Devnote Tuesday: We’re back!

[eddiew]

35 minutes ago, JJE64 said:

Sorry, I agree with @Alshain. Make the current version stable and feature complete before trying to add new stuff. 

This please... It's not that we aren't excited for the new things like comms networks, but those of us with CTD problems, slippery splodey landing gear, and planes that do donuts on the runway are finding it pretty hard to see beyond those issues right now. Remember how much we cared about the console version that none of us will be playing? It's like that  

Comms can be pushed back to 1.3, because 1.2 with the latest Unity needs to be ready as soon as possible, imho. 

(Side note; I was recently asked by a friend if KSP was any good. I unfortunately had to answer "not right now, give it a few months"... because if his first experience was 1.1.2 then he might only play it once   The current state of affairs can't be doing future sales a lot of good.)

[p1t1o]

1 minute ago, Gaarst said:

I'm not sure how to interpret that but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Same, same.

[Pestilence]

The level of "discussion" has kind of degraded to near uselessness.  Almost all of the last 5 pages of "discussion", I believe, are a result of the lightweight nature of the dev notes.  There's almost no actual development detail in there, but I understand they just got back from vacation, so maybe we should give them a week.

That said, in a week, what would really help is if it was actually listed what they intend to do with each release and why they intend to do it that way.  You know, actual dev notes type of stuff.  Things like, we can't fix X for 1.1.3 because it requires a Unity update, so X will have to wait for 1.2, but here's a fix for Y that we don't want to wait on.

But you guys, you just pick a part of the whole that you don't like and just run with it, don't you?  Did you not notice nor understand the part:

"We’re currently making an inventory of the most promising discussions from the community and seeing what we can bring to the game. "

That sounds like an opening to me, an opening for the community to communicate what is most important to them.  Now, assuming this is true, do you guys think that maybe CONSTRUCTIVE criticism might be a better approach to getting Squad to hear how important your issue is to you?

--pest

Edited May 25, 2016 by Pestilence

[FullMetalMachinist]

@Alshain I'm not sure what makes you so certain that 1.1.3 is going to continue to be buggy and unstable (I'll avoid using the other "un-able" word). 

We have no specifics at this point on what bugs are planned to be fixed. For all we know they may have found new workarounds for the wheels, and fixed the CTD's. 

Without knowing those things, you can't say for certain that a patch to fix bugs before an update that adds features is a bad thing. 

[m4v]

7 minutes ago, FullMetalMachinist said:

@Alshain I'm not sure what makes you so certain that 1.1.3 is going to continue to be buggy and unstable

Track record and statistics.

[Gaarst]

12 minutes ago, Pestilence said:

That sounds like an opening to me, an opening for the community to communicate what is most important to them.  Now, assuming this is true, do you guys think that maybe CONSTRUCTIVE criticism might be a better approach to getting Squad to hear how important your issue is to you?

Quoting myself here: 

Quote

Fixing bugs is what a pre-release is made for.

1.1 has bugs that should have been fixed in the pre-release, there is no excuse for that.

When one on the major feature of 1.1 that we have been sold is the new wheels mechanics, and when that feature is buggy as hell 3 patches after (.0, .1 and .2) there is something wrong. And don't get me started on the VAB crashes which simply prevent me and others from playing the game.

I'm complaining that something is broken because it should not be broken. Pre-release was the time for constructive criticism and we all see how that turned out.

 

12 minutes ago, Pestilence said:

But you guys, you just pick a part of the whole that you don't like and just run with it, don't you?  Did you not notice nor understand the part:

"We’re currently making an inventory of the most promising discussions from the community and seeing what we can bring to the game. "

I can read a post, and I'm fairly confident I can read in between the lines. The bold part basically means that they are looking for some stuff on the forums which suits them and will add it. It does not entitle them to anything, it's not even a promise.

After the fiasco of 1.1 (that is how I see it), I can't just believe some vague stuff they wrote.

I agree on the first part of your post: concrete information on what they intend to do would bring some confidence back.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Gaarst
Layout edits

[Padishar]

3 minutes ago, m4v said:

Track record and statistics.

