most useless piece of junk you could possibly buy... except "there's an app for that". The iPhone 1 NEVER marketed itself as a complete system, it has promises of features, good directions here and there... but utterly reliant on third party markets to fix the device into a workable fashion... and THEN reliant on secure APIs (rooting) to gain further features on the device. But how many people who bought the iPhone 1 threw it away because "I have to download third party software to make it do what I want".

Relying on "apps" has become so transparent in our society that people even talk about how they cannot afford to change brands due to all the apps being locked to their current cellphone brand.

What is wrong with "there's a mod for that"? Why MUST we push it upstream and force everyone to have it rather than have the choice ourselves?

If anything, SQUAD should only add in enough for mods to take over and create NEW things that people will claim NEEDS to be in the core game; improve the API, give us easier access to things we probably shouldn't be messing with. The imaginations of modders is infinite! It hardly does justice to only point at mods with high downloads as there are many mods that lay relatively undiscovered or forgotten. And mods can be modded, everyone has their own ideas of how things should be done; changing how a mod works by modifying the source is easier than breaking into APIs and guess and check to see if what you did did anything productive.

[Leszek]

KSP is like pizza, everyone likes it, but with different toppings.

I agree with you mostly. There is more than a basic framework that needs to be in the stock game though. Just the same way that every pizza has the crust, sauce, and cheese. Exactly what it needs to be a base pizza is up to debate but I think Squad has it about right.

My two cents.

[Xavven]

Stock player here (and I'm sure I'm not alone). One of the main ways that I personally enjoy video games, in general, is by overcoming challenges (not like the KSP challenge forum, but I mean the challenges the developer puts in the game). One thing I don't like about mods is that, since they're made by different people who envision the game differently, they can change the nature of any given challenge. Some can make a challenge easier, like a powerful "future technology" engine mod with high thrust and Isp. Some can make it harder , like DRE. Some change the challenge so it's an apples-to-oranges comparison with the original -- FAR/NEAR can do this.

I just don't get that same dopamine rush when I overcome a challenge with the help of a mod that makes it easier or different. Hm.. how can I best describe it... it'd be like bowling over 200 in bumper bowling. Not the same as 200 in regular bowling with open gutters.

Here are some additional reasons I play without mods:

• They vary in quality tremendously. While some are clearly made by experienced programmers, others look like they were made by someone with a passing interest. Mods tend not to be play-tested by professionals and so it's hard to find those gems amongst a sea of, to put it bluntly, utter junk.
  
• Modders don't have access to the core game code. They sometimes have to turn to inelegant hacks to get their stuff to work, the end result being something that is buggy, or looks ugly, has a less than stellar interface, or all of the above.
  
• Even very popular and successful mods (DRE is a good example) are abandoned and picked up by new modders. Often times this happens because the original modder no longer has time, or because they lost interest in the game and have moved on to something else. The transition isn't usually proactive -- it happens only when the original modder isn't seen for months and months and people start to notice the extended absence of updates.
  
• Mods can make your game less stable.
  
• Some mod combinations conflict with each other, because you can't anticipate what other modders are going to do and coordinate with them, whereas the official developer has an exclusive team that works together.
  

So as I'm sure you can imagine, I'm happy that most game developers focus on completing their vision and narrative for their game, instead of just giving the community the tools and effectively having them build the content for them (unless that was the actual goal of the game to begin with.)

[severedsolo]

The thing is, that mods make the game behave in unexpected ways occasionally (because modders don't have access to the core code, as mentioned above).

I get what you are saying, and for the most part I agree with you. Mods are certainly not a bad thing.

My greatest wish would be to have all of my mods become stock, but I fully appreciate they won't be, because not everyone has the same taste as me.

Speaking from a developers point of view, you can't please everyone... the best thing to do (IMO) is stick to your vision, and do what YOU feel is best for the game. Of course you should listen to your players, but honestly, sometimes the vocal minority is just that. (there came a point, where it seemed like every single thread got hijacked onto implementing FAR for some reason)

[Merinsan]

In my opinion there are some elements that mods implement that should be implemented, and for good reasons.

