A response to all the heat of KSP 1.0.x

[Bilfr3d]

I'm sure many have seen all the complaints and heat over the recent KSP 1.0.x update(s). You might be one such person that doesn't like the 'new' KSP. "So much has changed about it and it's no fun anymore" is the common underlying message that I'm seeing from most people that are complaining. My response to that is quite simple - humans don't like change. Yes KSP has changed; its changed quite a lot, frankly. It is, to some degree, a more difficult game than what it used to be pre 1.0.x. All these changes in KSP, having been on the forum for quite the few years, are actually things that players have REQUESTED for a LONG time to be added into KSP. Well, the developers followed the requests of the community, and have finally added them in with the KSP 1.0.x release. Better aerodynamics? People screamed over it. Proper re-entry heat? Was on many people's wishlists. Mineable resources? I never came across one person that DIDN'T want that. Ok, so the developers added all this in... and now what? Everyone criticises and complains over these additions that the community wanted to be added in. So, why don't you stop your complaining? The community as a whole asked for it, so it got implemented. Mind you, the features were probably on the development list for quite some time... my final response - treat the recent updates to KSP as thought you've bought an entirely new game. Forget EVERYTHING you used to know about KSP - run through all the training and scenarios again, play around in sandbox getting the hang of things. And, for god sake, stop complaining to the devs about how horrible the game is now, in your eyes. The community asked for the goddamned features - put up with the learning curve if you want those features.

Also, 1000th post :3

[FlowerChild]

And, for god sake, stop complaining to the devs about how horrible the game is now, in your eyes. The community asked for the goddamned features - put up with the learning curve if you want those features.

We are the community...we are the hive mind...what one of us states we must all comply with...

Yeah

I actually like said new features, but the above argument may be just a tad off

[r4pt0r]

If no one complained would we have gotten 1.0.1, or 1.0.2 so soon?

Sure some of them could have been toned down a notch but our criticism comes from our love of the game.

In a way we are all loving mothers/fathers telling our child "You can do better than this, you can get an A+", all the while being proud of them for the 18/20 they got on their spelling test.

also it shouldn't have been 1.0 quite yet.

Edited May 2, 2015 by r4pt0r

[J.Random]

Changes aren't the problem. Rushed release is. Lack of quality is. It's not in Early Access anymore, so it's time to start treating Squad as adults. No more "it's an alpha" sugarcoating.

[FlowerChild]

all the while being proud of them for the 18/20 they got on their spelling test.

15 and a half at tops. Don't overdo it

[r4pt0r]

15 and a half at tops. Don't overdo it

forgive me, I hardly touched 1.0, only its subequent patches so I know not the original 1.0's troubles

[Bilfr3d]

We are the community...we are the hive mind...what one of us states we must all comply with...

Yeah

I actually like said new features, but the above argument may be just a tad off

You really need to think with the mind of the developers with things like this - if more people are asking for features than not, go ahead and implement said features. A majority of people wanted the features, implementing the features would only induce a slight risk to loose revenue and earnings than if they were to not implement the features that a majority of people are asking for. Sure, it doesn't exactly make SENSE in a standard frame of mind, but most times the people who are not a part of that majority just put up with the features and work around them. Hence the slight risk I talked about above - its not like hundreds of players are going to riot against the game if they implement one feature that they didn't want. Squad have actually very gracefully implemented the new aero and thermal models, and with some config the game can be extremely pleasing, friendly and fun for new players and players who just want something a little EASIER, instead of the realistic behemoth of an aero and thermal model that is the stock normal difficulty.

[FlowerChild]

forgive me, I hardly touched 1.0, only its subequent patches so I know not its troubles

Hehe...no, was just kidding around about arbitrary numerical evaluations. Not implying anything serious or of worth

You really need to think with the mind of the developers with things like this

I think you may be over-analyzing my response here. All I meant is that not everyone who is complaining wanted the features in the first place, whatever the "community" wanted as a whole, which is what your OP seemed to be implying with the last couple of sentences.

There's no reason to think the people complaining about features also were the same individuals asking for them, and it's not really reasonable to view all the individuals in the "community" as somehow all wanting the same things.

Specifically, this:

put up with the learning curve if you want those features.

doesn't necessarily make any sense.

