KSP Weekly: A Shuttle to Remember

[Foxster]

I've said it before and I don't see anything to change my mind: The console port and Making History are mistakes. 

The console port was a bad idea because KSP is not a game that lends itself to console systems, the interface is wrong. Plus building and maintaining another completely different code-base is a huge drain on expansion of the core game that has seen it's development grind to a halt.

Making History is slapping on an uninteresting feature that few or no customers have looked for. Having a kind of challenge-setting or contract creation tool will have limited appeal and is not what most current players want. What has been asked for for a long time is a big expansion to the core game so that there is more to do; like reasons to explore the planets' surfaces, more planets, more challenges, more tech, more complex science, a reason for space stations and surface bases, another star system, some flavour of multi-player, realistic aero physics, things to discover like another civilization, i.e. reasons to boldly go where no Kerbal has gone before.     

The console port and Making History feel like tweaks around the edge of a game going nowhere.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Foxster

[Enceos]

Wow wow meow! Kerbals without collars! I'll have to make some neat KIS helmets and other props for those :3

Edited February 3, 2018 by Enceos

[Raphaello]

10 hours ago, SQUAD said:

Another week full of hard work. At this point of the development process of update 1.4 and the Making History Expansion, the projects are looking pretty much as they will at the release.

All told, between Making History and 1.4, we are including about 75 new parts, not counting mesh and texture variants (include those, and we’re at over 100).

Great job Squad, I am looking forward to resume my KSP adventure once the expansion hits the shelves!!!

 

For me, as for some others, 1.4 update is equally exciting as the expansion so I would love to hear more about improvements (will there be any?) it will bring. Our modders have improved graphical side of KSP soooooooo much that it is really the time Squad picks up the gauntlet thrown by them . Please, please make this a bigger topic in one of the next weeklys.

 

Also, we're having 75 new parts. Will some of the old ones be retired? It's sometimes quite challenging to find your way in the part catalogue (and before anyone asks - I know Janitor's Closet mod). OTOH, that would break existing designs...

[Streetwind]

I'd like to input my vote for blue suits IVA, brown suits EVA.

[shdwlrd]

17 minutes ago, Foxster said:

Making History is slapping on an uninteresting feature that few or no customers have looked for. Having a kind of challenge-setting or contract creation tool will have limited appeal and is not what most current players want.

I wouldn't say challenges and user defined and shared mission isn't wanted. There are many challenges and users doing them. You may not want to see this particular feature, but there are users that do. Does it affect the whole community, no it doesn't. But it may lead to something that will. We just don't know, only Squad knows what their plans are after the expansion is done.

 

[Foxster]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

I wouldn't say challenges and user defined and shared mission isn't wanted. There are many challenges and users doing them. You may not want to see this particular feature, but there are users that do. Does it affect the whole community, no it doesn't. But it may lead to something that will. We just don't know, only Squad knows what their plans are after the expansion is done.

I've done my own share of challenges from the sub-forum here too. It's a niche thing though and not something that warrants years of development time at the expense of making a better game that will appeal to a much wider KSP community. 

You can tell there is a lack of enthusiasm for it. Squad talking about something as minor as different coloured space suits has generated more interest than all the other Making History expansion's features, except the new parts. I don't think I can recall a single thread or post about the main features of it. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Foxster

[shdwlrd]

1 minute ago, Foxster said:

I've done my own share of challenges from the sub-forum here too. It's a niche thing though and not something that warrants years of development time at the expense of making a better game that will appeal to a much wider KSP community. 

I agree with you on that. As I said, this just may be the first step. Was it their best choice, probably not. But we know Squad doesn't always make the best choices. Most of your gripes I do agree with. But they have to start somewhere and they have to keep money coming in.

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, Foxster said:

Having a kind of challenge-setting or contract creation tool will have limited appeal and is not what most current players want.

I would have loved a contract creation tool.  Unfortunately, that's not what we're getting.  Proposing missions and actually guiding my space program would have been a great addition to career mode.

[Foxster]

I suppose it was kind of wishful thinking on my part that the challenge creation functionality could also result in the same rewards as contracts and so be a proxy contract creation tool. But I suppose there hasn't really been anything to suggest that might be the case. 

[DunaManiac]

Now, PS4 1.4!