Both of which are, obviously, totally infallible...

Edited May 25, 2016 by Padishar
Note: this post is sarcasm, sorry, but you deserve it...

[Gaarst]

Just now, Padishar said:

Both of which are, obviously, totally infallible...

I trust stats better than vague promises which have previously shown to be deceptive.

[p1t1o]

2 minutes ago, m4v said:

Track record and statistics.

If they keep following their track record, that means they will continue to improve one of the best things I have played, making it better and better. Good, thats what I thought.

[m4v]

4 minutes ago, Padishar said:

Both of which are, obviously, totally infallible...

Less fallible than blind trust.

[p1t1o]

2 minutes ago, m4v said:

Less fallible than blind trust.

So why'd you buy the game? Blind trust? Or based on its track record?

[Padishar]

4 minutes ago, m4v said:

Less fallible than blind trust.

Hmmm...  he said:

21 minutes ago, FullMetalMachinist said:

what makes you so certain

So, something being "less fallible" (if I were to accept that as being true) is grounds for you to be "certain" is it?

[FullMetalMachinist]

4 minutes ago, m4v said:

Less fallible than blind trust.

I'm not going on blind trust, I'm going on past history as well. 

Yes, Squad has a history of introducing new bugs. That's what happens when you add features. But they also have a history of fixing those bugs, given enough time. 

So now they're putting out a patch whose stated goal is to fix bugs, and people are somehow upset by this. 

[Terwin]

14 hours ago, JJE64 said:

Identify a core problem.  There are several to choose from.  A lot of the reports on the bug tracker are symptoms or variants on a few core issues.  Pick one of those core issues and work THAT PROBLEM until it's fixed, before moving on to the next problem, or trying to tackle concurrent issues.  You have the team working on 10 things at once, in different directions, and then trying to consolidate the changes and hoping for the best.  Pick a problem.  Work the problem as a team, and then move on to the next problem.  Repeat until you run out of problems.  Don't even discuss shiny new features (like comm relays) until the current release is feature complete and stable.  That's how every design team I've ever worked with has operated.  Do one thing, do it well, do the next thing.

If identifying several isues as related to a single problem is so easy, why not do it yourself?  you have access to the bug tracker do you not?

I'll bet Squad would love having someone organize all those bug reports based on the related core issues.

(As a software developer myself with more than 15 years of professional experience, I think you are over-simplifying.  I have seen identical bugs in slightly different scenarios be completely unrelated in cause, and related bugs are often not things that you would expect to be related until you find the cause) 

14 hours ago, JJE64 said:

The thing is, these problems have multiple legs.  There are what? 1100 open items on the bug tracker?  I don't think there are 1100 actual problems, I think there are 1100 symptoms of maybe one or two dozen core issues.  So start by consolidating those items into core issues, and then tackle those.  So, say 1.1.3 will address CTD issues exclusively.  Gather all of the tracker items that relate to CTD, freezes and memory overflows.  Tackle those.  Then make 1.1.4 specifically address the mess that is the surface colliders.  Tackle those.  then make 1.1.5 specifically address landing gear and landing legs.  Address those.  Memory leaks?  1.1.6.  And so on.

And if the answer to any of those problems is "we need to push the next version of U5" then do it.  Don't wait for an arbitrary 1.2 if the solution to the problem in front of you is to upgrade the engine.  Just do it.  If doing so fixes other upstream problems, BONUS!  But don't waste time on bandaids today because we have to wait for 1.2 for the next engine upgrade.  And don't have 10 people working in 10 directions and hope those projects will mesh and then rush to release.  Because then you get fixes that conflict, you get users in a perpetual state of beta testing, and you get a lot of unhappy customers.  Consolidate your problems, address them systematically and don't move on or add new features until the one in front of you is complete.

There.  KSP fixed in 500 words or less.  Work your magic, game developers.