Edited May 2, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Bilfr3d]

Changes aren't the problem. Rushed release is. Lack of quality is. It's not in Early Access anymore, so it's time to start treating Squad as adults. No more "it's an alpha" sugarcoating.

One thing I pointed out in another thread, is that KSP is produced by a very small team of developers. They have no DEDICATED Q&A team and no DEDICATED experimentals. All the players in those testing teams are people just like you and me, volunteering their time to help bug smash and refine KSP as best they can before it is released to the community. Time is very much of the essence for a small team like the KSP devs, and that time is something that has to be diversified across several aspects and PC platforms - don't forget that they have to smash bugs not only for the Windows release, but for Linux and Mac too. Much less people use Linux and Mac, causing less bugs to be found on those distros more times than not. KSP is only about a $25 - its not like its some massively expensive $80 game like GTA V. Larger games like that, yes you would expect there to be huge amounts of time DEDICATED to squashing bugs and ensuring the game is relevant for a release. I guess with the rise of large games which have little to no known bugs, other developing studios are being punished for not having that same routine of bug squashing and quality assurance. Think you're good at finding all the bugs in KSP, and all the issues with it? Why don't you go join the Q&A team and experimentals team, I'm sure they'd like to have you. And this is not a "it's an alpha" sugarcoating - in fact its far from it.

[FlowerChild]

One thing I pointed out in another thread, is that KSP is produced by a very small team of developers. They have no DEDICATED Q&A team and no DEDICATED experimentals.

They do have control (we assume) over what they decide to call the release version however.

[Bilfr3d]

There's no reason to think the people complaining about features also were the same individuals asking for them, and it's not really reasonable to view all the individuals in the "community" as somehow all wanting the same things.

I pointed that out in my reply, and it's a matter of risk v. reward. If more people want the feature than not, it's the developers choice to take the risk to implement that feature with the clear possibility that there could be a backlash from the rest of the community. SQUAD decided to take that risk, and I'm not entirely sure how it's going to pan out for them

- - - Updated - - -

They do have control (we assume) over what they decide to call the release version however.

That is a valid point, but as pointed out in a dev blog quite a time ago, the 1.0 KSP release was decided to be made 1.0 due to the fact that all the initial goals the development team set out to complete with KSP, would in fact be complete by the end of the update - hence their move to a 1.0 release. Sure, that's not ALL their goals, but it marked a significant point in KSP's development in which all the initial goals were finally complete. The game is no-where near complete by any point, and I don't think the updates will stop for quite awhile

[Doc Anderson]

If you don't like certain features, adjust the settings till it plays the way you like. Remember the devs put in all these bells and whistles that the community requested and THEN they made them optional so you could STILL play the way YOU like. Turn down the reentry heating till your spaceplanes work. Use mods for other features you want. I, personally ALWAYS use Kerbal Engineer and Chatterer just because it makes the experience what I want it to be.

A while back I made the mistake of posting how I thought KSP was a GREAT game and I got slammed for it. I wasn't allowed to simply enjoy the game without also acknowledging all the shortcomings someone else saw. I felt rather beat up. As a result, I really don't post anymore.

I still think it's a great game. I play it more than any other I own. And I tweak it so it's the game I want it to be.

[J.Random]

One thing I pointed out in another thread, is that KSP is produced by a very small team of developers. They have no DEDICATED Q&A team and no DEDICATED experimentals. All the players in those testing teams are people just like you and me, volunteering their time to help bug smash and refine KSP as best they can before it is released to the community. Time is very much of the essence for a small team like the KSP devs, and that time is something that has to be diversified across several aspects and PC platforms - don't forget that they have to smash bugs not only for the Windows release, but for Linux and Mac too. Much less people use Linux and Mac, causing less bugs to be found on those distros more times than not. KSP is only about a $25 - its not like its some massively expensive $80 game like GTA V. Larger games like that, yes you would expect there to be huge amounts of time DEDICATED to squashing bugs and ensuring the game is relevant for a release. I guess with the rise of large games which have little to no known bugs, other developing studios are being punished for not having that same routine of bug squashing and quality assurance. Think you're good at finding all the bugs in KSP, and all the issues with it? Why don't you go join the Q&A team and experimentals team, I'm sure they'd like to have you. And this is not a "it's an alpha" sugarcoating - in fact its far from it.

