Do you see the pattern?

[J.Random]

"Beta-Not": Squad (as CM Rowsdower) promises several Beta releases. Makes first, last and the only one. Rowsdower leaves.

"Release, Kinda": kommunity advises Squad to stay in Beta, Squad (as CM Maxmaps) promises to deliver, overpromises then asks if they should drop features to meet self-imposed deadline which doesn't make any sense, releases anyway. 1.0 is full of bugs, Squad slaps a couple of quick patches on it and leaves for a vacation. Customers are left with supposedly "released" product having a number of bugs, including a nasty memory leak, for two months. Maxmaps leaves.

"Turbo Rush": Squad (as CM Dr. Turkey) promises not to repeat the 1.0 scenario. In private, he tells that they're "hiring very competent QA guys full time, as well as bringing in an actual external QA team to help with some of the workload". Again, features are dropped (or postponed for later "releases") to meet self-imposed deadline which makes even less sense this time. Public testing is started, which is reassuring, but then it's abruptly stopped and the update is released anyway. Again, Squad slaps a couple of patches (FUBAR'ing at least one mod in the process) and goes on vacation. This time the list of outstanding issues includes crash to desktop in the editor or on staging event in flight. Dr.Turkey leaves.

Am I the only one seeing a pattern here?

Squad, will you quit with the rush already? No more idiotic overtiming, no more dirty workarounds (autostrutting wheels? seriously?), no more slapdash releases. PLEASE. Slow and steady wins the race.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I'm not entirely unhappy with the new update but I can relate to a lot of your points.

I can't really see any reason for Squad to rush updates like this, if it's an attempt to drive sales it's not going to help when the game is buggy and glitchy.

New players who get suckered in by promises of "KSP Turbo Charged!" are going to walk away with a bad taste in their mouths, and they'll be sure to tell their friends about it.

[steve_v]

1 hour ago, J.Random said:

Am I the only one seeing a pattern here?

Not at all. Releases are ready for prime-time when the bugs are fixed, it's even in the forum rules that "thou shalt not inquire about release dates."

There seems to be one humongous gulf between what Squad says: "No repeat of 1.0 hotfix BS" and what Squad does: "Outstanding serious bugs, screw it/too hard, let's release anyway."

Everybody was well aware the U5 port would be a heap of work and probably introduce bugs, I for one anticipated at least another month in pre-release given the number of unresolved bugs on the tracker.

Was there even a prerelease build to test the latest half-arsed wheel hack? ("autostrutting wheels? seriously?" indeed) If there was, release was so close behind it I must have blinked and missed it. Hard to believe it was properly tested given the time-frame, even harder considering how funky wheels and landing legs still are.

IMO, somebody needs to go find Rowsdower, seems to be the only one who knew what a beta is for. 0.90 was a good beta release - still a few minor issues, but no serious bugs out the gate and very playable. Probably could have gone straight to release-candidate TBH.
1.0.x went steadily downhill in both performance and bugs since then, not to mention adding features between final beta and release - which is exactly what betas are not for.

1.1.2 would be a reasonable candidate for a beta too - it is mostly playable after all. But it's got more nasty bugs than the last official beta, and yet it's a full release? Whut? What's with the rushed releases?

Edited May 1, 2016 by steve_v

[federicoaa]

It's so easy to complain for the sale of complaining...

And by the way, Dr. Turkey and Maxmaps were not CM, they were producers. 

Badie is the current CM, and before Kasper was acting CM IIRC.

 

[Tr1gg3r]

1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

 

New players who get suckered in by promises of "KSP Turbo Charged!" are going to walk away with a bad taste in their mouths, and they'll be sure to tell their friends about it.

New players view ere, bought at 1.0.5 when it was supposedly release worthy.