As an example, KAC, which has a very useful feature - warp to maneuver node. I can't tell you how many times I've missed maneuver nodes due to warping through them, because I don't want to wait minutes\hours\days for the ship to arrive there. The rest of KAC is icing, like the transfer windows. Harvester has recognized the need for this warp to node function, which is why it will be in 1.0.

Also, I comparing KSP to the iPhone 1 is kind of like comparing apples to oranges. The iPhone is hardware, designed to make phone calls. If it couldn't do that, I doubt anyone would have bought it.

KSP is software, designed to run on hardware. It's job is to simulate(?) building and launching rockets, landing on other planets. It must for that reason have the minimal features to do that, without annoying users.

[Alshain]

Keep in mind that it had been said for a VERY long time that the current aerodynamics were a placeholder. Regardless of FAR and NEAR, this one was coming. I think reentry heating may fall under that same category, regardless of DRE.

However I do agree with you. Several of the mods that have been implemented ended up lackluster by comparison. There is however a difference in mods. Plugins and Parts. The part mods that have been implemented usually go off without any issues at all, because they are identical, so I'm not going to discuss them. Plugins are another story. Some have been successful implementations (Fineprint), others were less than stellar implementations (Enhanced NavBall), and others were less well received and have virtually destroyed the original mod so we had no choice (Toolbar).

While I agree that sometimes Squads vision of what a mod functionality should be differs from ours, there are very few of them that do not work once Squad implements it. Blizzy's Toolbar lost out because once the native one was added, many mod developers dropped support for it (not all of them, it still exists with much more limited usability now). That isn't Squad's fault, it's the developers that didn't want to support both. Fineprint was good enough it didn't need to be continued. Enhanced NavBall still works just fine, I use it. As for the ones being implemented now FAR, Procedural Fairings, and Karbonite will not be affected by this. Kethane seems to be dead regardless, I still hope not, but it isn't looking good. We have yet to see what role the Deadly Reentry mod will fill post 1.0.

As for "pushing" mods to be upstream, the poll you linked was just in good fun. Most of the people treated it as a "What is your favorite mod poll". You shouldn't be reading too much into that. There are some mods, however, that I would venture a guess most players think should be in stock, but those are usually simplistic ones that just make life easier. SelectRoot for example. Have you heard any complaints about the Root Gizmo? I haven't. There are other simple mods like this out there that should be implemented I think. For starters, Claw's Stock Bug Fix modules. It would be nice if Squad would just fix those bugs.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Alshain

[Deddly]

A very well-thought-out post, Fel. I can certainly understand your point of view and your comparison with a smart phone was pretty logical, I think. If you want a more "apples to apples" comparison, Merinsan, there are a lot of apps out there that provide core functionality but support plugins for extended functions. In the other hand, Fel, there's something this post doesn't bear in mind. KSP is a single-player game right now, but will be multiplayer in the future. Having a completely-functional game that doesn't require a specific list of mods in order to connect to a server is very important.

I'm a stock player myself, but there is functionality in several mods that I would like to see in the game, such as clouds, FAR, KAS, robotics hinges and some kind of life support, but I don't think I would have voted to have them stock because I don't have any experience using them (apart from a short stint with clouds and city lights, which did add depth to the game) and videos I have seen show some bugs in some of these mods as well.

[TMS]

There are some mods, however, that I would venture a guess most players think should be in stock, but those are usually simplistic ones that just make life easier. SelectRoot for example. Have you heard any comiplaints about the Root Gizmo? I haven't.

I still use SelectRoot because of the clunky way Root Gizmo works.

I'm sure that extra click does something and that I'm not seeing the benefits. Probably something to do with the direction of the build.

[Fel]

I just wanted to clarify; I took the poll entirely as a "good fun" poll; but there are people who press the issue of what KSP "must" have so much that all I can do is look and say "why." In my idea of the ideal KSP, they would improve the API and make it much easier for modders to completely change how the game works. If features get added, they really only exist for the modders to improve, to turn into their dream which other players can choose from.

I mean, crazy enough, the first thing I'll probably do with 1.0 is tear it apart to figure out how the new APIs work, then tweak them to what I want (depending on how hard I deem the task to be).

This isn't my best writing, the iphone was suppose to mean KSP "should" be designed to be modded, to run mods. To be improved by mods.