[klgraham1013]

19 minutes ago, Foxster said:

I suppose it was kind of wishful thinking on my part that the challenge creation functionality could also result in the same rewards as contracts and so be a proxy contract creation tool. But I suppose there hasn't really been anything to suggest that might be the case. 

Yeah.  At some point they clarified that the mission builder is unconnected to career mode.

[DunaManiac]

3 hours ago, Foxster said:

I've said it before and I don't see anything to change my mind: The console port and Making History are mistakes. 

The console port was a bad idea because KSP is not a game that lends itself to console systems, the interface is wrong. Plus building and maintaining another completely different code-base is a huge drain on expansion of the core game that has seen it's development grind to a halt.

Making History is slapping on an uninteresting feature that few or no customers have looked for. Having a kind of challenge-setting or contract creation tool will have limited appeal and is not what most current players want. What has been asked for for a long time is a big expansion to the core game so that there is more to do; like reasons to explore the planets' surfaces, more planets, more challenges, more tech, more complex science, a reason for space stations and surface bases, another star system, some flavour of multi-player, realistic aero physics, things to discover like another civilization, i.e. reasons to boldly go where no Kerbal has gone before.     

The console port and Making History feel like tweaks around the edge of a game going nowhere.

well, at least we'll be getting 1.4 in maybe a year or so. Right now I'm content.

[Just Jim]

13 hours ago, SQUAD said:

Along those final tasks, and talking about Making History specifically, is the implementation of Tutorial Missions for the Mission Builder.

I forgot...

@SQUAD... If you need people to test the mission builder before the release, sign me up!!! 

[Majorjim!]

4 hours ago, Foxster said:

I've said it before and I don't see anything to change my mind: The console port and Making History are mistakes. 

The console port was a bad idea because KSP is not a game that lends itself to console systems, the interface is wrong. Plus building and maintaining another completely different code-base is a huge drain on expansion of the core game that has seen it's development grind to a halt.

Making History is slapping on an uninteresting feature that few or no customers have looked for. Having a kind of challenge-setting or contract creation tool will have limited appeal and is not what most current players want. What has been asked for for a long time is a big expansion to the core game so that there is more to do; like reasons to explore the planets' surfaces, more planets, more challenges, more tech, more complex science, a reason for space stations and surface bases, another star system, some flavour of multi-player, realistic aero physics, things to discover like another civilization, i.e. reasons to boldly go where no Kerbal has gone before.     

The console port and Making History feel like tweaks around the edge of a game going nowhere.

@SQUAD listen up! Why do you ignore what actual players want..? It boggles my mind to think of all the time wasted on the console ports that could have gone into making this game what it should be. What a massive wasted opportunity.

 Oh and I share the sentiments of those console players here. For shame @SQUAD ...

Edited February 3, 2018 by Majorjim!

[Cheif Operations Director]

12 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Moderators are not Squad staff. We are forum members ourselves, given authority to keep the forum polite. Whatever your feelings about Squad, you agreed to follow the forum rules when you joined here, and we will enforce those rules. And no, you do not have freedom of speech here. The First Amendment forbids the American government from limiting your political speech. We are not the government and Squad is not based in the US anyway. 

Express yourself politely here or do not come here. 

Perhaps not legally, it's a matter of principle. 

Also SQUAD is selling the game in the USA.

Also the First Amendment let's free speech in anyway. Not just politically  and your own guidelines prohibit political conversation (as they should) 

11 hours ago, TheKosmonaut said:

Complaining is what we all do best. We are also good at doing so within the confines of our Community Guidelines.

I agree in force the rules. I respect the moderators they are crucial to a good forum.

I do personally think the rules need some changes. I think you have pretty fair community guidelines, but they leave some things open to interpretation.

 

@Vanamonde

@TheKosmonaut

My statements are just counters and personal opinions. I'm not Attacking moderators as I said I think they are crucial to the success of a forum. Sometimes I think things may get deleted due to interesting rules of interpretation. Other times they are totally justified. I agree no swearing should be on this forum. 