I dont get involved with 'early access' type shennanigans as i dont believe for paying for and/or helping-working to find & report bugs.(just my personal opinion) prefer to wait and keep eye on forums to gauge communities general feeling bout it etc then purchase & see for myself. (Waited nearly year for albion prelude to sort itself out for eg) personally i dont feel theres enough gameplay in just stock (for me anyway) so im more than happy to put together a series of mods to create 'my game' as it were, however as the games clearly not finished the modders are having to keep updating their mods (those of which havent got fed up & abandoned decent mods) meaning i cant finalise my mod list and settle into a proper game yet as i dont know if my fave mods will make it to the end, whereever that is. Lol ya know?

and dont bother telling me to make a diff stableish version somewhere else so my game doesnt get messed with updates, as the games clearly still going through more development as they find their way with unity5. A rover i made in 1.0.5. To perform a certain way, no longer works in newer releases and that pattern isnt going to change til theyve finished twiddling  although im not overly happy, i am prepared to wait, but i do think its gona be a while before the games at a level, that I personally feel is ready to play, shame but heyho Stellaris is out soon  and those are the realities that theyre competing with.

to conclude, my KSP experience has only reaffirmed my decision to Not get involved in pre-release type stuff, although here i am. Lol

just my 2bob

[Superfluous J]

You speak a lot of truth (Except calling Max and Turkey community managers but that was just a mistake) here but I still don't think it's a particular pattern, especially regarding people leaving. People join and leave projects all the time for all kinds of reasons.

And now I miss @Rowsdower, enough to tag him and see if it'll summon him from nowhere.

[J.Random]

Yes, I'm wrong about them being CM, but that's not the point, really. They were (and it will sound harsh, and I apologize for that, but I don't know a better term) talking heads, making promises on behalf of Squad. When it didn't work out, they (completely coincidentally) quit instead of owning up. I don't want it to happen over and over again. So, whoever is a new talking head, here's my advice: do not overpromise. Do not rush. Do not agree to overtimes. Kick Squad out of the office at 6PM, if you have to. Google "when it's done" and accept it as your deadline. And Squad, just take your vacations whenever you need them, don't link them to your release schedule.

Edited May 1, 2016 by J.Random

[godefroi]

You're honestly complaining that a patch broke a mod? Should I, who does not use that mod, be prevented from taking fixes or enhancements to my game, because those changes break some mod you use?

Game updates break mods. Mod authors know this. Intelligent players know this. Stop complaining about it. Squad graciously makes their game very moddable. They are under no obligation to avoid changes that break those mods.

[godefroi]

You don't like how the game's produced, feel free to produce one yourself.

[Guest]

I see a different pattern.  People constantly raise their pitchforks after every release because they are too impatient for mods to be updated, and don't understand what it's like to release software.  A new rule needed to be added, which should have never been needed, but for some reason people think they can constantly pester mod authors about specific bugs or updates which then cause the mod to be abandoned completely.  Many people here also don't understand that releasing software isn't all fine and dandy.  I can think of several cases where Apple has released a new software update and has had to patch it several times due to security issues, stability problems, and simple errors.  There will never be a perfect QA process, and bugs will always slip through.  It's a fact of life.

[CaelumEtAstra]

9 hours ago, J.Random said:

"Beta-Not": Squad (as CM Rowsdower) promises several Beta releases. Makes first, last and the only one. Rowsdower leaves.

"Release, Kinda": kommunity advises Squad to stay in Beta, Squad (as CM Maxmaps) promises to deliver, overpromises then asks if they should drop features to meet self-imposed deadline which doesn't make any sense, releases anyway. 1.0 is full of bugs, Squad slaps a couple of quick patches on it and leaves for a vacation. Customers are left with supposedly "released" product having a number of bugs, including a nasty memory leak, for two months. Maxmaps leaves.

"Turbo Rush": Squad (as CM Dr. Turkey) promises not to repeat the 1.0 scenario. In private, he tells that they're "hiring very competent QA guys full time, as well as bringing in an actual external QA team to help with some of the workload". Again, features are dropped (or postponed for later "releases") to meet self-imposed deadline which makes even less sense this time. Public testing is started, which is reassuring, but then it's abruptly stopped and the update is released anyway. Again, Squad slaps a couple of patches (FUBAR'ing at least one mod in the process) and goes on vacation. This time the list of outstanding issues includes crash to desktop in the editor or on staging event in flight. Dr.Turkey leaves.

