Every new version of KSP.... driving me mad

[Franklin]

What a strange complaint to hate a developer for tweaking balancing/physics in a beta. Yeah, your previous designs were designed around a previous balance, and that balance is now gone. What do you expect?

Also, modding an alpha/beta is a real privilege, I wouldn't care if mods were impacted during the design process, either.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

The problem is most people who buy into alpha/beta builds just want to play the final game and couldn't wait.

[fisfis]

[quote name='Robet.G']I don't know what's wrong with you people, I have no problems with. Any of these because I save zero space crafts. If I need a new craft I just build one, period.[/QUOTE]

How do you rebuild a craft which is already in opposite side of space? I think you people are not playing career at all. And if so you are cheating... Where is the fun then?

[COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Ok, I agree with that. I agree with changing everything in major releases. But why the hell they just don't fix the biggest bugs in the game (which usually are making career much harder to pley or even impossible to play or causes loosing of Kerbals). I was waiting for 1.0 for more than year. I can wait without any problems other two years for a version updated with new features and changed game mechanics.

[COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='Korizan']In regards to crafts getting broken during an upgrade.
I know there a methods to replace them manually and at one time wasn't there a mod to do it as well ?[/QUOTE]

So according to your recommendation, I have to cheat. This is not a reason why I am playing career. I want to play it according to some rules. And not to cheat.

[quote name='Korizan']And of coarse the other option is if you are playing a career mode and can't complete a mission do to a change. Well F12 and complete it manually.[/QUOTE]

Cheating... again.

[quote name='Korizan']And the last and final answer is don't upgrade.[/QUOTE]

I wrote it many times. Don't update = live with existing bugs. Man. Do you think I'll sit in front of computer for 3 years and wait till the ship reaches designed destination when there is a warp bug in the game? Wake up please. As there atre no patches released at all only the one option is to update.

[Octa]

[quote name='fisfis']
I wrote it many times. Don't update = live with existing bugs. Man. Do you think I'll sit in front of computer for 3 years and wait till the ship reaches designed destination when there is a warp bug in the game? Wake up please. As there atre no patches released at all only the one option is to update.[/QUOTE]

You know what Scott Manley did with his "Interstellar Quest" -Series? He set it up with a recent KSP-Version and a more or less staple set of mods and did not upgrade. Fully aware that an upgrade of KSP might break mods and change gameplay mechanics.

If your current mission works in 1.0.4, there's no garantuee that it'll work in 1.0.5. And well...you set this mission up in a version which is affected by a timewarp bug in the first place, how did you expect this will work out? That the update will only fix this bug, maybe adds new parts and does not change anything else that was already in the game?

The problem is, although according to a "classical" versioning scheme the number 1.0.5 tells otherwise, this game is still beta, so expect things to change. Newly added mechanics will require changes in the old mechanics and adding new parts might require rebalancing the exisiting ones so there are no uttlery useless or overpowered things.

[fisfis]

[quote name='Octa']You know what Scott Manley did with his "Interstellar Quest" -Series? He set it up with a recent KSP-Version and a more or less staple set of mods and did not upgrade. Fully aware that an upgrade of KSP might break mods and change gameplay mechanics.[/QUOTE]

This is his decision. I would expect bit different approach from Squad, especially in versioning, patching, releasing new versions and compatibili

[quote name='Octa']If your current mission works in 1.0.4, there's no garantuee that it'll work in 1.0.5.[/QUOTE]

Where is this written? I haven't seen it anywhere.

[quote name='Octa']And well...you set this mission up in a version which is affected by a timewarp bug in the first place, how did you expect this will work out? That the update will only fix this bug, maybe adds new parts and does not change anything else that was already in the game?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. This is what I would expect since 1.0.0. Bugs are fixed, patches released at least for those worst ones, parts which does not need to change the game mechanics are added in minor versions and everything else including changing API for mods in major versions.

[quote name='Octa']The problem is, although according to a "classical" versioning scheme the number 1.0.5 tells otherwise, this game is still beta, so expect things to change. Newly added mechanics will require changes in the old mechanics and adding new parts might require rebalancing the exisiting ones so there are no uttlery useless or overpowered things.[/QUOTE]

Squad team said (and it was also mentioned in this thread):

We are proud to announce we are going out of beta and releasing 1.0.0 version of KSP. So I expected they started a normal development lifecycle with standard versioning approach.