I've said it so many times before, but KSP is unlike any game I've ever modded. What people have come up with still astonishes me. Sometimes people come out with things I've said many times could be done, based on the API; but it takes a seriously brave soul to work to get it added in... but just how unique KSP's platform is is why I keep coming back to it; why I have fallen victim to v1.0 hype and am checking every day now to see if it has come.

[Tweety]

I too agree that whole mods shouldn't ever be added just because most people want it. I have EVE installed for the visuals, and a second save where I have FAR installed. I have gone to the effort of saving all of my 0.90 folder to a safe place because I know I will want to mess about in a souposphere in the future and make some truly ridiculous things fly! I love using FAR, I'm terrible using it but I love it, that doesn't however mean that I would force it on everyone because it's like hitting a learning wall all over again.

As long as everything in tweakable, how realistic the re-entry heat will be(which I have seen confirmation of) and how unforgiving the new aero model will be I don't see too much of an issue. SQUAD also have to be careful about adding more and more to the game because not all of the community have amazing computers. It's already hard enough playing with a 100 part ship on my dads PCs and adding more stuff without the equivalent optimisation will ruin the game for him.

Long story short, all in moderation, severe moderation.

Tweety

[regex]

Generally we're arguing for features to be included because we feel they make the game better as a whole, not because we think everyone will like it. I literally don't care one whit how anyone else plays this game; when I'm arguing for what features should be in the game I'm doing it from my point of view of what makes a good game and I will judge KSP based on what I think makes a good game. It's really the only thing that I can do.

So far, though, 1.0 is looking pretty good. I'm probably not going to play stock because the solar system is just so laughable but I'm not going to be ashamed of handing the bone stock game to my daughter at some point. All of those new realism additions coming in 1.0 will cut down on my random DLL list as well; there are plenty of things that really needed to be included for sane "rocket science", so KSP could truly claim the crown that so many people put on it.

[Tweety]

I agree with your sentiment regex. I too believe it's necessary in this day and age that the graphics are below par hence I installed EVE. If the multitude of mods I have used in the past were all stock then the game simply wouldn't run on some PCs or worse, any PC at all until 64bit come our way. We as a community have to accept that at some point a game is considered complete, even if we hate to accept it because it hasn't got everything we want. You may enjoy playing with RSS I'm guessing? But I for one most likely don't have that skill level and I don't consider myself a 'bad' player. Then to force it on others without at least a tweakable sliding scale of sorts, the game would become a constant failure to new players and possibly dismissed way way too early.

I love being able to pick and choose how I play, just the same as everyone else, so why change the structure so as to fundamentally create a game which would be too hardcore for some casual players. Put in essentials yes. Put in essentials to all the players in the community, no. We all have a massive choice in the mods we can quickly install and are well maintained, so take that option.

Tweety

Edit: That isn't meant to sound like an attack on anyone just for the record.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Tweety
clarifying my stance.

[Starwhip]

A very, very good point, Fel. I admit that sometimes I wish for a mod to be added because it would please me. But most of the time I want a mod, or a change, or a completely new feature added because I feel that it would make the game better. Sure, the game should be fun. But I think that realism makes it fun.

So the souposphere makes whacky contraptions possible. So jet engines are unrealistic and fun to use to go at stupid speeds at unreasonable altitudes.

So what?

Kerbal Space Program is a game about space exploration.

It is a game about building things to meet your goals, whether those goals are to land a kerbal on Pol or to reach the speed of light, or to blow up in the most spectacular way possible.

It is a game in which there are no limits, besides patience and creativity.

You know this. Squad knows this.

And I don't think Squad will ever destroy the spirit of the game for the sake of a single feature.

And that is my one-point-five cents. The other point-five is at home with my laptop. Mobile touch keyboards suck.

[Columbia]

So the souposphere makes whacky contraptions possible. So jet engines are unrealistic and fun to use to go at stupid speeds at unreasonable altitudes.

So what?

Kerbal Space Program is a game about space exploration.

It is a game about building things to meet your goals, whether those goals are to land a kerbal on Pol or to reach the speed of light, or to blow up in the most spectacular way possible.