Am I the only one seeing a pattern here?

Squad, will you quit with the rush already? No more idiotic overtiming, no more dirty workarounds (autostrutting wheels? seriously?), no more slapdash releases. PLEASE. Slow and steady wins the race.

^ This. I don't like whats happening. 

Simple bugs that should have been squashed the first time around are still present and even worse than before. And while mods tend to break in a new release, ones that worked fine in 1.1.0 get broken in a "patch" (1.1.1/1.1.2). The Linux version is just garbage now and they haven't done anything to address it. Seriously Squad, GET IT TOGETHER! You said you would deliver a quality product but what do we get instead? A buggy release and a few "screw this its too hard to fix all the bugs in one go" patches. And then they go on vacation. 

If this is the current situation for new releases, I'll gladly stick to my heavily modded 1.0.4 game. Because it works.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Mrsupersonic8

[Kerbart]

33 minutes ago, godefroi said:

You're honestly complaining that a patch broke a mod? Should I, who does not use that mod, be prevented from taking fixes or enhancements to my game, because those changes break some mod you use?

Game updates break mods. Mod authors know this. Intelligent players know this. Stop complaining about it. Squad graciously makes their game very moddable. They are under no obligation to avoid changes that break those mods.

There is a good chance you're missing the point here. The post is primarily about the paying customers requesting Squad to take its time and not rush. Instead we get rushed software that seems to have more and more bugs per release. Maybe for reasons, but more bugs nevertheless.

I don't think anyone will expect a mod to work after an update. The point here though is that some mods stopped working after a patch. Patches should fix things; not break them. If patches require such game-structure changing adjustments that it breaks mods, then there's an issue. The issue is not that mods break. The issue is that the release was so broken that it requires draconic patching.

[Snark]

Folks, let's keep it civil.

When I saw this thread, I was originally inclined to just post in it myself, wearing my "KSP player" hat rather than as a moderator.  The hope, there, being that simple rational discourse among interested parties could make for an interesting and civil conversation.

Unfortunately, the thread seems to have spiraled rapidly out of control, with personal acrimony butting in, with name-calling and arguing about what constitutes "whining" and other such silliness that has nothing to do with KSP or with the original poster's topic.

Folks, we have a friendly community here, built upon the principle of respect among peers.  It's perfectly okay to disagree with someone.  And I understand that there may be topics that you feel very passionately about, that can cause you strong emotions when you read them.  But we all need to behave in adult fashion, here.  It's what makes the forum possible.

You can disagree with a person's point of view, and/or rebut their arguments, while still being so while being respectful and civil.  Name-calling and ad-hominem attacks don't help anyone (and certainly don't help advance your argument).  If you're so emotionally involved with a topic that you can't post while remaining civil, you should simply stay out of the conversation.

This thread has been tidied up to remove inflammatory rhetoric and personal attacks.  I'm sorry that this was necessary.

(I'm especially sorry for the necessity because I was looking forward to posting in this thread myself.  I care a lot about this topic, too, and having been a software engineer for 20+ years, I have a few salient points to add to the discussion.  But unfortunately, I think I have to recuse myself, now, because I can't be both a contributor to a discussion and a discipline-enforcer in that discussion at the same time; it's a conflict of interest.  This old post of mine on another thread has a similar gist to what I would have said, if anyone's interested.)

A strong case could be made that this entire thread needs to be axed, simply for being inflammatory and flame-baiting.  However, in the spirit of "open discussion is good", it's being left in place and re-opened for discussion, subject to a few provisions:

• No personal attacks.  Using deliberately flame-baiting language like "whining" should be avoided.  Even if you think someone is "whining", calling them that in an open forum typically accomplishes nothing but starting a flame-war.  Stick to discussions of the facts, please.  "You disagreed with X" is a factual statement.  "You whined about X" is not.
• If you're making a salient point about the actual thread topic (the timing, content, and reliability of software; your agreement or disagreement with Squad's decisions; etc.), then great!  But debating about debating (i.e. if the whole point of your post is whether somebody was "whining" or not) is beside the point, and off-topic.

