About recent community criticism in the direction of the QA & exp testers

[Linear]

Heh, you know that was a general "you" UpsilonAerospace

But yeah I'll remove it.

The quality of your posts has gone downhill recently. It seems like you're trying to fight a battle that neither exists or is winnable. Change must happen soo, and people are incredibly irritated.

[Laie]

Wait for today's devnotes. There may be more change than you bargained for. We still don't know why they were so eager to have the version number start with a 1 and call it a release. Fear being as it is, I'm preparing for some really bad news.

[r4pt0r]

Wait for today's devnotes. There may be more change than you bargained for. We still don't know why they were so eager to have the version number start with a 1 and call it a release. My worst fear is that they needed to crank up the sales or the dev team would be out of funds by August. I hope that it's a lot more innocuous.

I just asked about Devnotes. Will there be any today?

Also out of funds is unlikely I think. they have over a million sales on steam alone and at even $10 to squad for each sale, thats 10 million.

[Lord Aurelius]

@Scourge013, monstah

I've suggested something along the lines of using the Steam beta feature as well on other threads. As much as I like the Steam implementation, not everyone uses Steam so a more general solution (possibly through the launcher) would need to be available.

But I agree that this approach would definitely help things, not just for finding bugs but it would also help generate some goodwill in the greater community by letting them be a small part of the continuing development process. The only real issue would be sorting through beta bug reports (and easing the non-beta playerbase into any changes that get pushed into the main branch), but at least having a beta branch would let the devs test major changes on the community while still providing a stable game for those who just want to play and not be part of the development process.

[Nachtwind]

@Scourge013, monstah

I've suggested something along the lines of using the Steam beta feature as well on other threads. As much as I like the Steam implementation, not everyone uses Steam so a more general solution (possibly through the launcher) would need to be available.

But I agree that this approach would definitely help things, not just for finding bugs but it would also help generate some goodwill in the greater community by letting them be a small part of the continuing development process. The only real issue would be sorting through beta bug reports (and easing the non-beta playerbase into any changes that get pushed into the main branch), but at least having a beta branch would let the devs test major changes on the community while still providing a stable game for those who just want to play and not be part of the development process.

Still i think thats a bad idea.. The simple reason is: Who would really participate in the "Beta"? A greater majority of people would just enter it as a way to obtain a release before it hits retail. Only a minority of those would go and hunt bugs.. most would just play and either send a rant to the forum or just not write any USEFUL bug report at all... Those who would go on a hunt for bugs and have the background for doing useful bug searching and tracking do that now anyway or are part of experimentals/qa anyway.

Sorry for being rude and arrogant here but i think that crying out for a "Beta" release between exp and retail is just a lame excuse to test the game before it is relased. Nothing more.

[Aerindel]

Still i think thats a bad idea.. The simple reason is: Who would really participate in the "Beta"? A greater majority of people would just enter it as a way to obtain a release before it hits retail. Only a minority of those would go and hunt bugs.. most would just play and either send a rant to the forum or just not write any USEFUL bug report at all... Those who would go on a hunt for bugs and have the background for doing useful bug searching and tracking do that now anyway or are part of experimentals/qa anyway.

You have a point but people who just hunt bugs seem to miss basic gameplay problems. You need people who are just playing the game for fun to find out if it, you know, actually is fun. QA with just bug trackers is like hiring DuPont to judge a painting because they know a lot about paint.

[sal_vager]

There have been many threads and many posts these last few days that have done little more than attack the guys and girls who have volunteered their time to test KSP so all of the rest of us can enjoy a playable game.

There does seem to be a fight going on here, there is a faction who want greater accuracy and they have been quite vocal for a long time, well before 1.0 or even .25, they keep pushing their opinion that KSP should be an accurate simulation, despite the fact that the lead developer himself has stated that KSP is balanced between simulator and game, but leans more towards a game than a simulator.

This is a deliberate choice by Squad, and no amount of opinion by those who prefer realism is going to sway Squad further towards full simulator than they have decided to go.

The aero changes have however been a requested feature for a very long time, .90 aero wasn't particularly good, accuracy doesn't even come into it, it was a basic system that did the job but no more.

Now with 1.0 aero we're seeing two things, first, it is not accurate enough for some and they complain, missing the point as they have done so since the beginning that KSP will not be as accurate as they want it to be.

Second, it is very different to .90, it has changed so many things, many .90 craft are no longer tenable, everything from reaching orbit to landing to basic vessel design is changed, this came as a big shock to many and some don't want to adjust.

