In which "general direction" should development go?

[quasarrgames]

Im just really curious. I hear a lot of people arguing (though indirectly) about which "general direction" development of this game should go. So far, at least to me, it seems like there are four competing vibes coming from the community:

1-Expand the scope of the game: Add things like new planets, futuristic technology, colonization of other worlds, things that would make the game seem a lot bigger in terms of scale, and more wondrous to play.

2-Expand the depth of the game: Add new things like life support, better science experiments, more things to do on EVA, things that wouldn't make the game bigger in terms of scale, but would make the game seem more complex and capable.

3-Refining the current systems in the game: Bettering visuals, fixing imbalances, squashing every single teeny tiny bug, things that wouldn't make the game bigger, but would make it seem more polished and complete

4-Realism: I don't care i just want everything to take longer and be harder and more like how the pros do it!

 

So, which category do you fall in to? Or do you think development should go a different way? If so, i'd be interested in hearing.

Oh, and to make things simpler, let's say this applies to long-term development, not short term.

[Wjolcz]

Career overhaul first.

[ZooNamedGames]

The direction development should go, is up.

[cantab]

I'd say the third option. Bugs definitely need fixing. It occurs to me that artists aren't involved much in that, so why not have the artists work on making the game look pretty while the coders work on bug fixing and the "code cleanup". I think that would make KSP both better quality and more "sellable".

[Alshain]

Why does it have to be so linear?  The first 3 can be done simultaneously.  (By 'simultaneously' I mean a little each patch).

The first thing they need to do is fix the large bugs.  The ones that make the game not fun anymore.  Everything else should be irrelevant at this point.  That part should be linear, though I know it won't be since they have already announced it won't be.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Alshain

[Raptor9]

As much as I would like more planets or more comprehensive EVA/surface activities, I really think that the current KSP polish is still the best option (Option 3) such as a career rebalance on the tech tree (just an example based on my personal opinion), but I am by no means a programmer or someone that has the foggiest idea of what goes into a game besides heart, soul and tears.  But like @cantab alluded to, there can be "concurrent" development.  I mean, as we speak Porkjet is working on overhauling the existing rocket parts and Roverdude is working on the new Antenna system.  There can be multiple efforts at once.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Raptor9

[JWOC]

i think they should expand the scope and depth of the game 

[Greenfire32]

depth depth depth depth depth depth

Give me a reason to go anywhere

[swjr-swis]

If we're talking long term anyway, then I see no reason why any of those 4 things you mention should be left out, let alone any single one of them have the sole focus.

In fact, I think that that is the only fitting 'general direction' for KSP: "Moar." More scope, more depth, more stability and refinement, more realism, more options... more of everything. More. KSP is a universe unto itself, and as a proper universe, it needs to expand, in all directions at once.

More.

(*: yes, I wrote 'more realism'. As long as it's optional and not at the cost of the game elements, I have no problem with extra dials and sliders to crank up the realism when we so choose. I will even enjoy it once in a while. Choice is good.)

[blorgon]

26 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

depth depth depth depth depth depth

Give me a reason to go anywhere

Came here to say exactly this. Easter eggs are not a reason to visit a place.

And for those talking about fixing bugs, this thread is about the "general direction" of the game development. If bug fixing is the general direction the game is headed, then that's pretty bleak. Whenever I think about, or answer these kinds of questions, I assume that bugfixing is something that will always be there by default.

[Kuansenhama]

Refine current systems. The more the base game is refined and cleaned up, the more stable it'll be. The more stable the core game is the more stable modded installs will be. The advantage the developers have is that they have such a wonderful and dedicated modding community. Players can pick and choose what they want out of their experience. The core experience is enough to hook players. But the mods let them really do what they want to do.

People can always install OPM, NFT, and USI Kolonization if they want a bigger scope in the game.

People can always install TACLS, KIS, and Dmagic if they want more depth to the game.

People cannot always fix random crashes, errors, bugs.

Squad can fix bugs in the game.

Modders can fix bugs in their mods.

Admittedly I'd like to see the stock game (career) re-balanced too. Strategies are expensive as heck IMO, tourism contracts are a hassle. (Bildo Kerman's Travel Itinerary: Suborbital Spaceflight over the sun, Land on Eve, Fly by Eeloo.) The 2.5M tanks need an art pass too.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Kuansenhama

[cantab]

6 minutes ago, blorgon said:

If bug fixing is the general direction the game is headed, then that's pretty bleak.

On the other hand, that brings up what the poll didn't suggest: Finish KSP development and make a new game! Maybe a KSP sequel that's free to make larger changes and have a big investment of money and time developing it without needing to release every few months. Maybe something totally different.

[Violent Jeb]

no idea which option means planets, science and biomes. I guessed depth, but technically its refining existing systems in that they sorely need expansion.