...Of course, the above points go without saying, because we all know the forum guidelines (right?), and we all know how to behave ourselves in adult fashion.  But sometimes a little reminder is in order.

Okay.  Unlocking the thread now.  Please show me that the KSP community is capable of discussing potentially contentious issues like grown-ups.  Please don't make me regret having taken the trouble to clean up the thread and write this post, when it would have been a lot easier to just axe the thread.

In particular, please don't drag down the tone of the thread again to the point where further moderator action is required.  Thank you for your understanding.

[Knaapie]

I'd say let the Devs chill out in the Bahamas for a couple of weeks. We need them fresh and happy to be able to fulfill all our wishes ^^ 

[J.Random]

50 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

There is a good chance you're missing the point here. The post is primarily about the paying customers requesting Squad to take its time and not rush. Instead we get rushed software that seems to have more and more bugs per release. Maybe for reasons, but more bugs nevertheless.

I don't think anyone will expect a mod to work after an update. The point here though is that some mods stopped working after a patch. Patches should fix things; not break them. If patches require such game-structure changing adjustments that it breaks mods, then there's an issue. The issue is not that mods break. The issue is that the release was so broken that it requires draconic patching.

This. Exactly this. I would even say that patch breaking a mod is perfectly OK. But when the problem is "solved" by some quick dirty hack and left this way, it's not OK. Such "fixes" tend to pile up and it's worrying that Squad now resorts to them instead of working on underlying issues.

[Renegrade]

4 hours ago, J.Random said:

Public testing is started, which is reassuring, but then it's abruptly stopped and the update is released anyway.

^ this is the one thing that alarmed me.  I was really enjoying the pre-release process (leaving aside the "one CDN platform" issue, and it sounds like from the recent devlogs that that won't be a problem next time), and I feel like Squad and the 'kommunity' were making good progress, and I don't understand why it was broken off suddenly and release was rushed out the door.

53 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

I don't think anyone will expect a mod to work after an update. The point here though is that some mods stopped working after a patch. Patches should fix things; not break them. If patches require such game-structure changing adjustments that it breaks mods, then there's an issue. The issue is not that mods break. The issue is that the release was so broken that it requires draconic patching.

You're doing that wisdom thing again! 

 

[Wallygator]

I propose everyone is extrapolating against errant suppositions.

Squad is undergoing their first-ever game development program.

It's very easy and lazy to think that any organisation can immediately "wake up from birth" and flawlessly execute software development/release in a retail environment.

Even world-class teams falter.

However, It is the remit of a customer-base to callout failures - and the dev team must anticipate that. 

So... All kinds of sympathy - but no mercy.  Enjoy your well deserved break, get ready Devs, Suck it up, and get to work!  ;-)

Seriously, you have created this fabulous mess with a really great product - now stick with it and show us how you can take it to the next level err... release...

EDIT: I also anticipate that the Devs never read my posts. Still...

Edited May 1, 2016 by Wallygator

[regex]

5 hours ago, J.Random said:

no more dirty workarounds (autostrutting wheels? seriously?)

That particular workaround was due to Unity wheel implementation, which is terrible, but otherwise I agree with the main thrust of the post.  There should have been some announcements about how Unity failed their customers and copious links to polls to spur Unity into further action, but that might have been taken as slander?  Either way, apparently someone ported their entire project to another engine rather than continue trying to make Unity's wheels work.

We're stuck with crappy workarounds for wheels.

Anyway, related to the OP, my old CEO believed that he could only get 32 hours of useful work from a programmer per week and would pay us for 8 hours of creative time to work on whatever we pleased, so long as it was programming related.  I wrote a lot of mod code during project time.  Four years after he told me that, this paradigm still holds true under the new CEO (his wife).  It's one of the nicest, closest-knit, and most relaxed (even during typical stress times, like before a release) places I've ever worked, and we're growing.

Maybe Squad could take a page from their book?

Edited May 1, 2016 by regex

[Arsonide]

33 minutes ago, J.Random said:

Such "fixes" tend to pile up and it's worrying that Squad now resorts to them instead of working on underlying issues.