For those who don't know what we are talking about:

[URL]http://semver.org/[/URL]

In short. Everything below 1.0.0 is beta, everything can be changed anytime.

Everything with postfix -beta is beta. Same case as above. (usually used with new major versions)

Major version (first number) means it brings major changes. Such as API changes, game mechanics changes, file format incompatibility and so on.
Minor version (second number) means that something was added, bugs fixed, but the behaviour is still the same
Patch version (third number) means that only bugs were fixed. Edited November 18, 2015 by fisfis

[S1gmoid]

Okay so let me add a consideration. Software development is an exercise in compromises. From a feature development viewpoint, you have the following factors to consider:
[LIST]
[*]Frequency and predictability of releases
[*]Amount and polish of features added
[*]Maintainability of the codebase and QC
[*]Backward compatibility / Long term ('enterprise') supportability
[/LIST]

These goals are directly antagonistic. You can never have all four. The old model was to disappear until you had 2 and 3 down. This is the mindset of "we'll release when we're ready". 4 was achieved by the lack of any major changes after release, as it was 'ready'. 1 is completely sacrificed. It's what gave us (didn't give us rather) Duke Nukem forever.

With KSP, and most modern software including Windows 10, the Linux kernel (from the very beginning), Google cloud stuff, there is no such thing as 'ready'. Beta vs release doesn't mean 'features evolving' vs 'feature complete', it means 'probably unstable' vs. 'reasonably fit for everyday use'. Releases are frequent and predictable. The tradeoff is between 2, 3 and 4.

Some companies choose 2 and 4 (typical in the financial sector), but they eventually drown in their own code, and have teams of six spending months on seemingly trivial improvements. At least they get paid a crapton. It's not an option for someone who does't sell a license for literally a million bucks (and a bad idea even if you do).

So it comes down to 2 or 4. In gaming, expecting enterprise-style longterm supportability is like expecting a racehorse to pull a cart. I doubt it's even considered. People don't buy games for their SLAs. Most don't even expect them to have one. We buy them for the features. "The aero model is solid crap, but it's guaranteed to be backward compatible until 2020" would sound silly as a marketing slogan.

So of course one will choose 1, 2 and 3. No 4.

Love it or hate it, it is reality. Edited November 18, 2015 by S1gmoid

[fisfis]

I still don't agree with you. You are mixing multiple things together. If you are talking about linux kernel, take a look on it deeper.

In stable version (and I consider KSP 1.y.z as stable as it is not noted in a different way) you can be always sure that:
- What is in major version will stay there with unchanged API until next major version
- Features added within minor versions will be unchanged in next minor versions (from the API and functionality perspective)
- Patches for worst bugs are released as they need to be released anyway, does not matter if as a patch or in next minor version.

But there is nothing like - we are trying what our users will accept. This approach I have seen just at one company and it is Adobe and maybe some garage-style companies. But even Adobe is releasing hotfixes and feature updates without changing the basic functionality.

This is not about SLA's this is simply about fairness. Even if the software is free I should know what I can expect from it. This is why there are versioning schemes.

In software world there was never something as: Ready. All the time there are additional ideas, all the time there is something what was not implemented because of limited timeframe or money, all the time there is something wrong in implementation as devs usually say we'll fix this later, all the time there are bugs which were not discovered.

And because of this, development lifecycle methodologies exists. And believe me, everybody you mentioned such as MS, Google and even guys from Squad have less or more implemented them. It doeas nothing to do with moder approach. Modern approach is agile development, but the basics are still same and targets also. And the target is always satisfied customer, believe or not.

[Rath]

[quote name='Kerbart']I stepped in around 0.22. I've always built my rockets as if they were real life rockets, and I always ran my missions as if they were real life missions. Sure, pancake designs were more efficient, but I just preferred my rockets to be tall and slender, just like the real thing. Sure, you could enter the atmosphere at an 85° angle at 4000m/s, deploy chutes at 65km and land just fine... But silly me preferred "real" reentries with shallow angles and with relative low velocities.