It is a game in which there are no limits, besides patience and creativity.

You know this. Squad knows this.

And I don't think Squad will ever destroy the spirit of the game for the sake of a single feature.

This quote is so.. meaningful. Well said.

[klgraham1013]

While I agree that there is some overzealous mod pushing on occasion, I still believe that there are some things that should definitively be in the stock game. This, mainly, being necessary information given to the player and proper tutorials. Squad has said that tutorials will be improved in 1.0. As far as necessary information being given to the player, I'm starting to doubt that even a simple delta v readout will make it in to 1.0.

[r_rolo1]

The OP has a point that there is a lot of "X must be stock" around ( coupled with the almost opposite "there is a mod for that" as soon as someone complains that a feature they want should be in stock game, mind that ), but as others point out above, there are some minimum expectations about the game that are not being fulfilled at this point by stock game in the views of a lot of players, and as the jerk reaction of a too big number of people to that is "there is a mod for that, go get it and stay out of my lawn ", people have no recourse besides asking that said mod as a feature

Say, as this game is called "Kerbal Space Program" , it would be expectable that the game would bring some way of tailor design rockets for jobs, including a dV counter , and a simple way of managing more than one mission at a time without resorting to a notebook in the side of the computer ( being this a space program . it is not like NASA, ESA or RosKosmos fly one mission at the time from launch to end without going to do anything else ). The game at this point does not have neither of those and if I or other player asks for it in stock, there will surely be a chorus of people saying "Go install KER and KAC" . Given that stonewalling, what option do I have besides asking that KER and KAC to become stock, since no one wants to hear about some KER and KAC features being stock ?

@klgraham1013

Maxmaps said clearly two Squadcast ago that their planned dV "feature" ( you know, that one that would be only avaliable with engineers and would have to be earned with *something* ) would not be ready for 1.0 due to lack of time to fully flesh it. Given that they clearly don't want to give us dV meters with no strings attached , I'm 99,99999% sure there will be no dV meter for 1.0

[regex]

You may enjoy playing with RSS I'm guessing? But I for one most likely don't have that skill level and I don't consider myself a 'bad' player. Then to force it on others without at least a tweakable sliding scale of sorts, the game would become a constant failure to new players and possibly dismissed way way too early.

I keep seeing arguments like this and they're pretty much wrong. The Real* suite of mods don't require more skill, they require more information from the game and a bit more knowledge and patience from the player. Would that deter people from playing it? Certainly, but I'm one of those people who would prefer a hardcore, detailed, niche sandbox game to a mainstream fluffy "game-ulator" any day of the week.

Compare TerraFirmaCraft to standard Minecraft. I just started playing that mod recently and, damn, if that isn't what Minecraft should have been from the beginning....

[JimmyAgent007]

Personally I play stock. I dont have anything against modding at all, you should see my Skyrim load list. I just dont mod anything in Early Access really. Ive tested some mods out of course but until KSP is finished (not 1.0 but when I feel they are finished) I will wont be adding mods.

That being said, any mod that brings back the Round-8, if they dont change it back, will be on my list as soon as it comes out.

[klgraham1013]

Maxmaps said clearly two Squadcast ago that their planned dV "feature" ( you know, that one that would be only avaliable with engineers and would have to be earned with *something* ) would not be ready for 1.0 due to lack of time to fully flesh it. Given that they clearly don't want to give us dV meters with no strings attached , I'm 99,99999% sure there will be no dV meter for 1.0

Didn't hear that. I wonder how their tutorial will explain that number that pops up after you create a maneuver node.

[tater]

Personally, I think the "must haves" are only what Squad says/implies the scope or elements of the game are.

I got the game I think at 0.23 or 0.24 (or between?). I started playing as a noob, and assumed, based upon nothing but playing the game, and reading the part descriptions, that reentry was what I would expect it to be, and that aerodynamics should be roughly correct (it's a game, after all, so roughly). The mk1 landercan says in the description that it cannot possibly survive reentry. That it can means that according to nothing but KSP itself, reentry heating is a "must have," and past that, either the mk1 landercan must be incapable of reentry, or the description changed. Same with reasonable aero---from the start I added nosecones, and never built crazy looking rockets, I made rockets that looked as much as possible like rockets. At first I only reentered capsules, for example. I only learned HERE that I was entirely mistaken, and that the game's own internal descriptions were lying.