Community voiced its concerns here. Community has said: "Guys, don't leave Beta just yet, let us test things because there will be bugs, tons of them, and you won't have an "Early Access" excuse anymore". Squad (namely, Maxmaps) answered: "Don't worry, guys, trust us, we'll deliver. We always deliver" (not an exact quote, but close to it). So, please excuse me if I'm angry seeing all the bugs and lack of polish in a "released" software product. And it's 40$ (or 40 euro in Europe) now, with temporary 25% discount.

BTW, completely stock installation has just CTD'ed on me. Out of memory in half an hour, one scene change (craft was already on a runway), climb to 20k and back.

[Bilfr3d]

Community voiced its concerns here. Community has said: "Guys, don't leave Beta just yet, let us test things because there will be bugs, tons of them, and you won't have an "Early Access" excuse anymore". Squad (namely, Maxmaps) answered: "Don't worry, guys, trust us, we'll deliver. We always deliver" (not an exact quote, but close to it). So, please excuse me if I'm angry seeing all the bugs and lack of polish in a "released" software product. And it's 40$ (or 40 euro in Europe) now, with temporary 25% discount.

BTW, completely stock installation has just CTD'ed on me. Out of memory in half an hour, one scene change (craft was already on a runway), climb to 20k and back.

There's not really much to reply too their, and I will say that what you have said here is a valid point. The movement to the 1.0 version for KSP upon the developers reaching their initial goals probably was not of the best decisions created by the team. But in the end, it was their choice - they decided to push forward for their 1.0 version despite the apparent backlash that was prompted by the movement. And, to some degree, I congratulate the handling by SQUAD and the team of that. Another thing to consider when pointing out the flaws and bugs whilst complaining about a game, is the difficulty that is ensured with creating a game (or any program of that matter) to this scale. I myself have a fair amount of experience with moderately large applications, and they are no easy feat. Managing bugs, issues, compatibility, etc. is a tough task, and TBPH I was sort of expecting more bugs than what is currently present due to the amount of completely new features added or overhauled within the game.

[Sochin]

Sorry I disagree with you, but I am not in the brash brutally bash the developers, QA and experimentals team but I will critices them fairly were its due.

I would like to start by mirroring what has allready been said in this thread, since this is know a 1.0 release (personally this should have been a 0.95) there is no hiding behind Alpha status anymore and the gloves should come off (resonably though).

Lets address the big elephant in the room, KSP has surpassed one million in sales on steam so lets assume that all those paid the minimum price of around £14 then that is a very healthy turnover for squad. I would of expected better QA and testing prior to the 1.0 launch. We have been told in prior blogs that the QA and Testing teams are far larger than was first created so it is fair to say that the bugs that have been reported post release should really have been picked up. What I will commend Squad with is its very fast turnaround of 1.01 and 1.02, that I openly applaud you with welldone. But if you had taken a littl ebit more time, delayed till after Cinco de Mayo you may have saved yourselves a lot of grief. Which brings me on to my next point.

Squad / Developers need to stop the Hype Train because this builds far too much expectation from your customers which only leads to there dissapointment and stress for the developers all of which could have been averted with a proffesional customer service, public relations and or marketing teams all of which Squad should allready have at there disposal. Patch day for me was hapazad and a little bit more information from Squad would of cut down a lot of questions, 'when is 1.0 been released' and 'soon'. Make a plan and stick with it that should be interpreted as decide a release date and time and get your infrastructure and people all set up ready for go on that time.

As stated by Harvestor on a few devnote tuesdays 1.0 has all the elements that he envisioned having within the release game. I agree and disagree with that statement, yes it has all pieces of the puzzle but for me the image and presentation of parts leaves a little to be decided and I list the following.

1. Aero parts dont match graphically, to many different greys and too much mixing of old and new parts.

2. Fuel tanks are all over the place and they could do with matching. My point is you may have a fair few companies making your kit but when its delevered it looks as you want it finished very similar. A lot of NASA's kit is all white with deviations for the Delta main fuel tank and Shuttle main tank come to mind but generally Nasa's parts match fairly well, why cant KSP's.