Sure, you could gain a lot by abusing the simple-minded model the game used, but what's the fun of that when you want something that looks fairly real (despite flying with little green bug-eyed men)?

Funny thing is, I haven't had the need to change a single thing while playing. My designs haven't changed significantly, and re-entry has as of yet not posed a problem to me. The way I see it is that the game now rewards me more for "trying to keep it real." I'm not complaining.[/QUOTE]

This is me

[Hary R]

May be I should tell what i'm thinking of this.
First, i understand what the OP is talking about, and indeed Squad way of handling minor update is far from ideal. I mean having to re-download the entire game for a minor fix (1.0.4 i'm looking a you) is a luxury for some of us.( 1.0.5 build 1028 was in my mind too).
Backward compatibility from 1.X and onward? I was expecting it but we all know why it became a simple dream. New aero and heat should have been implemented in 0.90 and tested from there up until it was good enough that no further tweek was necessary. Man! no other feature is more game changing then that!

EDIT: by the way for the curious, I've began a career mod from 1.0.1 and still use the same save in 1.0.5 so at least some backward compatibility was there. Edited November 18, 2015 by Hary R

[KerikBalm]

From 1.0 to 1.04, I had nothing "break" in my saves. I had to redesign stuff that I was newly launching, but nothing really broke-> although I rushed some things in before changes (like a high speed aerocapture at eve in 1.02 before 1.04 upped the heating, since heating was weak in 1.02).

Then 1.05 came, and almost everything still works... but now I have an Eve lander in orbit of kerbin that has no chance of surviving reentry, and I had an SSTO with the FAT-455 wings that had a mere 1200K heat tolerance, that also couldn't reenter.
In the end I .cfg file edited my SSTO down, and redesigned it for future missions.
I think I'll.cfg file replace my eve craft with another design that will survive.

And in the meantime... my ISRU craft do almost nothing because they lack radiators (many of my ISRU craft were deployed before radiators even existed), so I've .cfg file edited the heat away, and I may or may not eventually .cfg file edit radiators on them to return my files to stock.

The ISRU changes annoy me more than anything else... but nothing has broken my game

[Octa]

[quote name='fisfis']This is his decision. I would expect bit different approach from Squad, especially in versioning, patching, releasing new versions and compatibili
[/QUOTE]

Well, as far as i remember, the series started before 1.0. Anyway, even if they'd stick to that and they don't [I]intentionally[/I] break something, there's still a chance that even a small bugfix will change something small that is important for you. Let's say that wrong parameters of some parts make aerodynamic be applied at wrong places. They fix it and now your launcher won't get into space or your capsule back to ground anymore.

[QUOTE]
Where is this written? I haven't seen it anywhere.
[/QUOTE]

Let's say....the changelogs?


[QUOTE]
Exactly. This is what I would expect since 1.0.0. Bugs are fixed, patches released at least for those worst ones, parts which does not need to change the game mechanics are added in minor versions and everything else including changing API for mods in major versions.[/QUOTE]

So if the update was called KSP 1.1 or KSP 2.0 (besides there's no actual sequel) or the whole game is still <1.0, you'd go "Ok, everythings fine..."?

[QUOTE]
Squad team said (and it was also mentioned in this thread):

We are proud to announce we are going out of beta and releasing 1.0.0 version of KSP. So I expected they started a normal development lifecycle with standard versioning approach.
[/QUOTE]

While you expected that, i expected something else. Looking at the previews and from the last updates, how KSP did grow from 0.17 over 0.25 to 0.90, i thought that SQUAD was far from completion gameplay wise.

[QUOTE]
For those who don't know what we are talking about:

[URL]http://semver.org/[/URL]

In short. Everything below 1.0.0 is beta, everything can be changed anytime.

Everything with postfix -beta is beta. Same case as above. (usually used with new major versions)

Major version (first number) means it brings major changes. Such as API changes, game mechanics changes, file format incompatibility and so on.
Minor version (second number) means that something was added, bugs fixed, but the behaviour is still the same
Patch version (third number) means that only bugs were fixed.[/QUOTE]

After the release of 1.0 directly after one official beta release, i thought that the official release was rushed, and i still do. They changed aero, added heat, ressources, changed existing parts and so on. Personally, i handle the game as it never really left beta so we're at 0.95.

