What's With The Hate?

[JeanHavoc]

I'm pretty much done with KSP I think. And this isn't really a bad thing. I spent seven U.S. Dollars to enjoy a game for three plus years. I got my money's worth ultimately. The thing is I don't want more realism, or more challenge in the game; for me it was fine just as it was prior to version 1. All the extra layers of complexity combined with no new places to go just add up to frustration on my part. I know most of you (apparently, anyway?) like the additional real world details, but for me it's just stuff that I don't want to have to deal with. The game isn't fun anymore and I have other things to do in life rather than try to figure out how to play all over again.

To hear some of the comments around here it's like a significant segment of the player base wants to require a degree in Physics and an internship at CalTech to be able to make sense of the game's mechanics. For those of you who want to be required to recreate MESSENGER style missions in KSP, involving multiple gravity assists, years of transit time with zero room for error, excelsior to you. That's awesome, but its not for me. Perhaps in the future when and or if KSP gets more planets, and or more stuff to do with the new features I might be convinced to take another look. For now I'm content to move on (more or less). I have no bitterness or angst, like I said, I got what I paid for and then some.

Edited July 1, 2015 by JeanHavoc
minor edit.

[Guest]

To hear some of the comments around here it's like a significant segment of the player base wants to require a degree in Physics and an internship at CalTech to be able to make sense of the game's mechanics. For those of you who want to be required to recreate MESSENGER style missions in KSP, involving multiple gravity assists, and years of transit time with zero room for error, excelsior to you.

It's always great to see these sorts of burning strawmen thrown around, really livens up the forums.

[DoToH]

Is the developer's time better spent on bugs - or advancing the entire game, such that old bugs might become obsolete?

While I don't agree with your post, I wasn't tempted to reply, because it was just a matter of opinion .... until i read that sentence.

Fact: Obsolescence killed some editor symmetry bugs after the great editor overhaul (0.90). New symmetry bugs arose.

Should we sit and wait for obsolescence again, for current bugs to be killed and new ones to be created?. Sorry, but it don't believe in the ever-evolving KSP game theory. Maneuver node creation bug has not become obsolete, is there since maneuver nodes and the system doesn't seem to be replaced or overhauled in the near future. I would like bugfixes more than obsolescence. Let me point out that performance issues rarely become obsolete.

The forums will debate this juggling act to the end of time.

There is no debate: time spent fixing a low severity bug in a placeholder system is wasted time. Time spent fixing a bug in a system that has just been overhauled, with very low probability of being fully reworked again is a lot less than time spent waiting for obsolescence or developing new features which, inevitably, will introduce more bugs and beginning a nice bug-creating endless loop.

OTOH, it could be funny....

Customer: - Devs, I found a bug in your system.

Developers: - No problem, we are developing a new system that will make the bug obsolete.

Customer: - Devs, I found THREE bugs in your new system.

Developers: - No problem, we are developing THREE new systems that will make those THREE bugs obsolete.

Customer: - Devs, I found THREE bugs in each of your THREE new system, totals NINE bugs, and decided to play tetris instead.

Developers: - Haters will hate...

Edited July 1, 2015 by DoToH

[basic.syntax]

While I don't agree with your post, I wasn't tempted to reply, because it was just a matter of opinion .... until i read that sentence.

Fact: Obsolescence killed some editor symmetry bugs after the great editor overhaul (0.90). New symmetry bugs arose.

Should we sit and wait for obsolescence again, for current bugs to be killed and new ones to be created?. Sorry, but it don't believe in the ever-evolving KSP game theory. Maneuver node creation bug has not become obsolete, is there since maneuver nodes and the system doesn't seem to be replaced or overhauled in the near future. I would like bugfixes more than obsolescence. Let me point out that performance issues rarely become obsolete.

[...]

There is no debate: time spent fixing a low severity bug in a placeholder system is wasted time. Time spent fixing a bug in a system that has just been overhauled, with very low probability of being fully reworked again is a lot less than time spent waiting for obsolescence or developing new features which, inevitably, will introduce more bugs and beginning a nice bug-creating endless loop.