12 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

I would have too.  Not sure if there ever was an official one.  There probably was.  ...and calling the new version "Enhanced Edition" never felt right to me.  Truthfully, on the outside looking in, the console port has been a mess.  It certainly hasn't done well for Squad's reputation.  I don't know what to tell you, other than vote with your all mighty dollar.  Don't blindly purchase the next Squad product, just as you should never blindly purchase any product.  If you don't agree with a companies practices, don't buy their product.  That's all we can really do as consumers.

The problem with that do that we all (obviously) care and want to play KSP. KSP is the only game on the market that has this much of realism for space for console. It pretty much a monopoly on the market. So by us not getting the new version we lose something we all care very deeply for. On the contrary if we do buy it we get to use it. I find that the Enhanced Edition is FAR Superior to FTE version. Their are absolutely problems with this port. The control scheme is a joke being one of them. I haven't played it for 1 1/2 weeks just didn't want to fight with trim every launch. Please chill out a bit. If SQUAD fails in this port update I'm with you 100%. QA isn't perfect, same with Minecraft, Clash, Star Wars Battlefront and so many more. You just can't find stuff sometimes. Fixes take time they affect other areas of the game. If this port update does nothing and is just lip service my patience is up too. 

[Majorjim!]

3 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

 they have to keep money coming in.

I would give them ALL the money if they did half the things people actually want. Oh and that they have said will happen.

1 hour ago, DunaManiac said:

Now, PS4 1.4!

Refund edition.

[Cheif Operations Director]

5 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

@SQUAD listen up! Why do you ignore what actual players want..? It boggles my mind to think of all the time wasted on the console ports that could have gone into making this game what it should be. What a massive wasted opportunity.

 Oh and I share the sentiments of those console players here. For shame @SQUAD ...

How have they messed it up. QA Testing and bug fixes take times. Your mad because a few bugs made it into the game.

If this next port update is a fail then I'm with you guys 100%

Edited February 3, 2018 by Cheif Operations Director

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Cheif Operations Director said:

How have they messed it up. QA Testing and bug fixes take times. Your mad because a few bugs made it into the game.

I don't own a console. I and many others saw this debacle coming the moment they announced a console version. I am angry for the wasted time on the ports and for the impact thier terriblness has had on console players.

[Cheif Operations Director]

4 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

I don't own a console. I and many others saw this debacle coming the moment they announced a console version. I am angry for the wasted time on the ports and for the impact thier terriblness has had on console players.

Fair enough

[GoSlash27]

Hmm... matching the monoprop w/d ratio to that of liquid fuels is an interesting change. It will actually make monoprop superior to liquid fuel for low DV burns.

Best,
-Slashy

[sh1pman]

9 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Hmm... matching the monoprop w/d ratio to that of liquid fuels is an interesting change. It will actually make monoprop superior to liquid fuel for low DV burns.

Best,
-Slashy

How so? RCS thrusters have very poor vacuum Isp compared to most LFO engines.

Might be useful on super-light probes where mass savings from not having an engine can be substantial.

[_stilgar_]

Maybe the suit colors could be assigned to classes. Like in Star Trek - blue for Scientists, red for Engineers and Brown for Pilots. 

[Socraticat]

1 hour ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

How have they messed it up. QA Testing and bug fixes take times. Your mad because a few bugs made it into the game.

If this next port update is a fail then I'm with you guys 100%

How? Wow. It's so bad.it's unplayable.

Let me rephrase:

If you enjoy finding bugs, this is probably a great game.

I don't. That's why I paid for a game. I want to play it, not be a developer. 

And this was "the next port update". Where have you been?

[Wahgineer]

Why are the console players attacking squad? They had almost nothing to do with the console port, that was a separate company. As a result, porting to console had no affect on development of the PC version. If you want stuff to be fixed, complain to the company that ported the game. Squad will just keep ignoring you.

[GoSlash27]

35 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

How so? RCS thrusters have very poor vacuum Isp compared to most LFO engines.

Might be useful on super-light probes where mass savings from not having an engine can be substantial.

sh1pman,
 Engine mass is a substantial percentage of all ships, regardless of size. People often get snookered by an engine's Isp and forget to account for it's weight, resulting in a heavier stage overall despite it's fuel savings. There's a cutoff point for DV and t/w where a light inefficient engine will outperform a heavier more efficient one.
 This change will make monoprop much more competitive.

Best,
-Slashy