In comes down to how the numbers the developer likes to put on the build look for you, and while semver might work well on commercial software projects (where almost 100% of the feature set can be determined even before start, if they want to) and AAA-Games, i don't believe it matches the "spirit" of continous indie development. And for commercial projects: I'm working in a lvl1/2-ish support for a rather expensive commercial business software. The versioning is completely off: User Interface was modernized between 7.2.3 and 7.3.0, and it was completely overhauled beween 8.0.3 and 8.1.0. New features added in patch releases, combined with CLI-incompatibilities (The 7.3 branch is more consistent to 8.0 than it is to 7.2), if i write something more i'd have to clean my screen and keyboard afterwards. We have to handle every patch release for itself and we actually cannot make any predictions what will change and how it will change.

I don't disagree with you. It's a shame that version number are pretty useless. But on the other hand: I like the continuing development of the game. I like that the developer can add new features as they think they're ready for the players. I think feature freeze is in alpha in the classical development cycle, and that does not judge KSP well, as for an alpha there's too few bugs in it. for a beta, too much changes apart from tweaking and for gold.....well, there's not only bugfixes.

But: Releasing 1.0 in this state may be troubling for new players, but for me, nothing really. Just change the version number of the release: Yay, now where back in beta, but nothing actually changes. The update still messed with your mission.

I know that feel. Here's my craft engineering cycle:
- plan something complex to build (colony, SSTO, space station)
- experiment with various designs
- Settle on the design which seems to work best for the task
- tweak a bit, several test flights
- Find that the chosen approach was broken by design and start over with other design
- for the next 3 weeks, play around once more
- see the previews of the update
- get that thing where it's supposed to be.
- lean back statisfied, with the mission accomplished and a good looking craft
- 2 weeks later, be totally hyped while steam upgrades KSP
- find out that after the upgrade, that thing won't even get close to space anymore.

And now for the end, a small meme:

[IMG]http://cdn.meme.am/instances2/500x/2941261.jpg[/IMG]

[Korizan]

OP - well based on your replies you really aren't interested in anything other then prolonging the ... discussion..
Have fun with that, I'm out.

[S1gmoid]

[quote name='fisfis']I still don't agree with you. You are mixing multiple things together. If you are talking about linux kernel, take a look on it deeper.

In stable version (and I consider KSP 1.y.z as stable as it is not noted in a different way) you can be always sure that:[/QUOTE]

Okay I think I get it. You have a purely linguistic argument about what version numbers should mean. If KSP were called v12.2 as opposed to 1.0.5.2248, you'd be okay, right? ;)

At many companies, major vs minor versions are purely based on marketing considerations. In reality, 1.0.5 is the 'major' version, and patchlevel 2248 is the 'minor'. Imagine that it's v105.2248. There, fixed.

[quote name='fisfis']Modern approach is agile development, but the basics are still same and targets also. And the target is always satisfied customer, believe or not.[/QUOTE]

I'm satisfied for one... many of us are.

[ModZero]

Sigh.

...every new KSP version, people start threads about how things change and business-critical KSP spaceships blow up. Those threads are driving me mad, because I'm just as incapable of ignoring a thread full of people pontificating about IT development practices as the complainers of starting a new campaign. Therefore I ask Squad to no longer change anything, so no new threads start, so that I can stare at the forums in peace.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

EDIT: also, agile is [I]so 2001[/I].

[fisfis]

Guys, both of you, I never said they should stop adding and modyfying stuff. And I wouldnt be satisfied with .592763 version numbers. I said they should

1) fix bugs of current release (and previous releases starting by 1.00), at least those which are making the game unplayable . But WITHOUT modyfying anything else, especially game mechanics and mod API. Additions are possible, but again, without changing anything what can affect previously started career. This should be done using releasing patches.
2) follow common practices in versioning
3) stop making players disapointed
4) stop behaving like if this is still beta, it is not beta anymore.

Do you think I want so much?

