Core things needed for KSP to be "finished"?

[Red Iron Crown]

6 hours ago, Veeltch said:

However, it still is lacking things that were promised (unless I don't know the actual defitnition of the word "promiss") which include:

-Procedural craters on more bodies than one (the Mun)

-"Shmelta Vee"

-Part overhaul

You're not misunderstanding the word promise, you're mistaking a description of things being worked on or considered as a promise. This is why they are so reluctant to discuss plans that aren't 100% nailed down now, because people interpret it all as promises. 

[tater]

The dev blog is gone, but I thought @HarvesteR said that the other bodies would get the treatment the Mun got, ideally. 

[razark]

47 minutes ago, tater said:

The dev blog is gone, but I thought @HarvesteR said that the other bodies would get the treatment the Mun got, ideally. 

 

On the internet, is anything really gone?

HarvesteR said, on 8 Jul 2013:

Quote

As for which planets, currently this mod is only applied on the Mun. It takes a significant amount of time to tune the parameters to look good on a celestial body, so I think for now the Mun will be the only body using this system.

In any case the Mun was the body in most desperate need of a revisit. But we'll definitely go over the other ones on later updates though.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130714022535/http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entry.php/667-Procedural-Craters!

 

The underlining is mine.  Is that part a promise or not? 

The answer is left as an exercise for the reader.

[stibbons]

Do you want dev blogs to go away again? Because interpreting statements made in them as promises deliverable by the company is how you make dev blogs go away again. 

[razark]

If a representative of the company says "We will do thing", rather than "We intend to do thing" or "We want to do thing", is there a difference?

If a representative of the company says "We are doing thing2", at location1, is it the same as a a representative of the company says "We are doing thing2" at location2?

 

Or have words lost meaning again?

[stibbons]

False dichotomy notwithstanding, what part of that post makes you think it's representative of the company? 

[razark]

1 minute ago, stibbons said:

...what part of that post makes you think it's representative of the company? 

The parrots the squawk in the evening are louder that the macaroni that fills my trousers.

[stibbons]

So nothing, then. Glad that's settled.

[KSK]

For me, the one glaring omission in KSP at the moment is the lack of planning tools. Forget any arguments about realism (or lack of), this is basic quality of life stuff that would encourage players to make the most of the game we have now and make it much more forgiving to design future content for, whether those designers are from Squad or the larger community.

By planning tools I mean:

1.  A stock delta-V calculator. Kerbal-edu has one, so there's really no excuse. No it won't be perfect. No it won't cope with the myriad of crazy contraptions that the playerbase can dream up. It would still be better than nothing. I'd also argue that most of that craziness is seen with the launch vehicles. The actual 'flying around in space' vehicles that players come up with tend to be a lot simpler (and therefore tractable for a delta-V calculator) than the multistage, asparagused, 'boosters and struts' lashups used to get those vehicles to space in the first place.

2.  An orrery, planetarium or whatever for exploring interplanetary trajectories. A Map Screen with timewarp (and reverse timewarp) that is decoupled from the rest of the game.

3.  A simulator room that lets players test their spacecraft designs before launching them and lets them test those spacecraft around or on different planets.

Actually, if we have 2 and 3, then the delta-V calculator becomes sort of optional. Nice to have but optional.

Why is this important?

1.  Primarily it makes interplanetary flight much easier and more importantly more fun. If I want to design an Eve lander for example, using the above tools I can check whether my craft is actually capable of landing on Eve, without endless, tedious rounds of design, build, launch and timewarp (followed by the inevitable 'hilarious' crashes into Eve or failure to get back from Eve). It's not making that Eve landing any less challenging, it's not taking out the 'learning by doing' aspects of KSP, it's just taking out a lot of the tedium involved.

Easier interplanetary flight = maximal use of existing content and greater scope for designing Missions.

2.  It encourages players to try a greater range of Contracts and to make use of more Contracts in their games. Learning by failing is fine in Sandbox but it's frustrating and tedious in Career and encourages players to simply Revert their way out of trouble. Which in turn makes a mockery of almost any restrictions imposed by Career mode. Far better to provide a decent set of planning tools, so that Reverting never becomes necessary in the first place.