Landing gear has been identified as related to Unity bugs, and the next version of unity(5.3 I think) has major problems, so Squad may not be able to fix landing legs properly until after a stable Unity 5.4 is out(and perhaps not even then if the wheel-related bugs recur in 5.4)

Also, many of the outstanding CTD bugs are ones that SQUAD has not been able to reliably reproduce.

How many attempts should they make to try and reproduce a bug before they put it aside as 'cannot reproduce'?    Remember, many of the issues in the bug tracker do not have adequate information to reproduce the error, so making that a high number will only slow things down as they waste more and more time on bugs that are not really bugs(or are caused by mods) 

You advocate for no fixes for any bugs that can be fixed in the current unity version until there is a usable version of unity available to Squad.  Personally, I would rather have them fix what they can as they can, adding features when convenient.

12 hours ago, JJE64 said:

If it were me, and it's not, but from the safety of my keyboard I'm free to dream... I would freeze KSP as it is.  I would close adding new bugs to the bug tracker.  I would spend a week or two going through the bugs, analyzing and classifying them, develop core issues to address, and then create a roadmap to addressing them.  I would put someone in charge, form action teams and start systematically addressing the bugs according to the roadmap.  I would not start the next action item until the previous one was resolved, and then once all of the items on the roadmap was addressed and the program was stable, well, now what you've got is a production-ready product.  Release time.  NOW you start dreaming about console ports and comm relays, until the next design freeze.  And then you repeat the process for each iteration of KSP.  In the end, it's a whole lot less work, because you don't have to shotgun hot fixes.  Those should be the exception, not the rule.

Now I know you said you've got dev experience.  Many people on this board have the same, there are a lot of software devs on here, and a lot of us with project management experience.  What we're effectively doing right now is - and pay attention Squad - we're consulting for your company for free.  You have experts from various disciplines here in the community who are wiling to help out with suggestions, and not everyone who criticizes or complains is doing so out of malice.  I can't code in c#.  I don't have any experience with Unity.  Some people do, and they can be of great help in those areas.  But I do have experience managing large projects and working on complex design teams, and this is where I see their biggest breakdown being.  Their vision for the game is awesome, and their coding and software development skills are far beyond what I could ever hope to achieve, but from what I've seen, their organizational setup isn't ideal, and their approach to design and implementation is where they fall down.

I hope, sincerely, that they can look at some of these posts and see them not as complaints from whining complainers, but as people contributing the best way they can.

Once again, how long should they spend on a bug before they decide it is not reproducible or does not have enough information?  All of the easily reproduced bugs that squad knew how to reproduce were wither fixed or identified as not something that can be fixed in the current version.  That seems like a reasonable time to release to me...

Free advice is worth what you pay for it, free consulting too.  We do not know enough of the internal structure of SQUAD, their finances, and their development process to provide workable advice on a level that would be useful.  We can make suggestions and hope that they can be used in a reasonable manner, but that is about it.  

 

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

That would be fine if this intermediate release were to make the game playable, but the wheels are one of the biggest issues.  So we get to sit around and wait for them to release 1.1.3, then sit around some more, wait for 1.2, then sit around some more and wait for 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and 1.2.3 to fix all the new wonderful bugs... assuming they don't decide fix those in 1.3.

1.1 is just a throwaway version.  Why was it released at all if we are just going to wait for 1.2 to be able to play?

Many of us find the game quite playable and are happy squad did not wait for Unity 5.4 to be usable before releasing 1.1.

It is unfortunate that you do not find the game playable in it's current state, but would you really rather wait until a version of unity is available that fixes all of the unity bugs that affect KSP(even bugs that do not affect you at all?)  If so, you could easily be waiting longer than Duke Nukem fans waited for Duke Nukem Forever...

 

[Gaarst]

9 minutes ago, FullMetalMachinist said:

Yes, Squad has a history of introducing new bugs. That's what happens when you add features. But they also have a history of fixing those bugs, given enough time. 

And for 1.1 Squad tried to change things by making a pre-release which was intended to spot bugs before 1.1 release and avoid the usual rushed patches needed to have a stable release...

9 minutes ago, FullMetalMachinist said:

So now they're putting out a patch whose stated goal is to fix bugs, and people are somehow upset by this. 