Fair enough. New features bring new bugs. Obsolescence won't solve every problem. I was thinking of Unity 5, which applies to this dev cycle only. We know the UI system is being re-written; even maneuver node code might be touched; idk for certain. The 1.0.3 patch notes says they still care, to me. You mention performance: this question is nearly infinite in the amount of dev time it could consume. If Squad worked hard on optimizations to enable spinning around 500 part craft on a baseline computer at 30fps, next we'd want 1000 part craft to perform just as well, enhanced with the latest graphical eye candy techniques. Where are the clouds? Why is terrain so bland and featureless? Performance <> quality tradeoff.

The juggling act to debate is perhaps this: % of time to spend on bugs, performance optimization, and new feature work.

Bugs could be said to be finite and fixable, if all new feature work is halted. Yet because they are so variable in cause and resolution, it's often difficult to say how long fixing a bug will take until it's done. I put the intermittent ones in their own time-consumption category. (I think the old random wing destruction bug is still with us.)

[klesh]

and understanding of what a released game is.

They're using their own, in-house definition of 1.0, which is different than the rest of the gaming industry.

Wish I had my own in-house definition of "the rent is due", my landlord keeps thinking its supposed to be the first of the month, silly guy.

[DoToH]

The juggling act to debate is perhaps this: % of time to spend on bugs, performance optimization, and new feature work.

Agreed.

And, IMO, after the release of 1.0, people expects more % for polishing, even if new features take longer. Harvester said that KSP reached "scope completed", so polishing should be priority #1 (including, of course, Unity 5).

This sentence

There is an ongoing paradigm shift with software development and distribution these days, and it's fair to say we are caught right in the middle of it. The line between unfinished and finished software is getting increasingly more hazy.

Should have beeen written this way:

There is an ongoing paradigm shift with software developers and distributors these days, and it's fair to say we(customers) are caught right in the middle of it. Developers want us to believe that the line between unfinished and finished software is getting increasingly more hazy, beacuse these days is easier for them to finish their work AFTER releasing it unfinished.

They can release unfinished software and say they will continue developing, but that doesn't make it finished, at least, not until it reaches the adequate quality level.

[frisch]

KSP is a great game concept - the best I've seen in years.

But - I think they have made some very poor choices recently:

The biggest was releasing an alpha release as 1.0. By alpha I mean a release with entirely new features and many bugs. Much much better to have done bug-fixes only on 0.9 until it became 1.0, while in parallel releasing a series of alpha then beta versions. No only do the bugs ruin play, but the updates destroy saved games - and some players put a huge amount of time on their games. It also makes it difficult for the modders to keep up. RO has been useless for weeks now. Stock kerbal simply does not meet expectations for the stability of a released product.

The other mistake is not knowing where to aim the "realism" in the game. Stock 0.9 was a fun silly game - understandable physics the let you build silly rockets. Adding RO made it a remarkably good simulator. So - they have a game for both styles of play. If they had embraced the mods, players could have been given the option of silly kerbal (stock), or realistic kerbal (with RO). Instead various bits of realism (aerodynamics, heat) were hastily and poorly implemented in the game resulting in a buggy, and still non-realistic mess.

This is sad - I think a fantastic game is going to die.

[Stargate525]

There is an ongoing paradigm shift with software developers and distributors these days, and it's fair to say we(customers) are caught right in the middle of it. Developers want us to believe that the line between unfinished and finished software is getting increasingly more hazy, beacuse these days is easier for them to finish their work AFTER releasing it unfinished.

They can release unfinished software and say they will continue developing, but that doesn't make it finished, at least, not until it reaches the adequate quality level.

This, this, a thousand times this!

It's getting more hazy because we're letting developers get away with murder in regards to product release. Fortunately, this seems to be coming to an end.

[frizzank]

Typical game development in Kerbal terms

Hay lets build a rocket and go to Eeloo!

It's kind of far you think we can make it?

We have an MK1 pod, FL-T100 and the LT-30 engine. Is that enough?

Sure we will just use a lot of them and it should get us there.

Your right we can get there!