Having the players be able to pre-plan vehicles to meet particular Contracts also means that the rewards for those contracts are much easier to balance. The contract designer doesn't have to balance the contract reward for three sets of players: the ones that are good enough to do any contract first time out, the ones that will need more than one attempt to meet the contract (and are therefore less likely to take the contract unless it pays out enough) and the ones that will just brute force their way through the thing with Reverts.

All of the above also applies to Missions when they become available.

 

[evileye.x]

I'm sure it's not going to be fixed, but the shadows kinda spoiled a bit (or one may say even a lot) since 1.1 release.

Shadows flickering, some parts have seams leaking light through.

Even in settings, "shadows cascades" limited now to 4 (AFAIR, not with KSP right now)

1.0.5 - shadows degraded -> 1.1

I guess it is a part of optimization? May be?..

Or maybe it's unity 5 thing? But in subnautica for example visuals actually became much better since moving to unity 5...

Or nobody noticed shadows quality thing?

Obviously 

@Majorjim! noticed... 

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by evileye.x

[Kerbal01]

Functioning wheels/legs, the rhino (4x KS-25) having the proper blue emissive. 

Edited March 20, 2017 by DarthVader

[razark]

2 hours ago, stibbons said:

So nothing, then. Glad that's settled.

Sorry, I figured if you were going to talk nonsense, I'd join in.

Were you actually seriously asking how HarvesteR and Maxmaps were representatives of the company?!?  If that's not obvious, I don't know what to tell you.

[Superfluous J]

None.

There are none things needed for KSP to be a complete game.

There are plenty of things that would make it better, but you could not only say that about every game ever made, but about every thing ever made, ever, in the history of Humanity.

@razark you make a good argument and I agree it would be nice. I recall at the time being excited that all planets would get the "mun craters" treatment, perhaps with procedural stuff other than craters.

But I don't think the lack of procedural stuff on other worlds makes the game incomplete. It just makes it less feature rich than we (and the lead dev at the time the statement was made) may want it to be.

[Kerbart]

On 3/19/2017 at 8:06 AM, sal_vager said:

Nothing really, KSP is already far more than Felipe (HarvesteR) ever expected it to be, if you don't remember this was meant to be a 2D side view game, with no airplanes.

“There's a mod for that” has never been a strong argument (if practically everyone is running certain “essential” mods, shouldn't it be part of the game then?) but the minute Squad released console versions that argument went out of the window. Unless the console versions are significantly cheaper, console players should have a similar experience as PC/Mac users and not be left hanging with “use a mod” for essential mechanics.

If you're selling a product on a global market it's no longer the author but the public who gets the say in wether the product is finished or not. Surely KSP has evolved in something that went beyond what Felipe set out for, but it's also selling at high price point (especially for Indy software). With that, expectations come, and those aren't met yet.

For the game to be finished I would expect to see:

• The game is complete
• The most glaring and annoying bugs have been fixed

For the game to be complete my expectations are:

• Most “essential” mods to be bundled or included in the game. Module manager, chatterer, mechjeb (I'm more a KER dude but I can live with the MJ readouts), and visual improvements come to mind
• I don't think we need full blown KAS and IR implementations but something that allows large craft to be sent up in pieces and not being sent up as a grotesque challenge to real world aerodynamics. Dmod's EVA struts are a start (see: include essential mods)
• The Gallileo planet pack painfully unveils that there's a lot left to be done in the KSP universe. A game that is about space exploration doesn't have a ringed planet? We get a bazillion space plane parts each release and yet all runways are confined to a 10km circle on the planet?
• Career mode. 'Nuff said.

I doubt we will ever see any of that. But from a player perspective, despite how Squad feels about it, the game is far from “finished.”

 

[KSK]

43 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

“There's a mod for that” has never been a strong argument (if practically everyone is running certain “essential” mods, shouldn't it be part of the game then?) but the minute Squad released console versions that argument went out of the window. Unless the console versions are significantly cheaper, console players should have a similar experience as PC/Mac users and not be left hanging with “use a mod” for essential mechanics.

If you're selling a product on a global market it's no longer the author but the public who gets the say in wether the product is finished or not. Surely KSP has evolved in something that went beyond what Felipe set out for, but it's also selling at high price point (especially for Indy software). With that, expectations come, and those aren't met yet.

