Frankly, I don't even *want* a v.1.2

[severedsolo]

3 hours ago, Violent Jeb said:

okay.. we've had 2 updates since then.. so your point?

Did you not read the 1.1 changelog? "We have fixed over 1000 bugs". There are what, 2 new features in 1.1? so, your argument that features >bugs is flawed.

My "point" was than while in EA, you should expect more features than bugfixes. Now we are out of EA, we are getting more bugfixes than features. (I'm not saying this will continue, but 1.1 for certain)

[AlamoVampire]

15 hours ago, Darnok said:

First 1.1.5 with stock remote tech and tons of new parts for ROCKETS... because this game is about rockets and space programs not only about planes (some futuristic and alternative methods of going into space also would be nice).

Then 1.2 with multiplayer and after that polish and fix bugs, because multiplayer is going to change game a lot.

i agree with your first point and there are not enough adjectives in the english language to convey how severely i disagree with you on multiplayer. Here is why:

1. KSP is not a game suited to the multiplayer thing.
2. The list of WHY is long, longer than I am willing to type out, but highlights include:
Mods, physics limitations, trolls <any and every conceivable way a troll can troll and more that I promise not all of us a single collective can think of>
3. KSP is not mature enough yet, as in, major bugs are gone, more mods have become stock <thinks like real fairings as in Procedural Fairings not the attempt at fairings they have, as they are not user friendly> and other aesthetic things have been done to the game, after major bugs and mods have been dealt with.
4. Time Warp.
 

I can go on, but, I trust my points made. Its both a bad idea and way way way way way way way way WAY too soon to consider it. Maybe at version 3.0 at the soonest. MAYBE.

[Johnny Wishbone]

20 hours ago, Godot said:

Same here ... Commodore 64 + Datasette (i.e. "ordinary" audio cassettes as storage space ...many of the younger people may not even know anymore, what an audio cassette is :D)

 

 

Vic20 with the datasette. I felt so cool when we finally upgraded to a 64C (the sleek white one, not the blocky beige original) and a 1541C floppy drive. We went from waiting 30 minutes to load Jumpman from a cassette (fingers crossed the whole time that there wouldn't be a read error) to 10 minutes of hearing the floppy drive go "grung grung grung kachunk!" over and over while loading The Bard's Tale (and hoping all that noise wasn't the damn thing eating your disks). Gamers today whine about a 10 second loading screen between game sections; could you imagine how they'd deal with having to wait 10 minutes just for a game to load? Lol. Kids today have it made.

 

Now let me go adjust the onion on my belt...

[klgraham1013]

6 hours ago, severedsolo said:

My "point" was than while in EA, you should expect more features than bugfixes. Now we are out of EA, we are getting more bugfixes than features. (I'm not saying this will continue, but 1.1 for certain)

I was thinking leaving early access meant a finished game.  My outdated concepts of "finished" have betrayed me once again!

I'm glad for the continued work, but this blatant disregard for the English language is out of control.

[klgraham1013]

10 hours ago, CliftonM said:

Why are people so convinced that 2.0 is a thing that's going to happen any time soon?  [Based on the poll choice]  If you know anything about version numbering, then you know that it goes up in sequential order: 

This means that if KSP goes at the rate it usually goes at, then It's probably going to be quite a while.

You mean like 0.25 to 0.90 to 1.0?  My trust in your "sequential order" has been shaken, my friend.

DISCLAIMER: Obviously, we were never going to have 100 updates to get to 1.0.

Edited April 21, 2016 by klgraham1013

[Kerbart]

19 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

You mean like 0.25 to 0.90 to 1.0?  My trust in your "sequential order" has been shaken, my friend.

DISCLAIMER: Obviously, we were never going to have 100 updates to get to 1.0.

Not to mention that the current version represents itself at 1.1.0.1230

There is no fixed rule for version numbering (“The FBI raided the house of rogue developer Adam Smith who used #.#.@ versioning scheme instead of the approved #.#.#.#-@@@@ scheme”) and yes, Squad can jump from 1.1 to 2.0 or 1.2 at any time they see fit (as they obviously did in the past).