Both camps are very vocal in their condemnation of 1.0, albeit for very different reasons, though the majority of players are enjoying KSP for what it is.

These groups are going so far as to complain about things they have the power to change themselves, the settings are exposed, purposefully, to allow exactly this, as no defaults will make everyone happy.

The most Squad can hope for is for most people to be happy, and in that regard they have been successful, there are many players pointing out that they like KSP and that the arguments from both sides are without foundation.

There will always be people who don't like this or that, that's why the settings are open.

But going back to the experimental testers and to the QA team, they cover a wide range of skill levels and do the best they can, of course they find bugs, that's what they are on the team for, of course they provide feedback to the devs, again it's why they are there.

But they can't fix the bugs themselves, and they all want KSP to be the best game it can be.

So seeing comments that claim, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that the testers didn't play KSP for more than 10 minutes, or are somehow elitist and miss the things any new player would spot, or incompetent and miss things that take extended play, is deeply insulting and hurtful, and to be absolutely honest I question just how much the members who make these claims so offhandedly actually care about either KSP, or their fellow players who don't subscribe to their personal ideal for the game.

To be honest it's disgusting.

There's criticism, and then there's the vitriol that has been posted both in this thread and in others.

People do listen to criticism when it's justified and delivered in a civil manner, but not when it is condescending, insulting and baseless.

Squad listens to criticism, I'll let you guess the rest.

The experimental testers deserve much, much better than many of you have given them, and it's shameful.

[Lord Aurelius]

@Nachtwind

No offense taken. I'm sure you've seen more than your share of awful bug reports and whining and I can understand that you really don't want to see more.

As far as simply using beta to get access to the latest features, for a lot of players that would be the case (I know I've done it myself before) and why I said what I did about the hardest part being sorting through the feedback. However, the alternative is what you have now where any bugs that do make it into the main release will be met with much harsher criticism than before since this game is now out of early access.

I didn't mention it in the previous post, but another advantage of having a beta branch is perception. If a bug makes it past QA/Experimentals and into the beta branch, yes some players will whine and complain but overall there is an understanding that this is a beta branch, that's what it's there for. Most of this community has been part of early access for quite some time and for the most part understand what that implies (the game is still in development, there will be bugs major things can and will change), and the beta branch would be an extension of that.

[Linear]

There have been many threads and many posts these last few days that have done little more than attack the guys and girls who have volunteered their time to test KSP so all of the rest of us can enjoy a playable game.

There does seem to be a fight going on here, there is a faction who want greater accuracy and they have been quite vocal for a long time, well before 1.0 or even .25, they keep pushing their opinion that KSP should be an accurate simulation, despite the fact that the lead developer himself has stated that KSP is balanced between simulator and game, but leans more towards a game than a simulator.

This is a deliberate choice by Squad, and no amount of opinion by those who prefer realism is going to sway Squad further towards full simulator than they have decided to go.

The aero changes have however been a requested feature for a very long time, .90 aero wasn't particularly good, accuracy doesn't even come into it, it was a basic system that did the job but no more.

Now with 1.0 aero we're seeing two things, first, it is not accurate enough for some and they complain, missing the point as they have done so since the beginning that KSP will not be as accurate as they want it to be.

Second, it is very different to .90, it has changed so many things, many .90 craft are no longer tenable, everything from reaching orbit to landing to basic vessel design is changed, this came as a big shock to many and some don't want to adjust.

Both camps are very vocal in their condemnation of 1.0, albeit for very different reasons, though the majority of players are enjoying KSP for what it is.

These groups are going so far as to complain about things they have the power to change themselves, the settings are exposed, purposefully, to allow exactly this, as no defaults will make everyone happy.

The most Squad can hope for is for most people to be happy, and in that regard they have been successful, there are many players pointing out that they like KSP and that the arguments from both sides are without foundation.

There will always be people who don't like this or that, that's why the settings are open.

But going back to the experimental testers and to the QA team, they cover a wide range of skill levels and do the best they can, of course they find bugs, that's what they are on the team for, of course they provide feedback to the devs, again it's why they are there.

But they can't fix the bugs themselves, and they all want KSP to be the best game it can be.

So seeing comments that claim, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that the testers didn't play KSP for more than 10 minutes, or are somehow elitist and miss the things any new player would spot, or incompetent and miss things that take extended play, is deeply insulting and hurtful, and to be absolutely honest I question just how much the members who make these claims so offhandedly actually care about either KSP, or their fellow players who don't subscribe to their personal ideal for the game.