*snip*

I'm nitpicking here but I disagree with your last point slightly. It's absolutely the author who gets to decide when a product is finished - but it's absolutely the public who get to decide whether that finished product is worth buying. I guess it amounts to much the same thing in the end.

I completely agree with your comments about 'there's a mod for that'. Speaking personally, I dislike KSPs over-reliance on mods. I know that a lot of folks on this forum would disagree with me and that's fair enough. However, where some players love mods as a route to customizing their game to the nth degree, I dislike the notion that I'm expected to start with a framework (and in some places frankly bare bones) stock game and then build my own game on top of that. I also think it's cheeky for a company to push that much responsibility for creating game content onto the playerbase but again, that's my own opinion - there's certainly no shortage of generous and talented KSP modders who self-evidently disagree with me.

Unfortunately (from my perspective), it seems that player generated content is the future of KSP at least for the coming expansion. Whether I'll buy into that depends entirely on how deep and engaging a toolbox Squad can provide for creating that content. Looking at the current stock Career game, that toolbox isn't particularly well stocked at the moment but that may well change.

Edited March 20, 2017 by KSK

[juanml82]

9 hours ago, KSK said:

For me, the one glaring omission in KSP at the moment is the lack of planning tools. Forget any arguments about realism (or lack of), this is basic quality of life stuff that would encourage players to make the most of the game we have now and make it much more forgiving to design future content for, whether those designers are from Squad or the larger community.

By planning tools I mean:

1.  A stock delta-V calculator. Kerbal-edu has one, so there's really no excuse. No it won't be perfect. No it won't cope with the myriad of crazy contraptions that the playerbase can dream up. It would still be better than nothing. I'd also argue that most of that craziness is seen with the launch vehicles. The actual 'flying around in space' vehicles that players come up with tend to be a lot simpler (and therefore tractable for a delta-V calculator) than the multistage, asparagused, 'boosters and struts' lashups used to get those vehicles to space in the first place.

2.  An orrery, planetarium or whatever for exploring interplanetary trajectories. A Map Screen with timewarp (and reverse timewarp) that is decoupled from the rest of the game.

3.  A simulator room that lets players test their spacecraft designs before launching them and lets them test those spacecraft around or on different planets.

Actually, if we have 2 and 3, then the delta-V calculator becomes sort of optional. Nice to have but optional.

Why is this important?

1.  Primarily it makes interplanetary flight much easier and more importantly more fun. If I want to design an Eve lander for example, using the above tools I can check whether my craft is actually capable of landing on Eve, without endless, tedious rounds of design, build, launch and timewarp (followed by the inevitable 'hilarious' crashes into Eve or failure to get back from Eve). It's not making that Eve landing any less challenging, it's not taking out the 'learning by doing' aspects of KSP, it's just taking out a lot of the tedium involved.

Easier interplanetary flight = maximal use of existing content and greater scope for designing Missions.

2.  It encourages players to try a greater range of Contracts and to make use of more Contracts in their games. Learning by failing is fine in Sandbox but it's frustrating and tedious in Career and encourages players to simply Revert their way out of trouble. Which in turn makes a mockery of almost any restrictions imposed by Career mode. Far better to provide a decent set of planning tools, so that Reverting never becomes necessary in the first place.

Having the players be able to pre-plan vehicles to meet particular Contracts also means that the rewards for those contracts are much easier to balance. The contract designer doesn't have to balance the contract reward for three sets of players: the ones that are good enough to do any contract first time out, the ones that will need more than one attempt to meet the contract (and are therefore less likely to take the contract unless it pays out enough) and the ones that will just brute force their way through the thing with Reverts.

All of the above also applies to Missions when they become available.

 

I agree with all this, but the devs barely mentioned a dV readout once (and never went back to the subject again). And, as for #2 and #3, they've never showed any interest, so I doubt they'd be added at any point in the future.

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, juanml82 said:

I agree with all this, but the devs barely mentioned a dV readout once (and never went back to the subject again). And, as for #2 and #3, they've never showed any interest, so I doubt they'd be added at any point in the future.

I know the "but I remember" argument is a bad one but AFAIR in the begining they didn't want to add it to make people experiment with designs, but then career came and a decision was made that there should be more info available (because good luck experimenting in a mode where launches cost money) and there were hints that dV stuff was coming eventually. Then @Maxmaps said it was coming in the (then) next update, shortly after that he got fired and they never spoke of it again.