Turns out going to Eeloo is harder than we though. Just getting to orbit blew most of our fuel. Now we only have enough fuel to make it to Duna and maybe a visit to Ike.

That's ok Duna is cool too!

Well Duna's atmosphere was thinner than we thought (One parachute less than effective.) and we didn't bring enough fuel to take off again so our guys are stuck there.

Also we didn't make it to Ike.

Whaaaatttt!!!!!

We can launch a rescue mission and retrieve them. Now that we know exactly what to expect, but it's going to cost twice as much as the first launch. Oh and it take twice as long (We forgot about the trip back!)

Nooo way!

Lets just go to the Mun instead...

What?!! and waste all of these resources. Also what about the guys on Duna?

Well we would be assured of success and its the only thing we can afford now....

Alright the Mun it is....

[haltux]

I'm pretty much done with KSP I think. And this isn't really a bad thing. I spent seven U.S. Dollars to enjoy a game for three plus years. I got my money's worth ultimately. The thing is I don't want more realism, or more challenge in the game; for me it was fine just as it was prior to version 1. All the extra layers of complexity combined with no new places to go just add up to frustration on my part. I know most of you (apparently, anyway?) like the additional real world details, but for me it's just stuff that I don't want to have to deal with. The game isn't fun anymore and I have other things to do in life rather than try to figure out how to play all over again.

I am really wondering what you could possibly be talking about. OK, at first you get once or twice an unpleasant rocket flip with the new aero, bit once you understand that you should not try to turn to early or to go too fast in the atmosphere, I don't see any additionnal difficulty with the new version. For the reentry, you just have to do something vaguely clean and not a nonsensical direct collision with the planet.

But other than that I just don't get it. Could you be more specific? I don't find the game in any way more difficult than it was. Actually it is even less difficult, you need less delta-V to go to orbit and you have much less stupid wobbling issues.

[Lundmunchkins]

I let this thread grow for some time and my god what have I created?!

[Kuu Lightwing]

Poor little thing

[kiwi1960]

KSP is a great game concept - the best I've seen in years.

But - I think they have made some very poor choices recently:

The biggest was releasing an alpha release as 1.0. By alpha I mean a release with entirely new features and many bugs. Much much better to have done bug-fixes only on 0.9 until it became 1.0, while in parallel releasing a series of alpha then beta versions. No only do the bugs ruin play, but the updates destroy saved games - and some players put a huge amount of time on their games. It also makes it difficult for the modders to keep up. RO has been useless for weeks now. Stock kerbal simply does not meet expectations for the stability of a released product.

The other mistake is not knowing where to aim the "realism" in the game. Stock 0.9 was a fun silly game - understandable physics the let you build silly rockets. Adding RO made it a remarkably good simulator. So - they have a game for both styles of play. If they had embraced the mods, players could have been given the option of silly kerbal (stock), or realistic kerbal (with RO). Instead various bits of realism (aerodynamics, heat) were hastily and poorly implemented in the game resulting in a buggy, and still non-realistic mess.

This is sad - I think a fantastic game is going to die.

You are entitled to your opinion.

The release of version 1.0 alpha was because it was a complete game. Sure, it had bugs, EVERY games has bugs.

The difference is squad is pretty damned good at quickly getting bug fixes out. 1.02 ... 1.0.3 and then very quickly, 1.0.4

Lets put that into perspective shall we?

I love playing fallout three... that game still has bugs they never even tried to squash... the same bugs ended up in Fallout Las Vegas .... and they are still there with Fallout 4 due soon...

Other games I play with bugs, Dead State... State of Decay.... Battlefield.... CIV (any version) ....

Even windows (as I said previously) has always had bugs... still does... always will....

And the game I bought on CD which has NEVER worked (so never played it) is Starship Troopers.

Sim City has bugs... Societies was unplaybale....

What I'm saying is, cut Squad some slack. They are better than most...

You, and DoToH have to understand that no game can remain beta for ever till they get the bugs out, its impossible, and in the meantime, they have to eat too you know... and even if it remained Beta, you'd still be moaning about the same bugs but you'd demand action for another unfair reason...