[Andem]

After the obvious bugfixes, they really need to work on the depth. After dealing with game bugs, dealing with mod bugs, dealing with crashes, and tinkering in the editor, there really isn't that much original stuff to do.

But please bugfix first, for god's sake.

[Spaceception]

I'd like more scope, moar planets, moar parts, they can take their time, but eventually, I'd like more scope

But like Andem said, the bugs need fixing, I don't have many problems, but it would be nice to keep it that way

[Kerbart]

Less bugs, more features!

Is that a “general enough” direction?

[StrandedonEarth]

Of course bugs will continue to be terminated with extreme prejudice. But beyond that, more depth would be nice. I know this thread is just asking for direction, but this area has been a disappointment that I would like to see improved:

The specific area of depth I'd like to see is an overhaul of the kerbonaut experience system. I haven't figured out all the details for fleshing it out better, but I would like to see more of a skill tree with player selected skills, instead of just "This guy is a pilot, and when he gets a few XP he can keep it pointed this way"

Maybe the player can choose what pods a kerbonaut is certified (all the kerbonauts are certifiable, after all) to fly, with the bigger pods (Mk 3 cockpit) needing more XP.

The player could choose between different skills for their engineers, without having to progress up to the skill they want (Fix wheels/gear, repack chutes, separate skills for KAS remove and install, etc)

Scientists could use all experiments, but get a bonus for specializing in different experiments or science labs. Combined with the Station Science mod functions, this has even more potential.

For even more point cost, the different professions could cross-train, letting an engineer be certified on the Mk1 lander can, for instance.

Last, don't want to send your kerbals on a tour to rack up XP? Let them earn XP in the astronaut complex, with mini-games! Rover racing, precision landing drills, tetris, er, science exercises, etc....

 

[TyrannoFan]

KSP desperately needs depth to it. Mainly depth in exploration. Right now, you land on a planet, you do your science, and leave. This is awesome for the first few times for sure (a first successful Mun landing is always a great experience), but I find that the more I play, the more I crave for something more interesting. Installing planet packs doesn't do it for me - they're just planets, you do the same thing for them as you would for stock planets. But if there was depth to the planets, like unique rocks and geological features, it would be so much cooler to explore planets. Everywhere on a planet looks pretty much the same right now. Imagine if you could find distinct sand dunes on Duna, or distinct volcanoes that you can climb up, with magma at the top. Imagine exploring the edge of a very tall cliff (maybe using Kerbal Attachment System you could make a rock-climbing rover), maybe with distinct layers of rock. Imagine ravines or canyons, small rivers and lakes on Kerbin/Laythe. Imagine dust-devils on the surface of Duna. What about small plants and more variety of flora on Kerbin? Imagine entire cave systems! What about ice sheets with some holes or cracks exposing water underneath?

 

Yes I know that a lot of these are not really possible with the way the game is fundamentally, but there needs to really be SOME sort of depth added to planets that make them worth exploring. That would make the game more interesting for a much much longer time, considering how much stuff there would be to explore. I was playing on SSRSS, and I noticed when I landed on the Moon, that the craters were deeper than the Mun, with different textures on the sides of the crater than on the flatter areas. There was a real sense of scale, which the stock game doesn't have because of how flat and boring the terrain is. Even that was enough to make me go "Woah, that's really cool!".

[kBob]

Long term? I would hope all of the above would be a choice.  These are not mutually exclusive.  I remember the old debates that putting re-entry heat in stock, while adding realism, would make things too hard for beginners--an argument I never understood since an off switch could be provided and indeed the "problem" was solved by using a 0-xxx% slider

[Blaf]

I voted for increased depth, but graphics could indeed also use lots of improvements.

[Coga19000]

If I only had to choose one, and if the game-breaking bugs get fixed anyways, I vouch for depth. Most people want the bugs fixed, but I say only the ones that desperately need fixing; the rest are deeply ingrained into the KSP culture by now, and they are mostly more of a hilarity than a hindrance.

[Jarin]

Is "career overhaul" option 2 or 3?

[klgraham1013]

The bugs.  They must die.

[nikokespprfan]

Want to trow this in the conversation:

A while back they had a vision of having expansion packs. I don't know their current plans on it, but if they still think it is a good idea, then this could be a way of adding scope to the game.

I think I would prefer the extra scope to be added by means of expansion packs (and having the core direction towards depth). The ideas to expand the scope (as far as the opinions of the forums go) devided into different subjects (the Outer Kerbol Planet System, or the Science Overhaul, for instance), which I think fit in better in expansion packs than in just the core game. 

 

Edited June 15, 2016 by nikokespprfan

[Enceos]

I vote for  2-Expand the depth of the game

Rework the current science system, career mode, planet discovery