[Renegrade]

8 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

You mean like 0.25 to 0.90 to 1.0?  My trust in your "sequential order" has been shaken, my friend..

Damn, beat me to it.

Hooray for politically-motivated version numbers.  KSP 1.1 is really just 0.28 or thereabouts (some people have rightly pointed out that the ARM (0.23.5) release should have been 0.24.  Although I'd contend that 0.25 didn't really deserve a full version, so that cancels out to the same number of major updates at this point), with some polish.

(Corrections to the order: 0.23.5-> 0.24, 0.24->0.25, 0.25->0.25.1, 0.90->0.26, 1.0->0.27, 1.1->0.28)

3 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

There is no fixed rule for version numbering (“The FBI raided the house of rogue developer Adam Smith who used #.#.@ versioning scheme instead of the approved #.#.#.#-@@@@ scheme”) and yes, Squad can jump from 1.1 to 2.0 or 1.2 at any time they see fit (as they obviously did in the past).

Actually there probably is some ISO standard for version numbering, or from some other standards body.  There's standards for everything else afterall. I'm sure IEC has something for the direction that toilet paper hangs in the datacenter.

While it takes an experienced programmer a degree of judgement to decide on a good system (instead of something a compiler could determine automatically), it's not TOO hard to come up with a non-BS version sequence that represents the degree of change instead of whatever marketing wants to use to placate the moronic masses.  There was no justification for 0.90 nor 1.0 whatsoever, they were pretty much on the same scale as prior updates.  I suspect the motivation there was to get ready for console releases, I don't think consoles do Early Access yet, do they?

(#pcmasterrace~)

[todofwar]

I will say that while there are benefits to this always developing model, at times the whole "sword over my head" thing does start to become annoying. I stopped playing EA games a while ago because of this (and Electronic Arts games for different reasons), since I burnt out on a few of them before they were done and now I can't even play half of them since all my old strategies became obsolete because of new features and tweaks. This is why I support the idea of having some (not all) older versions supported. So, you can continue playing KSP 1 if you're happy with your feature set and just want occasional bug fixes, or you can play KSP 1.x until 2.0 with the EA mindset, since you are now looking at the development of a sequel in a sense. 

Edit: I would actually argue for only KSP 1.05 to be supported, since that is the most bug free version after EA and before the engine upgrade. I find it harder to make an argument for supporting alpha versions.

Edited April 21, 2016 by todofwar

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Renegrade said:

Damn, beat me to it.

Hooray for politically-motivated version numbers.  KSP 1.1 is really just 0.28 or thereabouts (some people have rightly pointed out that the ARM (0.23.5) release should have been 0.24.  Although I'd contend that 0.25 didn't really deserve a full version, so that cancels out to the same number of major updates at this point), with some polish.

(Corrections to the order: 0.23.5-> 0.24, 0.24->0.25, 0.25->0.25.1, 0.90->0.26, 1.0->0.27, 1.1->0.28)

Good point. Although I'd be open to the suggestion that this 1.1 release is, in some ways, the true 1.0 release; I'd be perfectly comfortable if the previous release was .27 (or even .90.6, 0r .93) and this was the big one point oh release. This version seems much more worthier of it than that botched 1.0 release.

1 hour ago, Renegrade said:

Actually there probably is some ISO standard for version numbering, or from some other standards body.  There's standards for everything else afterall. I'm sure IEC has something for the direction that toilet paper hangs in the datacenter.

While it takes an experienced programmer a degree of judgement to decide on a good system (instead of something a compiler could determine automatically), it's not TOO hard to come up with a non-BS version sequence that represents the degree of change instead of whatever marketing wants to use to placate the moronic masses.  There was no justification for 0.90 nor 1.0 whatsoever, they were pretty much on the same scale as prior updates.  I suspect the motivation there was to get ready for console releases, I don't think consoles do Early Access yet, do they?

(#pcmasterrace~)

With all the legal shenanigans going on (license transfer to some postbox company in Amsterdam, etc) i always wondered what the reason for that was. I assumed just good ole' financial assetts offshoring (while the Netherlands doesn't mind taxing its citizens to the wazoo, it's quite the tax haven for foreign owned companies and it doesn't have that "tax dodge" sound like Liechtenstein, Cayman Islands or Panama).