To be honest it's disgusting.

There's criticism, and then there's the vitriol that has been posted both in this thread and in others.

People do listen to criticism when it's justified and delivered in a civil manner, but not when it is condescending, insulting and baseless.

Squad listens to criticism, I'll let you guess the rest.

The experimental testers deserve much, much better than many of you have given them, and it's shameful.

I don't actually remember reading a post anywhere which directly says 'these guys haven't played the game enough'. All of the posts, especially those on the first few pages, give constructive critisism about how the process is wrong and the bugs/errors that are being found show that. The testers themselves naturally come into question and apparently even though we were given a release with some pretty large bugs, we're not allowed to question their actions - i don't really care about what they do though, the testing situation could be handled better and Ted explained his view.

95+% of the people discussing/complaining about the new Aero systems have just quite rightly pointed out they are not the best they could be, and there was a lot of awkwardness over the flinching of Harvester with the 30% increase. This increase is odd, as it was changed within hours after 'countless hours' of testing to make it perfect. Naturally, people questioned this.

It's not hard to see where both sides come from in this argument. It's easy to see why people are confused over the testing of the game and the direction it has gone into, and it is easy to see why people reading these arguments can see them as plain 'oh you want me to play the game how you see it?'.

On a more personal point to you, sal, recently it's easy to see how passionate you are about the game. That's great, you should be - we all are, or should be. However, i feel that perhaps because you are so passionate about the game, developers and testers it's making it hard for you to see the other parts and points of the argument.

Sorry if a lot of this isnt too coherent, i've had a long day at work but i feel this is all i can say on the matter and it's my honest opinon. I love KSP, i love the way it's been developed, i just wish the few small changes could be properly made to make it perfect, and fun.

[TriggerAu]

I know this is a long thread, but just on the Steam Beta/larger test teams stuff... These are good ideas and valid proposals for change, the testing methodology is not a fixed process, and Steam Beta's is an option I have seen in chats before about ways to use it, what would be the effect on report volume/quality, how could that be handled could be handled, etc. I'm quite certain that how future releases is tested/worked is something that will be discussed, the same as larger teams, different teams, different processes have been looked at in the past.

From earlier...

... Rest assured that Ted, the Devs and all the testers are constantly thinking about better ways to improve the testing process, provide better feedback, and help identify things that are bugs, could be tweaked, could be improved. For those people who do want to understand more about the way Ted transformed the testing experience he wrote this article a while ago: A Peek Behind the Kerosene Curtain: All About QA and Experimentals . And of course if you do want to be involved read up on Kaspers links and keep an eye out for any tester application invites.

Just one item in here...

I don't actually remember reading a post anywhere which directly says 'these guys haven't played the game enough'. All of the posts, especially those on the first few pages, give constructive critisism about how the process is wrong and the bugs/errors that are being found show that. The testers themselves naturally come into question and apparently even though we were given a release with some pretty large bugs, we're not allowed to question their actions - I don't really care about what they do though, the testing situation could be handled better and Ted explained his view.

...

Sorry if a lot of this isnt too coherent, i've had a long day at work but I feel this is all i can say on the matter and it's my honest opinon. I love KSP, i love the way it's been developed, i just wish the few small changes could be properly made to make it perfect, and fun.

Alright two, Incoherence is OK, and even incoherent its a well written response

This thread has been reasonably good, but some posts in other threads have been as blunt as 'these guys haven't played the game enough' or 'Did they play it for more than 10 mins?'. The moderators (like Sal) see a lot of these and do a good job (all voluntary) of cleaning things that don't meet the forum rules, so they may not persist in the forum to be viewed by all. If they weren't there Kasper wouldnt have felt he needed to start the thread either.

Keep all the feedback coming, as its all useful for Squad, the testers and other community members, just try and be constructive

[K3RBAL KOL4]

If you ask me, I think most who were given the opportunity to be part of experimentals blew it off. Case in point, the stream-a-thon the weekend before release... Not a single streamer appeared to have any idea what they were doing or what the new features were. It was as if it was their first time playing the game at all in a month or more, trying to learn basics... not to mention the kid aggro surfer glider...

That is what upsets me. I don't think those who were supposed to dive-in did... They were unprepared and clueless and I don't have any problem criticizing those who wasted an opportunity that thousands and thousands of others would have taken whole-heartedly.

[Superfluous J]

If you ask me, I think most who were given the opportunity to be part of experimentals blew it off. Case in point, the stream-a-thon the weekend before release... Not a single streamer appeared to have any idea what they were doing or what the new features were. It was as if it was their first time playing the game at all in a month or more, trying to learn basics... not to mention the kid aggro surfer glider...