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='ModZero']
...every new KSP version, people start threads about how things change and business-critical KSP spaceships blow up. [/QUOTE]
This is democratic discussion. Everybody can write what he likes and what does not and also to recommend his ideas. It is not our problem it is driving you mad, we are so sorry, but you have to live with it.
[quote name='ModZero']
...IT development practices... [/QUOTE]
We are talking about software development, not IT, it is a different story.
[quote name='ModZero']
of starting a new campaign.
[/QUOTE]
If you dont mind to start a new career with every new release, go for it. I did it many times since career mode was introduced and now... I don't want to do it again until I'll finish the current one. It is impossible without bug fixes.
[quote name='ModZero']
Therefore I ask Squad to no longer change anything, so no new threads start, so that I can stare at the forums in peace.
[/QUOTE]
So just because you want to stare forums in peace others should shut up and/or Squad should stop adding features? :D Man you need a doctor or some sort of sedatives.
[quote name='ModZero']
EDIT: also, agile is [I]so 2001[/I].[/QUOTE]
So it means it is not modern anymore, right? Ok, let me reformulate it, it is trendy.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='Korizan']OP - well based on your replies you really aren't interested in anything other then prolonging the ... discussion..
Have fun with that, I'm out.[/QUOTE]
I wrote many times what I want and why. But as some people are still trying to tell me I am wrong I have to write it again and again, make it more clear and explain why I want it like that. Edited November 19, 2015 by fisfis

[Octa]

@fisfis

did you read my last post (last post on the previous page, so i assume it went under the radar)? I mentioned some of the points you did: Software devolopment, versioning, adding new content or bugfixes...

TLDR: Semantic versioning version looks nice, but does not appear to be a thing, especially in game development. Even bugfixes can break current missions. I dunno why KSP is currently >1.0, i certainly don't like that but i don't care while playing.

[Kobymaru]

[quote name='fisfis']1) fix bugs of current release (and previous releases starting by 1.00), at least those which are making the game unplayable . But WITHOUT modyfying anything else, especially game mechanics and mod API. Additions are possible, but again, without changing anything what can affect previously started career. This should be done using releasing patches.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='fisfis']Do you think I want so much?[/QUOTE]
Yes. I think you severely underestimate the amount of effort that has to go in this kind of development, and severely overestimate the man-hour ressources of Suad. You are asking for "maintenance" of all releases from 1.0 into the future? Bugfixes for every single one of them? Do you have any idea of the duplicated work? This is ridiculous.
KSP is not a Library that has a stable public API, it's also not a coorporate program for thousands of $ per license. It's a GAME for GAMERS by a SMALL GAME COMPANY.

Personally, I would much, much prefer more features and refined physics instead of backported bugfixes to ancient versions of the game.

[quote name='fisfis']2) follow common practices in versioning[/QUOTE]
The common practice in versioning is that the Marketing Department does the versioning and that the numbers are completely made up.

[quote name='fisfis']3) stop making players disapointed[/QUOTE]
Players will always be disappointed. Always. Make a stupid souposphere -> "It's not realistic enough! Fix it!". Make better aero -> "OMG Reentry is so hard! You broke my game!". There's just no winning.

[quote name='fisfis']4) stop behaving like if this is still beta, it is not beta anymore.[/QUOTE]
It's still in Beta, for all intents and purposes. They said it's not, I think they had some internal stuff going on that pressured them to tag it "released", but it's been very very clear to everyone that it's in fact still Beta.
Now the best thing to keep your sanity is to simply assume that it's still in Beta. Think of 1.0 as 0.91, 1.0.4 as 0.92, 1.0.5 as 0.93. Maybe 1.1.2 will be the real 1.0, who knows. Edited November 19, 2015 by Kobymaru

[ModZero]

[quote name='fisfis']This is democratic discussion.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha no. You're not in the parliament, neither are you a representative of a party with enough support to receive guaranteed screen time, nor is this public television. Therefore...

[quote name='fisfis']
Everybody can write what he likes and what does not and also to recommend his ideas.
[/QUOTE]
...is definitely untrue, there's plenty of things that can get a thread locked and/or deleted, because nobody has an obligation to let you speak. Furthermore, you have as much right to write, as I have to ridicule it.