The fact is.... its version 1.0.4. and moaning about that won't ever put the Genie back into the bottle. Its alpha, accept it, the vast majority of us are happy with that and we have to endure the same bugs you do, but the difference is, we are grateful for a most awesome game in history (IMHO) and despite the bugs... we are HAPPY with the product and we say so.

If you want to keep moaning, then I suggest you make a donation to Squad of say, $500,000 so they can work 24/7 and hire more programmers to make the work go faster...

If you don't want to do that, then just sit back and praise Squad for the game you have, that encourages them more to do do the work than bitching about the bugs.

"nuff said"

[thorgal]

I have played KSP since 1.18 or so, it may be the game i have liked the most ever, so i cant hate Squad for making the IMO best game i have played giving me uncountable hours of fun for five bucks. If something i hate how a so genial and involving game is so badly limited by performance once you reach a given level of complexity, just at that moment in the game when things begin to look really interesting, so i think achieving (much) better performance should have been the main goal for Squad since version 0.1. All my hopes to return to KSP rely now on vesion 1.1 and Unity 5.

[kiwi1960]

I have played KSP since 1.18 or so, it may be the game i have liked the most ever, so i cant hate Squad for making the IMO best game i have played giving me uncountable hours of fun for five bucks. If something i hate how a so genial and involving game is so badly limited by performance once you reach a given level of complexity, just at that moment in the game when things begin to look really interesting, so i think achieving (much) better performance should have been the main goal for Squad since version 0.1. All my hopes to return to KSP rely now on vesion 1.1 and Unity 5.

You mean 0.18 because we are now at 1.04 .... so either you made a bad, or you're a time traveller.

[r4pt0r]

You mean 0.18 because we are now at 1.04 .... so either you made a bad, or you're a time traveller.

and in the case of the latter, can you please tell us whats coming in future updates?

[FlowerChild]

and in the case of the latter, can you please tell us whats coming in future updates?

If that's the first thing you want to know about the future from a time traveler, may I suggest you may be playing a tad too much KSP?

[Beowolf]

Yes. I'll say that they, "Squad", should not take vacations. A large game should be supported by a large enough team that nothing shuts down when a few people go on vacation. That's what being a mature developer wanting to sell to millions of customers means.

After 14 years experience running a small business, I will simply suggest you try that idea with your own life savings before trying to convince the rest of us.

Companies who I know from personal experience constantly violated your rule during their first decade: Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, NetFlix, eBay, Paypal, Bethesda Softworks, FaceBook, ... and I presume that's enough to make my point. Successful companies nearly always go through an awkward adolescence where growth outpaces their ability to support their products. It usually gets better.

[razark]

You mean 0.18 because we are now at 1.04 .... so either you made a bad, or you're a time traveller.

You mean 1.0.4?

Are are you a time-traveler?

Edited July 5, 2015 by razark

[JeanHavoc]

I am really wondering what you could possibly be talking about. OK, at first you get once or twice an unpleasant rocket flip with the new aero, bit once you understand that you should not try to turn to early or to go too fast in the atmosphere, I don't see any additionnal difficulty with the new version. For the reentry, you just have to do something vaguely clean and not a nonsensical direct collision with the planet.

But other than that I just don't get it. Could you be more specific? I don't find the game in any way more difficult than it was. Actually it is even less difficult, you need less delta-V to go to orbit and you have much less stupid wobbling issues.

I would say the most important part of it for me is, I just can't be bothered to relearn everything at this point. There's no incentive - moreover, to me the earlier product wasn't broken and didn't need fixing. It did exactly what I wanted it to do and gave me a level of challenge that was fine - I wouldn't have been opposed to implementing heat damage and/or making incremental adjustments to that model but Squad has gone in another direction. Now after three years I have to ask myself why I want to sit down and start over - to do the same missions to the same places all over again? I mean I liked the game, but it's not like my life revolves around it. I don't have any angst or hate against KSP, as I said. I feel I got my money's worth and then some.