That is what upsets me. I don't think those who were supposed to dive-in did... They were unprepared and clueless and I don't have any problem criticizing those who wasted an opportunity that thousands and thousands of others would have taken whole-heartedly.

I felt very much the same way. I was sick the weekend of the big Twitch 1.0 reveal streams and spent that time wrapped up with hot tea watching the streamers. And I was shocked as one after another confessed that they'd never played the game, had no plan for what they were going to do with their 2 hours, and gawked at an array of parts that they'd never seen before. Things that the entire forum has been excited to see for weeks weren't even mentioned. It wasn't until day *3* that we started getting decent information.

This colored my opinion very darkly of the entire process. I understand that this has little to do with the QA and Experimentals teams but it was a huge slap in the face, and I think a lot of us, while recoiling from that, blamed the wrong hand for that slap.

[Wooks]

You assume that the process does not work when you know nothing about said process.

I'm not assuming anything pal, I'm working with what has been said in this (very, very lengthy) thread. And lets be clear, the process to test v0.1 after release obviously didn't worked, is not news to anyone.

I can only hope for SQUAD to learn the lesson and rectify their ways for future updates, basically "do what you did for all updates up to v0.90".

Edited May 6, 2015 by Wooks

[I_Killed_Jeb]

blah blah blah

People do listen to criticism when it's justified and delivered in a civil manner, but not when it is condescending, insulting and baseless.

blah blah blah

Professionals are expected to deal with criticism however it comes. Maybe if they stopped insulating themselves much of the issue being brought would have been listened to from the get-go, especially much of this can be pinned directly to their absurd decision to push out 1.0 without an actual beta.

It's incredible the lengths you go to convince yourself that everything about this game's design process is working as intended.

[Aerindel]

It's incredible the lengths you go to convince yourself that everything about this game's design process is working as intended.

Yeah, that is what is truly upsetting about this. If the people in charge are still in denial that doesn't give us much hope for ever getting a finished game.

On the other hand, it seems that everyday more and more people are showing up here asking the same question.

[Levelord]

It's incredible the lengths you go to convince yourself that everything about this game's design process is working as intended.

As much as I hate to admit this (and I consider Sal_Vager a friend), this is what I'm seeing the community become more and more of. Maybe it's the influx of new players, but I'm seeing an increase in the mentality that all of the game's bugs needs to be compensated by the player or that it's the player's fault that the game is not up to par, or that we should learn to accept mediocrity in a game that initially began as something great.

I'm also questioning why SQUAD would want to rush a game, and skip the usual beta testing based on a deadline they set themselves. We the playerbase were here as a resource for them to use to beta test during that period, they took the gamble of not having us put the new version through some vigorous testing ourselves and decided to push game through 1.0 without us. That gamble didn't pay off and I can see why the heat is on them, and I can't blame those that criticize them.

[Giggleplex777]

The fiasco that was 1.0.1 was mostly the fault of the devs, not the testers. They rushed a hotfix (that missed several glaring issues) and also decided to make some drastic changes regarding aerodynamics and fairings, all in one week. I doubt that the testers got a chance to thoroughly play the game to realize how the new atmosphere was a step backwards from that of 1.0 or how the fairings are heavier than cargo bays.

While I welcome the bugfixes, the unnecessary changes to the atmosphere and fairings were, well, unnecessary and hindered gameplay. A shortsighted decision the backfired on SQUAD.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Giggleplex777

[Aerindel]

The fiasco that was 1.0.1 was mostly the fault of the devs, not the testers.

I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise. The idea that we are blaming the testers themselves is just a strawman the apologists are trotting out to be knocked down. Of course its not their fault. Everyone wants KSP to be all that it can be. The fault lies with the testing process or lack of one that was put in place by the devs.

[m4v]

*yawn*

[regex]

*yawn*

right?

[TheCardinal]

Usually, i try to avoid discussions like this, simply because i doubt that i have anything usefull to add to the discussion.

In this case i do feel the need to react. I've been a happy KSP player for three years now and i don't regret the choice i've made then.

From the start (13.x) till now major updates usually required one or more bugfixes. Sometimes that was quite irritating but what does one expect from an alpha or beta release of a program/game?! Which brings me to the question: "What does one expect from a 1.0 release"?