But I can imagine that securing the required contracts from Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo was a lot easier with a "1.o"  version under their belt; good point.

[Renegrade]

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Good point. Although I'd be open to the suggestion that this 1.1 release is, in some ways, the true 1.0 release; I'd be perfectly comfortable if the previous release was .27 (or even .90.6, 0r .93) and this was the big one point oh release. This version seems much more worthier of it than that botched 1.0 release.

Yeah; agreed - although I think 1.1 will probably (I hope) hammer out a number of the issues we have goin' on now (wheels are still kinda dicy, some ground interactions don't work so well, orbit lines, although faster, can still get glitchy), and apparently will probably involve some balance passes, so it might be an even better candidate from that perspective.

[Violent Jeb]

12 hours ago, severedsolo said:

Did you not read the 1.1 changelog? "We have fixed over 1000 bugs". There are what, 2 new features in 1.1? so, your argument that features >bugs is flawed.

My "point" was than while in EA, you should expect more features than bugfixes. Now we are out of EA, we are getting more bugfixes than features. (I'm not saying this will continue, but 1.1 for certain)

and the point is that we are still in EA. beta. Whatever you want to call it. Clear as a bell. Note all the technical issues many people are having across the board? Note the issues with ui, tutorials, wheels?

You can call it whatever you want. If you're happy with it, i'm happy for you.

and, at the end of the day I think EA is not about optimization but it should certainly be about bugfixing. If you have bugs, and you stack new features on top of bugs, any fixes are going to propagate through the whole system, substantially exacerbating the problem, and making them harder to fix. but hey i'm not in advertising so what do I know.

Not only that but if your new update creates 2000 bugs and you fix 1000 of them that tells me you are running a bug deficit, whereby more bugs are being added than fixed. And sure they added two features, but completed upgraded to unity 5 on a game that is by technically "complete" (according to you), so i'd say its a substantial new "feature".

It's fine if you'd rather have a bug filled 1.1 then wait for something much more polished, that's the absolute standard here, regardless of whether x<=1.0, don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Quote

I was thinking leaving early access meant a finished game.  My outdated concepts of "finished" have betrayed me once again!

I'm glad for the continued work, but this blatant disregard for the English language is out of control.

Exactly. Version number means nothing anymore.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Violent Jeb

[Kerbart]

17 minutes ago, Violent Jeb said:

and the point is that we are still in EA. beta. Whatever you want to call it. Clear as a bell. Note all the technical issues many people are having across the board? Note the issues with ui, tutorials, wheels?

You can call it whatever you want. If you're happy with it, i'm happy for you.

It depends a bit on expectations. We don't live in the 1990s anymore where you'd buy a CD with a game and that was all you got. In this day and age ongoing development is much more the standard than the exception.  If "no longer being developed" means "out of EA" then KSP will likely (or hopefully never) be out of EA. If they should have waited until the game came out of EA. Well, there wouldn't have been a KSP in the first place. Or maybe something like 0.18

As the publishers, Squad gets to choose when the game comes out of EA. If we agree that it's a good thing development of the game won't stop, I think that a good definition of EA-end is "if we stop developing now you'd be happy with the game in it's current state". To be honest I don't think 1.0 qualified for that, but 1.1 does in my mind. A lot of loose ends have been tied up. The vanilla version is far more stable. Yes, there's a ton of bugs left that need to be patched, and I expect that to happen over the next few weeks. But aside from the outstanding bugs (and they should be fixed) we're looking at a fairly complete game now.  Unlike 1.0 which really couldn't qualify as such.

17 minutes ago, Violent Jeb said:

Exactly. Version number means nothing anymore.

If you mean in the sense of how it indicates the state of development, I agree. We passed that station arguably with 0.90 and definitely with 1.0. It's still convenient though for separating various versions. "That was not introduced until 0.90," those kind of things.

 

[rkman]

Regardless of version number i'll take any updates that fix remaining issues and add a ton of polish.