So I basically agree, but I think if the game itself mentions/claims a feature, it MUST be in the game. If it has "skills" they should matter, or not be there. If it has "career," then I need to track someone's career. In general, the play modes should be well thought out, in other words, or just cut them loose, and let the modders have at it (as long as they provide the ability to mod those parts).

Edited April 16, 2015 by tater

[Robotengineer]

I would like to point out that Squad advertises KSP as a rocket builder, space exploration, and space agency management game. One needs certain tools (DV calculator, KER) and knowledge (understanding of DV, orbits, etc) in the game to be able to fully play it well*. While the #lolsplosions segment of the KSP community vehemently opposes adding the necessary tools to play KSP well, the new player probably would want to have the aforementioned tools and information immediately available.

If the #lolsplosions crowd doesn't want to learn about DV or use a DV calculator, they don't have to click the button that opens the calculator. The #lolsplosions crowds view is that of you want to learn (oh the horror!), you can download a mod. I think that if Squad will not integrate KER or make a KER like feature, they should at least provide a link to KER in the game.

*Note that I did not say right.

[JumpsterG]

... While the #lolsplosions segment of the KSP community vehemently opposes adding the necessary tools to play KSP well, the new player probably would want to have the aforementioned tools and information immediately available.

If the #lolsplosions crowd doesn't want to learn about DV or use a DV calculator, they don't have to click the button that opens the calculator. The #lolsplosions crowds view is that of you want to learn (oh the horror!), you can download a mod. I think that if Squad will not integrate KER or make a KER like feature, they should at least provide a link to KER in the game.

I agree with you. My opinion is that there's a lot of number crunching that is extremely useful and cool that can be done by the game and displayed, just as KER does it.

On the subject of the #lolsplosions crowd; I haven't really witnessed it here on the forums. Maybe I've come to avoid certain kinds of threads instinctively and have just missed some juicy arguments. Other than some support for Harvester's initial stance of "numbers would complicate the simple process of building with parts", I haven't seen any "vehement opposition" to information being made available.

[JimmyAgent007]

Ive never used any mods for a DV display and I enjoy learning on my own without it. That being said, I wouldnt object to having it for other people or for just figuring out how badly I over engineer some of my rockets.

[Robotengineer]

I agree with you. My opinion is that there's a lot of number crunching that is extremely useful and cool that can be done by the game and displayed, just as KER does it.

On the subject of the #lolsplosions crowd; I haven't really witnessed it here on the forums. Maybe I've come to avoid certain kinds of threads instinctively and have just missed some juicy arguments. Other than some support for Harvester's initial stance of "numbers would complicate the simple process of building with parts", I haven't seen any "vehement opposition" to information being made available.

I haven't seen many #lolsplosions posters either, when I said "vehement opposition", I meant Squad. I think that Squad thinks (lots of think-thinking) that adding more available info makes the game unapproachable to potential buyers and new players.

[tater]

Another point would be that Squad has explicitly stated they don't like "random," so for career or science that massively limits their game design options (remember that when I say ":game design," I'm talking about the gameplay mechanics dropped on top of the "sim" aspect of spaceflight (or craft building).

The new resources I think are actually random, however, which is a good sign. Were they not, you'd wiki the best location, then always land there, if you were of a mind to do that (no need to scan or otherwise locate the resources). I'd personally think that both science and career modes would benefit from exactly THIS kind of random with respect to "science." In other words instead of generic "science from orbit," you might need to scan a world a certain amount. Then perhaps most of the "biomes" (terrible word choice by Squad, as almost all are lifeless) could in fact be randomized in some fashion---or made less important. Say instead of X "biomes" on the Mun, each of which gives you 120 science for a sample return, they only give you a small fraction of that amount of science. Then add a new feature, "unique" or "important" geology that can be scanned for, but is random. You'd then locate those regions via photo-mapping (scanning), then land and EVA/collect for the higher points we think of for each "biome" now. Might create some novel situations where you have to land places that you might not otherwise go if you want the big science payoff.