As for me, I can't get to orbit; nor can I find any tutorials on how to get to orbit with just the basic parts available in the first 3 tech tree nodes. I have plenty of money but no science; purchasing the EVA upgrade is doable, but at this point redundant. I've watched Scott Manley's tutorial on flight, and I get his points - but he used parts I don't have and can't get without an enormous level of grinding in the form of tiny science returns (which I simply don't want to do). Once you get above the atmosphere from what I know you must get some kind of heat shield in order to, you know, live, so the fourth choice tech-wise is already made for you. I've lost kerbals within my first couple of flights due to the rockets coming down spinning due to wind and losing their parachutes; and this is before I could get decouplers. I've had capsules slam into the ground because I deployed the 'chutes too late - despite following the tooltip info which claimed deploying earlier was risky or suicidal. I use fins on my rockets, they seem to do little good, the rocket usually falls over of its own accord and spins out of control. I never built super asymmetrical monstrosities even before the aero changes, so its not like I'm trying to fly cubes into the Stratosphere. This is just frustrating; however wrong or fanciful the previous model was I at least understood what was going on; and this to say nothing of the changes Squad has been making post 1.0. Why should I keep doing this? Until I have a reason I see no purpose in -not- stepping away.

[kiwi1960]

You mean 1.0.4?

Are are you a time-traveler?

No, sadly, I just have Multiple Sclerosis induced double vision... I get most of the typos, but I didn't see that one. I wished I were a time traveller. I'd go back and fix the typo before you saw it.

[pandaman]

@JeanHavoc. I get your point, though it's not been a real issue for me personally' I have had my moments.

You could always play sandbox, that way you get to do whatever 'projects' you want without grinding to unlock the science, and leaning the new aero etc will pretty much 'happen' as you do stuff.

[PilotsofRiots]

On 28/06/2015 at 2:52 PM, Lundmunchkins said:

So, I have been absent from this community for a long time. I remember it being pretty satisfied with Squad, and Squad appreciating the support. Now I come back and there is a lot of hate towards Squad now it seems. I have no idea where it came from, or why it's here. Why have KSP fans suddenly just went against the devs?

It really doesn't make sense for the players of KSP criticizing the devs. They should be satisfied with the game they got and wait for Squad to start making g updates and make do with them. It's not like the updates are bad. There needs to be appreciation for the work the devs have been doing. I'm sure they've been working very hard. This game is not going downhill like minecraft though it is going uphill at a relatively slow, but "worth-the-wait-pace."

[Skorpychan]

The forums changed, and then the community changed a little while later. Much more hostile, and nowhere near as nice and helpful.

[JohnnyPanzer]

If anything, I'd say that the big question is "how the hell did this game manage to avoid haters for so long". Gamers are, as a collective, probably the single most spoiled and entitled group of people on the planet.

I can't think of another industry held to such ridiculous standards by it's customers. Many gamers will routinely not only whine about a game they've gotten hundreds of hours of fun out of, but downright demand some sort of compensation for the fact that the game is not a perfect match with the idealized version the gamer has in his or her head. Perfectly playable games with a small number of cosmetic bugs will be called out as "utterly unplayable" and "completely broken" by the same people who spend hour after hour playing the game, having fun most of the time. Any release less than 100% free from flaws will be labeled "alpha". Lack of betas will be cause of great vitrol, but when they do happen the same people will enter the betas and treat them as a "play for free" experiment, filling the testing forums with post about their broken saves, demanding financial compensation.

And I bet you that someone will defend this behaviour by stating "but no other industry expects their customers to just live with bugs". But you know what, imaginary strawman? You're wrong. ALL other industries expects their customers to accept the laws of reality. Tell a few billion car owners that they are unfortunally going to have to accept that the product they payed tens of thousands of dollars for is going to break down every once in a while, because it's a mechanical construct that follows the laws of physics and no such thing as everlasting materials exists, and they will all go "Yeah, fine. That's just reality I guess". Tell a bunch of gamers that the game they payed 40 bucks for might behave strangely at times, because coding for a million different hardware configurations in the hands of a million different users is always going to result in some bugs and watch the world burn.

Just ignore them. They will always whine, they will always demand more and they will never, ever be happy with a single gaming related product.