[quote name='fisfis']
It is not our problem it is driving you mad, we are so sorry, but you have to live with it.
[/QUOTE]

You realise the irony of this statement, do you?

[quote name='fisfis']
We are talking about software development, not IT, it is a different story.
[/QUOTE]

If you're a lawyer, it shouldn't have been necessary to explain what I just had to explain to you.

[quote name='fisfis']
If you dont mind to start a new career with every new release, go for it. I did it many times since career mode was introduced and now... I don't want to do it again until I'll finish the current one.
[/QUOTE]

You're free to not upgrade.

[quote name='fisfis']
It is impossible without bug fixes.
[/QUOTE]

I guarantee to you that new versions will always introduce new and exciting bugs.

[quote name='fisfis']
So just because you want to stare forums in peace others should shut up and/or Squad should stop adding features? :D Man you need a doctor or some sort of sedatives.
[/QUOTE]

You're escalating things refreshingly quickly.

[quote name='fisfis']
So it means it is not modern anymore, right? Ok, let me reformulate it, it is trendy.
[/QUOTE]

Retro at best.

[quote name='fisfis']
[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

I wrote many times what I want and why. But as some people are still trying to tell me I am wrong I have to write it again and again, make it more clear and explain why I want it like that.[/QUOTE]

Okay, a bit more serious now: that's because you're assuming we don't understand what you're saying, as you can't accept that someone might understand and still disagree. That's actually rather disrespectful, and people eventually pick up on that. The gist of it is that the thing we're dealing with is a game, and while — due to, among other things, [I]diagnosed[/I] autism (that's why [I]I[/I] can care about things like that more than I should, not saying anything about you) — I can certainly understand the discomfort of a disrupted routine and the feeling that my mission to Eve is super important, truth is, that mission isn't all that, and once you start a new career there's quite enough fun to be had with what's new. And Squad would probably damage their financials (they don't sell add-ons, remember? This is not Train Simulator) if they didn't consistently churn out improvements that would encourage totally new players.

Once you consider they have a fairly limited workforce (even with the modder engagement, it's a handful of programmers at best), it's not a choice between "two branches" and "one branch". It's "one branch" or "soon enough, nothing".

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='Octa']I dunno why KSP is currently >1.0, i certainly don't like that but i don't care while playing.[/QUOTE]

I think it's because in context of software development, it's kinda better to think about KSP as a website than a desktop software package (just like a banking website is better thought as a desktop software package, in terms of provided stability anyway).

[Motokid600]

Alright... Then maybe Squad should hang up their hats. Just stop updating the game all together seeing is how no one wants new content. Too many people are afraid of change and just want their old SSTOs to work forever. So just give up Squad. Keep it at 1.0.5 forever so people can keep their old crap. Then maybe people will be happy.

Just a bunch of horders or something... Do you guys keep junk in your house piled up to the ceilings by the way?

Lol, this is all I can resort too now seeing is how ive said all there is to be said in the other thread in S&D.

[Quote]
The only one throwing anything near a temper tantrum is me. Thats because im just tired of reading the same shtick every update. "OH no dont break my crafts, Oh no will my save be compatible?" Its just...
...

Anyway. Yes the game is in a "released status". But why should that mean Squad has to conserve your gamesaves every time? Im confused. How are they supposed to innovate and try new things if they have to keep the old stuff working with it? It just doesn't make sense to me in a progressive standpoint. And even so... why is this a problem? Whats keeping people from just not updating? Finish up what your doing on your current version before you update to the new one why is that so hard? If not then maybe its a bad idea to launch a grand tour mission the day 1.1 goes into experimentals.

Also make sure you guys understand this is Kerbal Space Program. A game not like any other. So dont compare KSPs/Squads update process to other companies and their games. Thats just silly. Other devs have a much larger budget and staff.