This kind of info really is essential for this game and shouldn't be ommited under any circumstances. You either decide to make a light-hearted game with simplified physics and super efficient engines or a semirealistic game with orbital physics and enough information to let everyone play it. I mean, you can't decide to go middleground, release it and then say "yeah, but there's that mod that you can download so maybe do that" and still charge the full price for it.

Don't get me wrong. KSP is a great game but it would be better for it if someone, who knows how to develop a game properly, would take over and start fixing all the bad decisions previously made.

[JMBuilder]

Airships

[kBob]

For me the main thing would be an overall graphics upgrade.  A lot of stuff looks rather dated now and computers have moved on in the last five years (and they can be put on sliders so people with poorly performing computers can still play).  I'd also like to see a few new planetary bodies though a cheap DLC for that would be fine too--maybe it could even add some alternative solar systems (and yes I know about all the mods).  I didn't mention bug fixes as that goes without saying (hmmm guess I shouldn't have said it then); I would hope even if they do a final version that a few team members would be kept on doing bug fixes for awhile even while KSP II is in the works (hopefully). All IMHO of course.

[GraviTykillz]

On 3/19/2017 at 6:42 AM, tater said:

The most remarkable thing about the price tag is how inexpensive KSP is. I'm probably in the realms of 1 cent per hour of entertainment---unless I'm already at the point that my hourly rate doesn't round up to a penny.

so right on the money. i have 2500 hrs into this game..more then i have ever played anything else. 

The only thing i would REALLY like to see is..the ability to paint parts...such a colorless world in ksp

[HebaruSan]

TIL that Frogger, Pac-Man, and Pitfall are unfinished. I thought they were done, but the graphics look so dated now and in need of free updates. Hopefully enough of those devs are still alive, or maybe they can reanimate them.

[cfds]

I refuse to call Kerbal Space Program complete until there is some stock implementation for managing multiple flights. SQUAD should really hire the guy that made Kerbal Alarm Clock....

[Wjolcz]

6 hours ago, cfds said:

I refuse to call Kerbal Space Program complete until there is some stock implementation for managing multiple flights. SQUAD should really hire the guy that made Kerbal Alarm Clock....

Isn't it @TriggerAu? He's already a member.

17 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

TIL that Frogger, Pac-Man, and Pitfall are unfinished. I thought they were done, but the graphics look so dated now and in need of free updates. Hopefully enough of those devs are still alive, or maybe they can reanimate them.

One thing is a game whose developers never intended to change the looks of and another a game where devs tried to do so multiple times without finalizing their work which resulted in an inconsistent look of the game.

We're talking about parts overhaul, right?

Edited March 21, 2017 by Veeltch

[Chris_2]

IMHO:

The stock game still lacks some of the iconic things of space exploration, and also things 'to-do' in space:  The robotic arm of the space-shuttle and possibility to assemble things in orbit, ability to launch and service a space-telescope (Hubble) and use it for observations, things to do while on EVA, the IVA's are added but completely useless from a gameplay point of view (clearly an unfinished part of the game), etc. Life support is IMHO also one of the crucial things in a space-program, equally important to (for example.) reentry heat. Clouds are still missing, Kerbin is completely desolated. These things should be (IMHO!) added to the core game before it can be called 1.0, and also a lot of polishing is still needed (for example parts should have an uniform art-style everywhere). But the most important thing why the game shouldn't (IMHO) be called '1.0' is balancing of the weight and stats of the parts. It's just an unfinished game. (But the best unfinished game ever, don't get me wrong!).

[mattinoz]

20 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

TIL that Frogger, Pac-Man, and Pitfall are unfinished. I thought they were done, but the graphics look so dated now and in need of free updates. Hopefully enough of those devs are still alive, or maybe they can reanimate them.

 

Funny no one complained (at least not that I heard given it was pre-internet) when simCitywas released as simCity 2000. The main improvement being graphics now 2.5d. Gameplay pretty much the same. It's only when they started messing with the scope of game play to push the graphics harder did all go to water. 

I think it is fair to say version 1.0 has hit it graphic limits, any significant upgrade in my mind is a version 2 thing.