...and somehow, Squad still needs at least 4 patches (counting .0 as one) after the pre-release to fix (?) these bugs.

These patches shouldn't be there.
If the issues were small bugs that were not seen by a reduced experimental test team, there would be no problem. But here we are talking about the wheels mechanics (one of the great promises of 1.1, remember ?) being completely broken and random crashes affecting a significant part of the community (making the game unplayable for them) after a pre-release that was played by a large part of the community for over two weeks (I don't remember the exact dates).

This is the problem and this is what makes me upset.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Gaarst

[m4v]

40 minutes ago, FullMetalMachinist said:

But they also have a history of fixing those bugs, given enough time. 

The "given enough time" part was okay during earlier access, now Squad needs to get their stuff together and be professional, instead of making releases that I can only play if I use annoying workarounds that are only documented in the bug tracker. The game looks like is still in beta.

[Foxster]

I don't care about any of the bug fixes - it works fine for me. 

I want stuff! I want new items, new features, flaming swords, space aliens, axles, free donuts, ...

Edited May 25, 2016 by Foxster

[AlexTheNotSoGreat]

20 hours ago, OddFunction said:

*lowers pitchfork*

 

Glad to see ya.

Why did you have a pitchfork in the first place?

[eddiew]

1 minute ago, AlexTheNotSoGreat said:

Why did you have a pitchfork in the first place?

Experience?  

[Frybert]

Several posts have been edited or removed. Lets tone it down a little folks, and lets certainly not make things personal.

[FullMetalMachinist]

44 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

These patches shouldn't be there.

I get that, it's frustrating to have bugs when we'd like to just play the game. And it's especially frustrating when a large part of the forum was basically saying "we'll wait for a good release with minimal bugs." But that didn't happen, and it made some people angry. 

I understand all that. 

Here's what I don't get:  We're in the bug boat, and we have what we have. But now Squad is saying they have a plan to fix some of those bugs, and people are still upset. 

I'm not saying that everyone should be singing praises to Squad for delivering us from the bugs that they introduced. I just don't get what use it serves to still be upset about what already happened. 

We're now getting what we want (albeit a little delayed or out of order), why can't we be happy about that?

[beelzerob]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

If they keep following their track record, that means they will continue to improve one of the best things I have played, making it better and better. Good, thats what I thought.

Ya, I'd agree with this.  I think, honestly, Squad's major problem is they've created the crack-cocaine equivalent in a video game.  And some users are going WAY too long without a fix.  I can get that.  

[Gaarst]

13 minutes ago, FullMetalMachinist said:

Here's what I don't get:  We're in the bug boat, and we have what we have. But now Squad is saying they have a plan to fix some of those bugs, and people are still upset. 

Promises.

13 minutes ago, FullMetalMachinist said:

I'm not saying that everyone should be singing praises to Squad for delivering us from the bugs that they introduced. I just don't get what use it serves to still be upset about what already happened. 

I'm upset because I still can't play the game. The bugs are still there? It did not already happen, it is still happening right now.

13 minutes ago, FullMetalMachinist said:

We're now getting what we want (albeit a little delayed or out of order), why can't we be happy about that?

There wouldn't be 6 pages of arguing in this topic if everyone wanted the same thing.
I do feel a little better now that Squad has shown they were still in this world, but I can't just forget the release with a simple promise.

 

I see what is in front of me: a game I can't play. I could look further but seeing a meadow in the distance doesn't block the smell of the muck you're in.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Gaarst

[NovaSilisko]

56 minutes ago, Foxster said:

I don't care about any of the bug fixes - it works fine for me.

[looks at crowd of people who are currently on fire]

"I don't see any problems. Why waste time on extinguishing them? I'm not on fire."

[Foxster]

1 minute ago, NovaSilisko said:

[looks at crowd of people who are currently on fire]

"I don't see any problems. Why waste time on extinguishing them? I'm not on fire."

So, I'm to be sympathetic to others whose issues I don't share but they are not required to be sympathetic to my desires?