*insert crappy analogy*

And besides its not like Squad just springs these updates on us. Infact its quite the opposite. You have months and months to get your stuff in order for an update. We get detailed notes every week on the progress of each update and what, if anything itll be break. No one is in the dark here. Plan accordingly.[/quote] Edited November 19, 2015 by Motokid600

[Hary R]

Seriously guys even tho i get the OP's grief, if you thinks this game is a real full release, [B]your are wrong[/B]. Remember, Aero and Heat were overhauled (heat were introduced) for 1.0.X, never tested before and testing is still on the going, no real beta phase for those. What are Squad doing now (well contractors, as the main team is having trouble with Unity 5) tweaking, balancing, retesting, in other word : [B]a beta phase[/B]. I hope 1.0.5 is the last required tweak for those or else game will still change and old design will no longer be usable.

For mods, even a simple bug fix can break them as you never know if a part of a program, a line in a code that get changed in a bug fix were actual used by a plugin.

[MrOsterman]

[quote name='Hary R']

For mods, even a simple bug fix can break them as you never know if a part of a program, a line in a code that get changed in a bug fix were actual used by a plugin.[/QUOTE]

This is where MrsO and I have big disagreements about games like Warcraft. She runs really really mod heavy and I run nearly a stock vanilla experience. The difference is that every patch that rolls out, she spends 4 hours tweeking mods, looking for updates and trying to relearn how to play with out them.

I spend 4 hours playing the game....

[ModZero]

[quote name='MrOsterman']I spend 4 hours playing the game....[/QUOTE]

That's not the game you're playing, that's the demo version ;-P

[Red Dwarf]

Dang, this thread still hasn't died yet? I thought the mods locked this one... Look guys, we go through this rigmarole every patch, and nobody says anything new. We shout at each other, we get nowhere, and eventually the people who were salty get used to the new status quo and the issue becomes moot. Let's let this one fade into obscurity, like all the other threads like this.

[ModZero]

[quote name='Red Dwarf']Dang, this thread still hasn't died yet? I thought the mods locked this one... Look guys, we go through this rigmarole every patch, and nobody says anything new. We shout at each other, we get nowhere, and eventually the people who were salty get used to the new status quo and the issue becomes moot. Let's let this one fade into obscurity, like all the other threads like this.[/QUOTE]

Nope, they killed the other thread on this subject. I'm sure that knowing there's more than one makes you much happier.

[MrOsterman]

[quote name='ModZero']That's not the game you're playing, that's the demo version ;-P[/QUOTE]

Which does beg the question: Is the "Game" the "Game" or is it the "Game + Mods"?

MrsO insists that it's the "Game + Mods" and that makes things sticky. Of course WoW does something a little different: it pushes the new code to a test server weeks ahead of release and allows modders full access to the updated API so that the day a patch drops (and usually with fanfare) the mod sites can all push their updated mods up as well. Usually for the wife, she just turns on the WOW updater for the game, and then turns on the Curse updater for the mod and comes back in a while to everything working (more or less) like it was pre-patch.

Maybe there is a fair feedback in all of this to provide more time between "we think we've got the next patch stable" and "we're pushing the next patch out." A week is a long time, sure but that development time for Modders can be a big difference and a HUGE benefit to the community if it's come to rely on Mods, especially mods that have the potential to break with the new release.

[ModZero]

[quote name='MrOsterman']Which does beg the question: Is the "Game" the "Game" or is it the "Game + Mods"?[/QUOTE]

You're treating this way to seriously, I put an emoticon there for a reason.

[quote name='MrOsterman']
MrsO insists that it's the "Game + Mods" and that makes things sticky. Of course WoW does something a little different: it pushes the new code to a test server weeks ahead of release and allows modders full access to the updated API so that the day a patch drops (and usually with fanfare) the mod sites can all push their updated mods up as well.
[/QUOTE]

This is typical for online-ish/competitive games even if they don't allow mods (Eve Online, Diablo III, for example). There are plenty of reasons to do that, more related to the competitive nature than mods themselves.

Some modders and youtubers do (or did?) have access to pre-release KSP code, but that involves signing an NDA; due to the non-online nature of KSP, if you release anything to the public, you might as well just plainly "release" it. Now, you could use a secondary "beta" channel — and KSP did exactly that, AFAIR (someone correct me if I'm wrong) Squad stopped because consequences overwhelmed their customer support. Not particularly surprised, while KSP community wins against many others on not screaming racial slurs into microphones, it can get pretty angry at anyone who writes code, whether Squad or mod author.