Unfortunately the underlying issues in this instance require a Unity upgrade that will take time. In the mean time, we wanted to improve the stability of wheels for you guys, and the fix has been very effective at doing so in testing. It is a temporary measure while we do address the underlying issues. When it is no longer necessary, it will be removed.

[severedsolo]

Oh god how quickly we forget.

Two weeks ago we were running Unity 4. The game had bugs. Now we are running Unity 5, the game has different bugs. C'est la vie, it happens.

Let me get my own personal moan out the way first, landing gears suck. Oh boy do they suck. I suspect the answer there is either "we don't know how to fix it" or "Unity/the plugin we are using doesn't have the tools to fix it." The message throughout the pre-release was "we know they still need work but this is pre-release, so it's fine". Release came and went... and well look where we are. Am I happy about it? Absolutely not.

But come on guys! Let's put the pitchforks down for a second, the game is inifinitely better now. When 1.0.5 hit, many many people went "meh I'll stick with 1.0.4 for now, not worth it until mods are done." By contrast I've seen the opposite with 1.1, so many people going "I know it's a bit buggy, but I just can't go back." The game is rock solid and stable for me, hasn't crashed once. (I know that's not the same for everyone, but the posts about "how dare you go on vacation and leave it like this" are unfounded and unfair, clearly it's something specific about certain peoples setups that are doing it.)

Sometimes things don't work properly. Sometimes you don't know how to fix it/don't have the tools to fix it. This is the way of life. This is getting old every update, let's just play the game shall we?

Edited May 1, 2016 by severedsolo

[rkman]

1 minute ago, severedsolo said:

Two weeks ago we were running Unity 4. The game had bugs. Now we are running Unity 5, the game has different bugs. C'est la vie, it happens.

No, "1.0" is supposed to mean something about completeness. People avoid Early Access exactly to avoid playing a game that is still under development.

 

[HebaruSan]

1 hour ago, CliftonM said:

There will never be a perfect QA process, and bugs will always slip through.

"slip through" suggests that unknown issues cropped up after the release and surprised everyone. That indeed would have been perfectly expected and understandable due to the complexity of software.

But it's not what happened in this case. The most critical bugs were noticed during pre-release and filed on the bug tracker. The dev team set about fixing them and was making good progress. Then, when they were maybe a third of the way through that process, the full release was declared.

On the topic of vacations, though... burn-out does not wait for product readiness. You need a break when you need it, regardless of how many bugs are left. Have a good rest, SQUAD.

[godefroi]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

I don't think anyone will expect a mod to work after an update. The point here though is that some mods stopped working after a patch. Patches should fix things; not break them. If patches require such game-structure changing adjustments that it breaks mods, then there's an issue. The issue is not that mods break. The issue is that the release was so broken that it requires draconic patching.

There is no difference between a patch and an update. They're two words for the same process. Regardless of what you call it, code changed, was recompiled, and released to the customers. If a specific mod depended on the exact implementation of the code that changed, then the mod will be broken. Squad is under no obligation to maintain backwards compatibility for mods no matter how minor the change.

[Wallygator]

17 minutes ago, rkman said:

No, "1.0" is supposed to mean something about completeness. People avoid Early Access exactly to avoid playing a game that is still under development.

 

I sense there two different paradigms running at the same time. 

1) Early Access (Driven by market)

2) Ongoing Development (Driven by Vision)

Squad is likely continuing their ongoing development, in the face of market driven early access.

I respectfully suggest we all just move on with a focus on improving the game regardless.

EDIT: PATTERN? Yea, nothing abnormal.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Wallygator

[severedsolo]

11 minutes ago, rkman said:

1.0 is supposed to mean something about completeness.

Eh, I can't disagree there, but the 1.0 thing is done, it was over a year ago, let's move on. The update policy is what it is.

I'm sure you aren't really complaining about all the shiny new plane parts that Porkjet introduced in 1.0.5, Contextual contracts etc.

You either want new features, or you want zero bugs. You cannot have both.