Apparently the community expects something which is perfect in every sense, no flaws or bugs are allowed. So something completely impossible. Even a multi billion dollar company like Microsoft isn't able to create that (ever checked out the number of updates released for every windows version?).

As much as I hate to admit this (and I consider Sal_Vager a friend), this is what I'm seeing the community become more and more of. Maybe it's the influx of new players, but I'm seeing an increase in the mentality that all of the game's bugs needs to be compensated by the player or that it's the player's fault that the game is not up to par, or that we should learn to accept mediocrity in a game that initially began as something great.

I'm also questioning why SQUAD would want to rush a game, and skip the usual beta testing based on a deadline they set themselves. We the playerbase were here as a resource for them to use to beta test during that period, they took the gamble of not having us put the new version through some vigorous testing ourselves and decided to push game through 1.0 without us. That gamble didn't pay off and I can see why the heat is on them, and I can't blame those that criticize them.

Take for example the above post. It looks to me that merely the versionnumbering is the cause for the discontent. I don't agree with that and i completely disagree with all the harsh words which have been uttered in the forum concerning SQUAD, the testers and the game on this release and i still consider KSP a great game and not something "mediocre".

On a final note, all members of this forum should remember that gaming is fun. A forum is a place where you can share the fun. It isn't the place to vent your frustration when you're pissed off about something. That only works counterproductive and removes a lot of the fun this forum provides. Give criticism like you personally would accept it.

(Sorry for my ramblings)

[Silanda]

Apparently the community expects something which is perfect in every sense, no flaws or bugs are allowed.

No, I'm sorry but I don't think that's true. What's expected of a 1.0 release is a game that is functionally finished with only minor bug fixing and tweaking remaining, not something that is absolutely perfect in every way. That doesn't preclude development continuing past that point, and it doesn't mean that there won't be any bugs present, but there shouldn't be glaring issues like the ones present in 1.0 that then require extensive rebalance patches only days after launch. Patches that are themselves rushed and introduce other issues including a critical technical bug (memory leak). It's also fair to expect that end users shouldn't have to jump through hoops in order to workaround issues.

The end of early access and the version being increased to 1.0 signifies a lot more than many old time users seem to appreciate. It's not just another number, it is a statement that the game is now complete, something that new buyers are going to expect rather than the work in progress that we've had until this point. The many merits of what is a fantastic game do not absolve Squad of all criticism for what looks like a disappointingly corporate launch, i.e. release at fixed date for business/marketing reasons no matter if the game's ready or not. It seems that virtually no-one in the community, or even the testers, thought that it was a good idea to release with so many changes without a beta release first. Squad went ahead anyway, and I don't think it's unfair to take them to task for it.

As for your last comment: "Give criticism like you personally would accept it". I agree, and if I handed in a draft with blatant errors as a final piece of work because I rushed it, I'd expect to get my ass chewed over it.

[Engineer of Stuff]

I completely agree with Kasper and Ted. The community response to new bugs is sometimes annoying.

I opened up 1.0 for the first time expecting bugs. I did not expect it to be perfect. When I found one, I continued playing. The only bug that has ever been game-breaking for me was the Claw.

[Randazzo]

I see a distressing amount of people simply arguing to justify terrible behavior in here.

Granted I haven't been here very long, but this forum community had always struck me as a cut above the usual internet groups. Recently, that's started to go out the window. Being disrespectful and spewing vitriol is NOT, under any circumstances, the same as criticism, and there is never a proper justification for it.

It is no different from a child who hurls himself to the floor and throws a tantrum. Nothing good will ever come of it.

[Wooks]

No, I'm sorry but I don't think that's true. What's expected of a 1.0 release is a game that is functionally finished with only minor bug fixing and tweaking remaining, not something that is absolutely perfect in every way...

...The end of early access and the version being increased to 1.0 signifies a lot more than many old time users seem to appreciate. It's not just another number, it is a statement that the game is now complete, something that new buyers are going to expect rather than the work in progress that we've had until this point. The many merits of what is a fantastic game do not absolve Squad of all criticism for what looks like a disappointingly corporate launch, i.e. release at fixed date for business/marketing reasons no matter if the game's ready or not. It seems that virtually no-one in the community, or even the testers, thought that it was a good idea to release with so many changes without a beta release first. Squad went ahead anyway, and I don't think it's unfair to take them to task for it.

More or less the crux of the issue. I would love to see more people discussing this instead of the already trite "let's defend SQUAD from online bullies", I do believe SQUAD needs to learn a very important lesson with the v1.0 release about time management, Q&A, scope, hype building and community management.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Wooks