3. You are still missing parts from the mk3 Shuttle, naimly

a. A matching nose cone (its blue and grey with the mk3 kit being shades of grey).

b. A shuttle Fuel Tank and decoupling system would be a good addition rather than using a radial decoupler which looks a little ugly used in that way.

c. Mk3 Shuttle engine mounts would be good rather than having graphical clipping to get them off the ground.

d. A mk3 set of integrated docking ports and a smaller crew tank (is a 16 capacity really needed).

e. Mk2 nose cones shaped like the mk2 cockpit, I know this has been included in a mod but it should be in core game.

f. Station parts dont match graphically, why you didnt include porkjets habitats is beyond me its not as if you dont have the funds to buy up IP's?

Note for Squad:

If community contributers like Kickass Kyle, Winston, Tyberdyne, Helldriver and Carmics to name but a few can create exceptionally nice mods (KW Rocketry, Novapunch, KSOS and AIES that are graphically matching and complete then Squad should be able too aswell but your not doing so. Also I would like to state that 1.0 would have been far more complete with the addition of precedural fairings (for the clam shells rather than exploding fairings because hey if they blow they could damage what they are supposed to protect) and KAS just to be able to link modules together which would of made your very good resource element a lot more interesting for larger bases and would have matched up a little better with the NASA's Mars projects. And my last hit here is this, if a real world space agency has something our intrepid crash test kerbals should have there version. I think 1.0 was an exceptional good step in the right direction but, for me atleast, it should have been more polished if you are going to state that this is a release version, 8.5/10 from me could have been awesome.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Sochin

[Levelord]

One thing I pointed out in another thread, is that KSP is produced by a very small team of developers. They have no DEDICATED Q&A team and no DEDICATED experimentals. All the players in those testing teams are people just like you and me, volunteering their time to help bug smash and refine KSP as best they can before it is released to the community. Time is very much of the essence for a small team like the KSP devs, and that time is something that has to be diversified across several aspects and PC platforms - don't forget that they have to smash bugs not only for the Windows release, but for Linux and Mac too. Much less people use Linux and Mac, causing less bugs to be found on those distros more times than not. KSP is only about a $25 - its not like its some massively expensive $80 game like GTA V. Larger games like that, yes you would expect there to be huge amounts of time DEDICATED to squashing bugs and ensuring the game is relevant for a release. I guess with the rise of large games which have little to no known bugs, other developing studios are being punished for not having that same routine of bug squashing and quality assurance. Think you're good at finding all the bugs in KSP, and all the issues with it? Why don't you go join the Q&A team and experimentals team, I'm sure they'd like to have you. And this is not a "it's an alpha" sugarcoating - in fact its far from it.

You'd think that with such a drastic change to the stock aero that the KSP devs would consult the testers (us) before shoving it into release? There is no 'volunteering to help bug smash' when the dev team keeps it hidden from us and unavailable for testing until 1.0.

We were here as a free resource for them to test the aero during the beta phase and they simply didn't make use of that advantage. They took that gamble and it didn't pay off. Stop making it seem as if it's our fault that they can't make the aero work properly without testing.

[Bilfr3d]

Stop making it seem as if it's our fault that they can't make the aero work properly without testing.

That is no-where near what is being implied from anything I have posted, I only originally pointed out that a majority of the community wished for a proper aerodynamics. The term of "proper aerodynamics" could be seen differently by different persons. What the devs thought to be a decent replacement for the previous aerodynamics model has brought out a lot of complaints within the community, and frankly, under a programming standpoint, there is nothing wrong with the aerodynamics model as it stands. It works. Not as perfectly as what would be seen, and the aerodynamics model must clearly be refined to become more, I guess 'accepted' by the community. As it stands, the aero model does work - it just isn't what the community would like/expect.

EDIT: As seen in previous events, SQUAD opens intakes for Q&A and experimental testers, and only people that have the knowledge to properly report a bug, etc, are accepted into the Q&A and experimentals team. Yes, that should probably change, even if it means another section being made here in the forums purely dedicated to experimental and Q&A releases. It wouldn't be too hard for SQUAD to implement a beta stream into steam to allow experimentals testing, and on the KSP store and other KSP outlets, once logged in they could just provide the choice of the current 'release' or the experimentals download. This too, I believe, would take out a lot of the hype as well, as @Sochin pointed out above, and allows for plenty more opportunities for experimental testing.

Edited May 2, 2015 by ToTheMun

[Sochin]

What would have been handy for the Aero changes would have been a written and illustrated peice from the Devs on it. That way it would not have come as a shock as it has done. Also it could have been done in a few well written contracts for the player to understand better the new changes. The US Aviation industry didnt just jump into the SR-71 and punch for the upper atmosphere overnight.

[Bilfr3d]

What would have been handy for the Aero changes would have been a written and illustrated peice from the Devs on it. That way it would not have come as a shock as it has done. Also it could have been done in a few well written contracts for the player to understand better the new changes. The US Aviation industry didnt just jump into the SR-71 and punch for the upper atmosphere overnight.

That is actually a really good point, they definitely should have provided some sort of tutorial or video or SOMETHING to learn from

[Sochin]

I think a nice written and illustrated peice followed up by a nice tutorial or set of contracts but introduced by two new kerbals, Chuck kerbal (obciously Chuck Yager) and kelly Kerbal (Kelly Johnson - Lockhead Chief Designer and Skunk works god engineer).

[daffy]

Changes aren't the problem. Rushed release is. Lack of quality is. It's not in Early Access anymore, so it's time to start treating Squad as adults. No more "it's an alpha" sugarcoating.

Kind of got a point......

[The Yellow Dart]

Yeah, I think a lot of the anger and vitriol in the 1.0 response is coming from feelings of "I TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN!! But did you listen? NooOOOooo" in regards to releasing 1.0 so fast/not doing more Beta releases. A pretty large part of the community voiced concern over the matter and the devs went ahead with it anyway. Too a degree, I think the community was right; 1.0 would have been a lot cleaner and smoother if the new features had gotten a 0.95 release (flipping capsules and überchutes would certainly have gotten noticed then). On the other hand Squad did a pretty good job of it, considering the circumstances, and I think as long as they keep fixing major issues quickly, it will be water under the bridge before too long.

[PB666]

Changes aren't the problem. Rushed release is. Lack of quality is. It's not in Early Access anymore, so it's time to start treating Squad as adults. No more "it's an alpha" sugarcoating.

Trivial complaints are problematic.

Complaints are useful for the dev team, we point out common problems people are having. Most of the things that sound like complaints are actually problems people are having. I make parts, and when parts don't snap anymore, it means the devs changed something, so we have to figure out what that is and fix those parts.

The problem is that we have an understanding of the way the engine and gameplay works, and when things change we want the correct understanding.

As for complaints, I have a few.

-What is the point of the BACC rocket now?

-Do the steering winglets actually steer, they sometimes appear to be steering the opposite direction

-SAS does not actually hold a course (whats going on with the SAS). If they can't tune the SAS properly then I will just UG mechjeb and ignore it, they don't benefit from the criticism.

-The 0.5 factor reaction wheels don't appear to do much anymore.

From a modders point of view, why all the changes in cfg. Can't we get a heads up about what the tech tree is going to look like so we don't have so much 'orange' in the debug window.

There is plenty of room for complaints, but when you pay 13$ for a game, lol.

Complaints are part of the system. If you don't want complaints, then game dev is the wrong field of work. I used to play WoW, they really messed up the game badly, IMO, and just quit and a whole bunch of people in my guild quit at the same time, they made the game tedious and boring. Have a whole bunch of Ipad games that just flushed. Most of them are just silly, I never complained about those games, don't really care enough about them to complain. So complaints are kind of an indicator that people care, if they don't care it means they're bored of the product, and that is the most dangerous situation for the developers.

IMO, one of the richness (places is levels above WoW) of this game is modding and part design, that keeps the game interesting, so they do have to keep people at the mod-part dev level interested in the game.

[panzer1b]

I absolutely LOVE the new heating system. there are a few annoyances and bugs, but its not like its a bad system, and i actually like that you can nolonger do any entirely stupid things and get away with it as easily. 0.90 with its complete lack of reentry effects was just fail, ok it allowed you to reenter from any angle, but was this fun? i think not. Now its an actual challenge to pull off successful reentry, but its not impossible.

That said, im all for a minor reduction to reentry heat effects, perhaps 5-10%, just to make aerobraking a little bit easier, but if not its not like im going to complain, its still a great system even as is.

Now as for the new memory leak i just fail to understand why the heck they rushed a feature into the game (i want a mod to perma disable it until fixed) and didnt even test that it causes mem leaks and crashes? Those heat guages are neat, but common, nuff with the annoying mem leakage!